Almost nine years after the derailment at Brétigny-sur-Orge station (Essonne) of the Intercités 3657 Paris-Limoges train, which claimed the lives of seven people on July 12, 2013, it is time for a battle of expertise.
This Wednesday, on the 7th day of the criminal trial, at the criminal court of Évry-Courcouronnes, Christian A., legal expert appears as a witness.
Read alsoBrétigny disaster trial: “It remained a gaping wound in the lives of all those who were there”
In a letter dated October 2013, the SNCF had sent him an assignment letter so that he could carry out “a technical expertise of this accident and to identify its causes”.
A few months after the derailment, the company indicated that it needed "an external and distanced view in order to compare its analyzes and conclusions".
The reinforced SNCF version
The octogenarian, who relied on the work already done, came to present his conclusions.
“It is indicated that the origin of the accident is the splint (metal clip which connects two rails, Editor's note).
This is false, it is only the consequence.
The problem is the bolts that are gone.
The question is: how did they loosen?
What if the outage time is a few months or a few seconds?
I am convinced that the bolts were necessarily there.
They unscrewed during the day or the day before.
That day, 150 trains passed.
The drivers would have felt with the engine the damage of the heart.
This is why it is a brutal, rapid rupture.
»
Maître Gérard Chelma, who represents several civil parties, reminds him of the testimony of several passengers used to the Paris-Limoges journey.
"There are about forty of them to say that every time they passed by that place, they were shaken", implying that the drivers might not have paid attention to these jolts.
“There is a gap between you and the forensic experts”
“If the bolts were broken before, the derailment would have happened before, certifies the witness.
The health of the metal should have been studied beforehand.
“A feeling which joins that of the SNCF which had requested metallurgical expertise to specify the course of the scenario.
Read also Brétigny trial: for the former SNCF boss Guillaume Pepy, the accident is not due to a maintenance problem
As with two executives already heard by the president, the question of a certain connivance between the experts and the SNCF is raised.
Maître Chelma relies on excerpts from conversations with an SNCF executive, Régis A. Placed under wiretapping for a year during the investigation, he had been requisitioned by the police on the day of the disaster.
The two men evoke a tightening test on the bolts.
“If it doesn't conform to what you want, we destroy it,” Christian A. told his interlocutor.
Master Chelma concludes: “It looks like you have set yourself a goal.
And that you have done everything to prove it.
There is a gap between you and the forensic experts.
For you the accident was unforeseeable.
For them, it was predictable.
“Forensic experts who will present their reports from this Thursday.