While “all markers were in red», Me Virginie Le Roy denounces in an interview with World «a serious error of appreciationWhich would have led to tragedy.
In an interview with World published this Thursday, December 10, the lawyer of the family of the professor of history and geography, Virginie Le Roy, affirmed that “the institutions failed to protect Samuel Paty», Assassinated by an Islamist terrorist on October 16 in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine. Faced with the publication of the National Education report Thursday, December 3, the lawyer stepped up to the plate, noting that “a serious error in the assessment of the situationHad been committed by the authorities.
Read also :Assassination of Samuel Paty: five new people placed in police custody
Asked about the conclusions of the institution’s report, Me Virginie Le Roy affirms “having a hard time not seeing it as a political maneuver“When the text establishes that Samuel Paty”made a mistake ‘by offering Muslim students to leave the room if they feared being shocked’». «The institutions failed to protect Samuel Paty. So if there’s one thing they need to do today, it’s keep his word. In his email to his colleagues he says he never referred to Muslim students“, She underlined, adding that, fearing to shock the pupils, Samuel Paty’s proposal was only”protection and delicacy».
Read also :Assassination of Samuel Paty: the murderer buried in Chechnya
«Everyone has failed, not just national education“, Considers Me Le Roy, who denounces”a serious and manifest error of assessment of the situation» : «the report instills in small touches that the threat could not be identified and that nothing foreshadowed this tragedy. We cannot come to this conclusion: all the markers were red. The principal identified it from the start, on Thursday, October 8: it triggers a ‘level 3 establishment fact’, the highest level», She indicates, recalling that Abdelhakim Sefrioui is registered S and registered in the file of the reports for the prevention of the radicalization of terrorist nature (FSPRT).
«The fact of concluding the report by explaining that there was a tendency towards appeasement and that therefore it could not be predicted of a physical attack and in addition terrorist against Samuel Paty is either a serious error of appreciation. , or an artifice. (…) Was Samuel Paty protected? No. Should he have been? Definitely yes. Samuel Paty shouldn’t have died», Concludes the lawyer.
SEE ALSO – Samuel Paty: a tribute to the height?
– .
