Olivier Cappelaere, already sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for attempted poisoning was sentenced by the Assize Court in the Alpes-Maritimes on Friday, May 27, to life imprisonment with a twenty-two year security period for poisoning, which was successful this time.
This conviction was made in accordance to the requisitions by the Advocate General. According to him, this crime is marked with “greed”.
Jacqueline Imbert (92), a widow from Cannet, Alpes-Maritimes, had been “his godmother in the heart”, as the 52-year-old defendant, who is currently in detention in Nice, stated.
He was found guilty of poisoning her with atropine in 2014, which is a strong poison in some eye drops.
Christophe Raffin, Advocate General, stated that Jacqueline Imbert was killed for nothing and only because of the greed and venality of her killer. He then demanded 22-year imprisonment for life for Christophe Raffin against Christophe Raffin, an ex-entrepreneur who was in financial difficulties.
After Ms. Imbert’s death, Mr. Cappelaere was named her universal legatee. He had 600,000 euros and life insurance.
The accused would not be the first to commit such an act. Olivier Cappelaere was sentenced to 25-years in prison for attempted poisoning of a retired person. He had been sentenced in 2019 to 20 years. The accused had admitted to having diluted his dog’s eye drops with mineral water she was drinking.
Jacqueline Imbert said that “he planned everything”, and had pleaded Friday morning to Me Ariane Kasch, civil rights lawyer, in reference to the victim, who was a woman with “character” and “no thoughts of suicide”.
The accused would have “bewitched his soul”: “The elderly are so afraid about death and loneliness that it is easy to grab any perch offered to them. But they are wrong, and Jacqueline L ‘learned from the hard way.’
Me Corinne Dreyfus Schmidt (Mr. Cappelaere) had insisted on Friday afternoon that there be no “amalgam”, calling for jurors not to “resist” the “comfort of the pre-established.”
Denouncing a failed investigation, marked with a total lack investigation” and a “testing case, held in an electrical atmosphere”, she criticised the prosecution for wanting to “distort the agreement between Mr. Cappelaere & Jacqueline, who, according to her “was happy about this relationship”.
