“Food Truck Arson: Arrest Made, but Evidence Lacking, Defendant Proclaims Innocence”

A food truck, parked in a parking lot between two buildings, was set on fire on the night of January 12 to 13 in Fameck. The fire had spread to two vehicles parked nearby. City CCTV was used. And a gray Peugeot 206 appears in the images near the van, just before it bursts into flames.

Investigators have identified a man who was driving the suspect Peugeot at this time. He is 39 years old and his record has twelve convictions for old drug cases and traffic offenses in particular. The father of the family is arrested, placed in custody, prosecuted in court.

What material elements?

“I am accused of things that I did not do”, defends the latter at the bar, three months after the facts. The night of the fire, he lent the car, without being able to say more. He knows his brother had a falling out with the owner of the food truck a year earlier, but he guarantees he had nothing to do with it.

“At Fameck, there are plenty of opportunities to burn cars,” notes his lawyer, Me Rodrigues. He wonders about the evidence which, in his opinion, is lacking in the procedure.

He points to the absence of DNA records in the car to verify his client’s thesis. He recalls that the manager of the food truck had not thought to give the name of the defendant before the gendarmes whispered to him.

Finally, he unravels the telephony argument. “My client’s cell phone did not transmit between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m., that does not mean that it was switched off. The investigation is not resolved because the defendant is released.