• This complainant declared himself almost two years after the start of the case, after having always testified, during the administrative and criminal proceedings, in favor of J. Pernoo;

• He has, in addition to his three official exculpatory statements, constantly and ardently defended J. Pernoo, in public and private, in the press and on social networks;

• He knew the case very well, and helped build the defense by providing documents;

• For thirteen years, he continued to come very regularly, often daily, to spend days and evenings with J. Pernoo and his partner, and he even asked them to officially agree to adopt him, in 2019, shortly before the birth of her first child;

• He always wanted to live not far from J. Pernoo and his partner, to be able to see them as often as possible;

• For years after the end of his studies, he continued to recommend J. Pernoo to students who were looking for a teacher;

• However, he does not plead the slightest form of amnesia;

• Once he had made his about-face, he took great care to specify the dates and describe the facts, for each of the three occurrences;

• His versions, in this case, varied systematically, almost at each hearing;

• With each new version, he was perfectly affirmative;

• To justify the description of sexual assault, the prosecutor relied on details provided by the complainant's wife and sister, details which the complainant himself however refuted;

• The versions finally chosen are still different from those which appeared in the file, so the police were never aware of them, and the accused as well as the court only discovered them barely more than twenty-four hours later. before the hearing, via the conclusions of the civil party;

• For the two scenes without witnesses, the refinement of their final version seems to be the result of cross-searches on the Internet and in the complainant's archives to try to make them more credible, even though these last minute modifications contribute, on the contrary, to making them suspect. :

​

1. The last minute change of date of the premiere was obviously intended, for the complainant, to constitute “evidence” for himself. It was fundamental, for his demonstration, that the fact (i) took place during his first year at the conservatory, (ii) an evening of classical performance at the Châtelet and (iii) that Jérôme Ducros was on tour at that time . This triple conjunction does not fit at all with his previous statements, he visibly set out in search, using the Internet and cross-searches, for a date which could ultimately correspond. And he thought he found it.

But the research was botched, and Jérôme Ducros provides, through documents produced in court, proof that he was not on tour on the date indicated, and that the scene (also improbable for other reasons mentioned in the hearing), which absolutely implied the conjunction of the three elements, could not have taken place.

​

2. Likewise, the last minute change of date of the other attack without witnesses, supposed to have taken place at La Roche Posay before the Festival, was obviously intended to support its demonstration by freezing it definitively and in a manner credible, after a certain number of version changes. The complainant had to find a year in which he had participated in the Festival and where he could have been accommodated with a certain person before it.

Probably by elimination, he ended up choosing 2011 (again, going against his previous declarations to the police, where he affirmed that he was certain to be of age).

Once again, the defense can show that he is lying. But this time, not by producing a document itself, but by drawing attention to a document that the complainant himself provides, which proves beyond doubt that he was not present at La Roche Posay ahead of the festival, and that this scene could therefore not have taken place.

​

• For the touching scene with a witness, which was initially described as an “inappropriate hug”, and whose date also changed several times during the procedure, it is even simpler. The witness is the complainant's own half-brother, and he provides a certificate in which we read that there were three of them, the complainant, Jérôme Pernoo and himself, at the place and on the date finally chosen, but that he did not notice anything special, only confirming what he had already told the police (“[I] noticed nothing special”). An attack on his little brother would therefore have taken place before his eyes, in a public place, in broad daylight, without him realizing it.