The former star presenter of TF1, who strongly contests the numerous accusations, was questioned twice at the beginning of March by investigators from the Brigade for the repression of delinquency against the person (BRDP): on March 2 and 8, said the prosecution of Nanterre (Hauts-de-Seine).
Patrick Poivre d'Arvor, 75, had already been heard on July 12, but new testimonies prompted investigators to hear him again.
Since the start of this investigation, opened in December 2021, 19 women have been heard, 10 of whom have filed a complaint, according to the count of the prosecution.
"Mr. Poivre d'Arvor spoke to the investigators and reserves his word for justice
, ”reacted his lawyer Me Jacqueline Laffont, joined by AFP.
After these three hearings, the investigation is now coming to an end and the prosecution must soon decide on the follow-up to be given to the investigations.
In addition to this procedure, PPDA has been the subject of another preliminary investigation, closed, and is still the subject of a judicial investigation in Nanterre.
For his part, he filed a complaint for slanderous denunciation against a dozen complainants.
The first preliminary investigation targeting him was opened in February 2021, after Florence Porcel's complaint.
The 39-year-old author accuses Patrick Poivre d'Arvor of forcing her to have sex in 2004 and fellatio in 2009.
Twenty-two other women then testified to rape, sexual assault and/or sexual harassment.
In June 2021, the investigations had been closed without further action, mainly because the facts denounced were prescribed.
Florence Porcel then filed a complaint again, this time with a civil action, to obtain the opening of a new investigation entrusted to the investigating judges.
This judicial investigation is still in progress, in Nanterre, and was the subject of a rare decision by the investigating chamber of the Versailles Court of Appeal (Yvelines).
At the end of June, the Court of Appeal extended the scope of these investigations to the facts appearing to be prescribed, recalling that the abandonment of the proceedings was not inevitable and that the starting point of the period during which the justice can investigate could, in some cases, be postponed.
This is particularly the case if the investigators determine that the incriminating facts have repeated themselves and constitute a series.
