Sophie Conrad, who accuses the former director of the Institut Montaigne of having drugged her without her knowledge, filed a complaint on Wednesday March 9 against the director of the judicial police and the public prosecutor of Paris for falsification of the investigation, “obstruction of the manifestation of the truth” and “false in public writing”, announced his lawyer to franceinfo. Maître Arié Alimi affirms that the two people targeted by this complaint intervened during the police custody of Laurent Bigorgne so that the charges against him are less heavy. Sophie Conrad deplores an incomplete investigation and facts “underqualified”regretting that the “sexual motive was not recognized”.
Close to Emmanuel Macron, of which he was one of the advisers during the 2017 campaign, Since 2011, Laurent Bigorgne has directed the Institut Montaigne, an influential think tank of liberal inspiration. Laurent Bigorgne is to be tried on Thursday March 10 for “administration of a harmful substance followed by incapacity not exceeding eight days”, for having put MDMA in the champagne glass of Sophie Conrad, who was one of his employees, during a working dinner at his house. He also admitted to the investigators having drugged her without her knowledge. Sophie Conrad felt bad, contacted a friend and managed to leave from her employer, who is also her former brother-in-law.
Arié Halimi believes that a judicial investigation should have been opened and that there was “traffic in this investigation” who was not “sloppy” corn “voluntarily obliterated”. “There are acts that are missing”he denounces while he was not asked for example to a medical examiner to assess the total interruption of work (ITT) of the victim. “Acts have been done and do not appear in the investigation”also says the lawyer, like the fadettes of Laurent Bigorgne who were requested but are not in the file.
“Everything has been done to avoid characterizing the sexual intention and especially that a link be made with any political authorities”assures the lawyer, considering that the “main protected person is the President of the Republic”. “Normally, there should have been an opening of an investigation with an independent, impartial investigating judge, who could carry out a real investigation to see if there was a sexual intention, if there was not possibly other victims, if there was not a risk of sexual harassment within the Montaigne Institute itself. Everything has been done to ensure that this does not happen”hammers the advice.
In response, Me Sébastien Schapira, the defendant’s lawyer, assures that there was no “no preferential treatment” and “the investigation was in no way botched”. According to him, “there is absolutely no attempted rape or even any inappropriate gesture”that “the investigators, the prosecution and the court have understood”.