“I was way too in love,” says Jordan Larcher, 22. Thursday November 28, he appeared before the Compiègne court For habitual violence And harassment towards his partner, and damage to the car of it. Facts which extend from the summer of 2022 to the summer of 2024. “I recognize the facts,” he said on the stand. These are not things to do. Today, I apologize again.”
They got together five years ago, when they were in high school. But they have separated since the end of 2023. “After the breakup, we saw each other, we still talked to each other, until the day I learned that she had filed a complaint against me,” he recalls.
At the beginning of 2024, she blocked his number and his email. “Sometimes we didn’t talk to each other at all, and I sent messages insistently,” he explains. Because I didn’t understand why she blocked me, even though we were talking.” Yes, it was threatening, he specifies regarding the content of the remarks.
“Does she have a ‘lease’ with anyone?”
The president speaks of dozens of calls per day as well as malicious emails. “We’re going to play, you and me,” or “I’m going to crush you.” “It meant ‘I’m going to do the same thing to you’,” he explains. He also sent messages to people she knew, including her sister-in-law. To a mutual friend, he asked: “Answer me cash! Does she have a lease (a relationship) with anyone?
“I was lost, I wasn’t listening to anyone, there was only her in my head…” he says. He even used Instagram, or Vinted (the online sales site for second-hand products) to contact her.
Harassment also consists of following her. The court evokes an episode at the MacDonald in Compiègne. “I saw his car by chance in the parking lot,” he remembers. She was with a friend, with whom I had a disagreement.” In the process, he ripped a jumper cable from his ex’s car. So much so that she had to call a repairman.
One evening, he takes her to the forest to talk quietly
His ex’s car bore the brunt of his anger. In 2022, he tore off the grille with which he hit him in the head. “We had a headache…” he recalls. He attacked his vehicle another time. “The start of a scene of violence lasting an hour and a half, during which he will pursue her on the CD200 and hit her,” describes the president.
The violence will reach its climax one evening, in the forest. “She was going to a party, I was at the gas station and I got into her car,” he describes. I told him ‘go somewhere where we can talk quietly’.” “A place where there is no one…” comments the president.
The defendant finds himself behind the wheel of his ex’s car. “I was driving because she had been drinking a little,” he says. I did not take the road to his home. So she got angry and wanted to break away. We stopped at the edge of the Lacroix forest.”
“Calm down, I’m not going to kill you,” he said, his knee on his chest.
At this moment, she runs because she feels in danger. “I caught up with her and made her believe that I was going to drop her off at her friend’s house,” he continues. But there is a new confusion. She gets out of the car.” He puts her on the ground with a broom then keeps her on her back with a knee on her chest. “I told him “calm down, I’m not going to kill you,” he says. I pulled away when she told me she couldn’t breathe. My goal was to calm her down…” “Why are you demanding that she calm down?”, the court is surprised.
“At the beginning of the relationship, she was the one who was violent,” he says. But in the end, it was me.” The court recalls that he injured her back by pinning her against the car. “This is where we’re coming to, it’s bleeding!”, he lamented. “You tell us that, in fact, she gets angry and that you respond louder,” notes the president. Could you have reacted differently…”
“You tell us about his capacity to irritate,” intervenes the prosecutor. But were you calm?” No, he answers. “You present the facts in great detail, but also with what seems like detachment,” continues the prosecutor. Are you aware of the terror she must have felt?
“Are you trying to scare him?” “Yes, a little…”
“Were you trying to scare him?” asks the court. “Well, a little…” he replies. She must have felt fear.” He is also on trial for making an explicit death threat, having said: “I’m going to kill you.” Some of his friends, witnessing his violent behavior, moved away from him.
“I was much too in love,” he considers. I gave him too many chances. She is my first romantic relationship. We left each other for the first time. I gave him another chance….” The expert notes “emotional immaturity”, recalls Master Anthony Alexandre.
“It made me question a lot,” says the defendant, who wants to start from scratch. I won’t worry about someone anymore.” “This is not what the court is accusing you of,” recalls the judge.
“The episode in the forest had a profound impact on the ex-partner”
The defendant explains that his behavior is not due to the belt beatings he received during his childhood. “I had a happy childhood and a very good education,” he insists. “He spoke to me about the violence he suffered in his childhood,” recalls his partner at the bar, who was given twenty days of total incapacity for work (ITT) for all the facts.
The episode in the forest had a profound impact on her. Having had great difficulty getting to sleep, she said she was reassured by the judicial review. In September 2024, she decided to file a complaint after yet another threatening email. And also because she saw him roaming around in front of her house, in Béthisy-Saint-Pierre, while she was alone. “But initially, my client just wanted to report the damage to her car,” recalls her lawyer, Isabelle de Saint-Andrieu. Fortunately, the police were able to get her to talk about what she was going through.”
“It’s his first serious relationship,” she said of the defendant. His calmness at the hearing worries me. He claimed he left her because she was violent. It was a month and a half ago. And he would have changed his views in two sessions with the psychologist. The man called him twenty times a day. He doesn’t let go until he has an answer. He was always on his way. In the forest with a knee on her chest that took her breath away, she was afraid of dying. It’s not that she ‘should have been afraid’.”
She requests a referral on civil interests and €500 in advance for a psychological assessment.
“He is incapable of hearing no”
“The gentleman sent him messages about all possible applications,” notes the prosecutor. Perhaps only Leboncoin was missing. This harassment is also based on the inevitable presence of the gentleman in the places she frequents. He gets information from people she knows. He wrote “I’m going to crush you”, “you and I are going to play”, or “you sleep with him, I’ll kill him”. He wanted to “make him experience what he experienced”… But what? All because he is incapable of hearing no. And anyway, whatever she says, nothing will satisfy him.
“You will take into account the seriousness of his actions, the deep psychological impact, and the warnings from his friends or relatives,” continues the public prosecutor. He should have had the necessary perspective to understand that he was breaking the law. But he is progressing in his awareness, from custody and from confrontation. But there is still work to do, given his detachment.”
It requires thirty months in prison, including twenty-four months suspended on probation for two years. With the obligations of work, psychological care, and following an internship. And ban on contact and appearing at his home, as well as in Béthisy-Saint-Pierre. “It will be up to the sentencing judge to decide whether or not to make adjustments,” she concludes.
“It’s a case between two children,” pleads the defense
Master Anthony Alexandre is surprised to see the civil party’s lawyer acting as a prosecutor. “My client’s detachment is being criticized,” he pleads. It would be impossible for him to have done a job in a month and a half. We also understand that justice (public prosecution) is never satisfied. The first expert issues zero days of ITT. Which does not suit the prosecution. The public prosecutor therefore asks the expert to re-specify the number of ITT days: 45 days! And in the end, Doctor Marc splits it in two: 20 days.”
“It’s a children’s case,” considers Maître Anthony Alexandre. He had the most perfect attitude we have seen in this room. And yet, he is criticized for his calm. When I hear such terms from the public prosecutor and the civil party, I consider that it is revenge. These many messages are those of a desperate kid. He finds himself confronted with the first source of emotion in his life.”
He escapes from prison
“How can I justify equality before the criminal law? concludes the defense. We are demanding three times more against him than someone who, two days ago, admitted nothing to equally serious acts committed in front of children.”
Released for the death threat, the defendant received two years in prison with suspended probation. He has an obligation to provide care, to repair the damage, and is prohibited from contacting the victim, from coming to his home and to Béthisy-Saint-Pierre.
While awaiting the hearing on civil interests on March 13, 2025, he must pay the victim €500 in advance.
