The examination of evidence carried out on the protagonists’ phones and computers continue to weaken the assertions by the civil party. Two years of messages sent by Henda Ayari harassing Tariq Ramadan following the alleged rape, between 2012 and 2014. Collusion between the plaintiffs and some of Tariq Ramadan’s notorious enemies but also among the accusers themselves. If some already suspected it, today the investigation proves and progressively reveals the truth.
Henda Ayari, two years of messages and sexual harassment
Henda Ayari, unable to provide a date or place of the alleged rape needs to confront her own contradictions. The investigation proves she sent hundreds of messages to Professor Tariq Ramadan, between 2012 and 2014. In other words, two years following the alleged rape.
These messages are of a sexual nature and amount to harassment. The forensic analysis also proves collusion between Henda Ayari and Paule Emma Aline (second plaintiff) long before Henda Ayari's alleged rape complaint was filed in October 2017.
Conversations made public between Henda Ayari and Jean-Claude Elfassi, Tariq Ramadan’s sworn enemy, also show collusion. In one message, Henda Ayari says to Elfassi: "No man eats me, I eat them, a lioness is never devoured by wolves" and “I am authentic, when I engage in a collaboration, I see it through. For that to happen, one must live up to my standards. You should be blamed more than me in this story".
Paule Emma Aline, collusion and lies
The examination of Paule Emma Aline's mobile phone confirms there was no rape and proves [her] willingness to harm. This woman, now almost in her 50’s originally claimed to have lost her cell phone. She only handed it over to the authorities in April 2018.
Did she know what her cell phone contained? It seems she has hidden some messages. One thing is certain: the investigation into her cell phone definitely weakens the civil party.
It proves collusion between the accusers. Paule Emma Aline and Henda Ayari established a relationship and were communicating since long before Henda Ayari lodged her complaint.
What is even more worrying is that Paule Emma Aline and the Swiss plaintiff, "Brigitte", have known each other since 2009.
Lastly, the investigation confirmed that there was collusion between the accusers and personalities who have notoriously opposed Tariq Ramadan. Several names are mentioned in the report: Caroline Fourest, Alain Soral, Ian Hamel, Jean-Claude El Fassi, Yasmine Kepel, Antoine Sfeir and Salim Laïbi.
The civil party does not reveal all
If Me Szpiner, ( the lawyer fired by the third plaintiff Mounia Rabbouj strongly attacked him via social media on his lack of transparency and integrity ) did not wish to comment, Paule Emma Aline's lawyer, Me Morain, made no mention of messages sent by Paule Emma Aline and had to adjust her version.
He is now talking about a "partially consensual" relationship. He did not mention the exchanges proving collusion between the different French plaintiffs themselves nor with personalities opposed to Tariq Ramadan.
On the other hand, the very old links between Paule Emma Aline and "Brigitte", the Swiss plaintiff, were also ignored, both by Morain and Paule Emma Aline herself, who lied about it during the confrontation with the judges. This case is far from being an issue of morals: it is a highly politicized file. Professor Tariq Ramadan is being kept in custody despite all the evidence that completely exculpates him.
An upcoming hearing could change the game, the two accusers’ lies having been exposed by this investigation. An investigation that appears to be used against Tariq Ramadan for the time being, both by some media and by the investigating judges who delay and divert the proceedings while the file, from the beginning, is empty of evidence.
Legitimate questions need to be asked as to the form and substance of the proceedings against Tariq Ramadan. Why is so much time being taken in addressing key and important investigations in the file? The photo that would prove that Paule Emma Aline was at the conference during the alleged has still not been examined by experts. If it is her, as witnesses have reported, it must certify be taken into account in a criminal investigation.
Six months later, certain analysises have still not been launched by the judges.
This procedure, in terms of time and instruction, is exceptional and opens the door to deep resentment among those who have faith in the justice system. It seems that not all litigants are equal before the law.
The investigation in the Tariq Ramadan case will undoubtedly be the judicial scandal of the century, but also the symbol of contempt that justice can sometimes have for the presumption of innocence. Awaiting the next legal steps, Tariq Ramadan remains in prison.
This does not bode well for the resumption of the investigation, the examination having brought its evidence and certainties.