Jonathan Bettez, the main suspect in the disappearance and murder of Cédrika Provencher, was back in court at the Montreal courthouse on Monday. Jonathan Bettez and his parents are suing the Sûreté du Québec and the attorney general for $10 million, saying they ruined their lives and reputations by publicly linking him to the young girl's disappearance.
The nine-year-old girl disappeared on July 31, 2007 in Trois-Rivières. All that was found was his bicycle, which was leaning against a fire hydrant. The little girl's remains were found on December 11, 2015 in a wooded area along Highway 40 in Saint-Maurice.
For more than 16 years, investigators searched for the person who kidnapped and killed Cédrika Provencher. They are still looking elsewhere and no suspect has been identified yet.
According to the SQ, Jonathan Bettez, who at the time was driving a car similar to the one described by witnesses near the scene of the disappearance, did not want to cooperate with investigators, in particular refusing to submit to the lie detector test. According to the police, who still consider Mr. Bettez the main suspect in this case, he was also in Trois-Rivières at the time of the events.
In this civil lawsuit filed four years ago, Jonathan Bettez and his parents, who are seeking $10 million, seek to prove that investigators made a mistake and made Jonathan Bettez a convenient suspect. The family accuses them of doing everything they could to make people believe that Jonathan Bettez was a pedophile and murderer.
On Monday, the two sides began discussing several points before the start of the civil trial. The SQ refuses to publish evidence and parts of its investigation file into the disappearance of Cédrika Provencher because no perpetrator is yet behind bars.
But for the plaintiffs, it is precisely this information that helps exonerate their son.
Open in full screen mode
The Bettez family's lawyer, Me Jessy Héroux, criticizes the Sûreté du Québec for knowingly ignoring evidence that exonerates his client.
Photo: Radio-Canada / Ivanoh Demers
These are documents that are important for us because they will allow us to establish that there is no concrete evidence that would allow us to link Jonathan to the disappearance of Cédrika Provencher, explained the Bettez family's lawyer , Me Jessy Heroux.
She [les documents] will also enable us to demonstrate that the evidence the SQ ignored contained exculpatory elements. These documents will also allow us to demonstrate full commitment to Jonathan and his family.
The lawyer recalls that his client was never accused of anything related to the disappearance of Cédrika Provencher and asks why the police never charged him despite being so convinced that he was the perpetrator.
How does the SQ explain that after 25 infiltration scenarios, after we followed Jonathan day and night, searched his computers, searched his cell phones, monitored what he was doing on the Internet, that he was wiretapped, that they interrogated him for 14 hours, that …They are putting pressure on his family and friends…How do we explain that we haven't found any concrete evidence of this? he asked.
transparency
The other difficulty raised by the lawyer is that the Supreme Court and the Attorney General insist that the trial should not be made public in its entirety.
The SQ rejects a completely public conduct of the proceedings. “We demand closed doors, we demand separate procedures, we demand publication bans,” complained Me Héroux.
“There is a certain irony in the fact that we now decide to limit the publicity of debates and the public's access to information in a context where we know that the Sûreté du Québec itself has made the matter public.” , emphasizes the lawyer who criticizes the police for leaking information to the media that linked Jonathan Bettez to the disappearance and murder of Cédrika Provencher.
“It’s a little late for us to be discreet,” Mr. Héroux said wryly.
Jonathan will be testifying at the trial and can't wait to testify. He will answer questions from the judge and lawyers. No police officers who wanted to frame him.
Protect folders
According to the Sûreté du Québec investigator who spoke this morning, at least six pieces of information regarding this case have recently been received by the police, four of which remain to be verified. That's why, in her opinion, it is important that the content of the investigation remains secret, because there is nothing to indicate that the matter will not be solved in the next few years.
Publishing sensitive information now could benefit the person who committed the crime. Since Jonathan Bettez has not yet been removed from the suspect list, the police do not want to give him this advantage.
Furthermore, according to Sûreté du Québec lawyers, Jonathan Bettez was never charged with anything in the case of Cédrika Provencher's murder. When he was arrested in 2016, the charge was related to child pornography and not related to the girl's murder. He cannot therefore claim a violation of his right to the presumption of innocence, it is said.
Fishing company
Open in full screen mode
The Bettez family is suing the SQ for $10 million for ruining their reputation by linking Jonathan Bettez to the murder of Cédrika Provencher for years.
Photo: Radio-Canada / Ivanoh Demers
On August 29, 2016 – the day Cédrika Provencher would have turned 19 – the SQ arrested Jonathan Bettez. The next day he was charged with possession, distribution and access of child pornography. He was subsequently acquitted of all ten charges against him.
The police team had been preparing for the arrest and searches at Emballages Bettez, his parents' company, since spring 2016.
Among the documents that will be the focus of the upcoming civil trial is the SQ's action plan in the investigation into the murder of Cédrika Provencher.
The strategy developed by the police on April 11, 2016 describes how they wanted to use pornography as an important means of pressure in solving the murder.
In October 2018, Judge Jacques Lacoursière sharply criticized the work of the SQ investigators. He described their actions as a fishing operation. In his opinion, the police's actions were abusive and the arrest warrants were invalid, he concluded.