Published
Bernese JuraEight indictments in the drama of the port of La Neuveville
Homicides by negligence and violation of the rules of construction art: these are the charges formulated five years following the electrocution of two women and a dog.
May 22, 2017 Claire and her dog Makany were buried in La Neuveville cemetery.
lematin.ch/Vincent Donzé
June 21, 2017 Claire’s father spoke to legislative and executive authorities.
lematin.ch/Vincent Donzé
Eight defendants are indicted five years following the La Neuveville tragedy. Date of trial: next fall, at the earliest. Maximum penalty required: three years in prison. On May 15, 2017, two women and a dog lost their lives at the port, electrocuted in the water of the lake: the dog Makany who was swimming near the shore, then his mistress Claire Schläfli who had jumped into the water to save him. , then an Australian tourist who wanted to help them, Miranda Birschal.
Following the closing of the investigation, eight defendants were indicted for negligent homicide. Three of them are also being prosecuted for violation of building codes. The trial will take place before the Bernese Jura Regional Court in Moutier.
Electricity leak
The instruction concludes that “in all likelihood” the deaths were due to an electricity leak due to a damaged electrical cable at the port barrier. The electricity would then have spread to the lake through a pontoon.
The two women and the dog having found themselves in contact with the barrier, respectively the water at this place, were electrocuted. “The security system of the electrical installation did not allow its triggering”, specify the investigators today.
Staff at the time
The defendants are as many people who carried out the installation of the section on which the problem arose as members of the staff of the time of the municipality of La Neuveville. “They are suspected of having modified the security system of the installation, respectively of not having taken the necessary measures following learning of this modification”, indicates the judicial authorities.
“Finally, these are the people who carried out the checks before commissioning the section of the electrical installation on which the problem arose”, it is specified. These defendants are suspected of not having carried out an inspection in accordance with the rules of prudence and the rules in force allowing the detection of possible problems with the electrical installation, respectively its extension carried out in 2016 which would not meet the standards in force at the ‘era.
“The presumption of innocence applies however at this stage to all the defendants”, concludes the Public Ministry in a press release.
