Kim Kardashian's ex-bodyguard's lawyer insists he was right to leave her alone in hotel where she was robbed at gunpoint
THE bodyguard who left Kim Kardashian alone in a Paris hotel before she was robbed at gunpoint acted appropriately and followed protocol, his attorney has told The U.S. Sun.
Jerry Kroll, a lawyer specializing in jewelry heists, was present in court last week as his client, Pascal Duvier, testified in the so-called "robbery of the century" trial in the French capital.
10
10
Duvier lost his job with the Kardashians after the harrowing incident, which left Kim fearing for her life as a gang of local criminals made off with $10 million worth of jewelry.
On the night of October 3, 2016, the towering bodyguard, who had worked for the family for several years, agreed to leave Kim in her hotel room while he accompanied her sisters, Kourtney and Kendall, to a nightclub.
This decision left Kim vulnerable to the attack, during which she was robbed of $10 million worth of jewellery, including an 18.88-carat diamond ring given to her by her now ex-husband, Kanye West.
A month later, Duvier's security team was dismissed, and in October 2020, the reality star's insurance company settled a $6.1 million lawsuit with him.
However, Kroll insists that the bodyguard was not to blame.
'He followed protocol,' Kroll told The U.S. Sun.
'Pascal wasn't solely responsible for Kim's security; Kourtney was also part of his protection detail. They had stayed at this hotel multiple times before, and everything had always gone smoothly.
"He did his job.'
Kroll added that Duvier remains on good terms with the Kardashian family, even reaching out to them ahead of his recent appearance in Paris.
'It pains him to see what happened to Kim,' Kroll said.
During an emotional courtroom appearance this week, the 44-year-old reality star tearfully recounted the traumatic events of that night in front of 10 defendants.
With her mother, Kris Jenner, 69, by her side, an emotional Kim detailed the terrifying ordeal.
'I absolutely thought I was going to die,' she said.
'He pulled me towards him, and I said a prayer. I was certain that was the moment he was going to rape me.'
SHOCKING SCENES
Kim described how she was bound hand and foot, her mouth taped shut in what is known in France as 'sausaging,' before being dragged into the bathroom and placed in a bathtub wearing only her dressing gown.
A gun was pressed against her back as the masked intruders made off with a cache of valuable jewels.
Kroll emphasised the significance of Duvier's testimony, particularly the moment he received a phone call about the unfolding incident.
'He got a call, but no one was on the line,' Kroll explained.
'He rushed back to the hotel, found one of the concierges handcuffed, and eventually reached Kim, who was in a state of distress.'
10
10
During cross-examination, Kardashian's lawyer asked Duvier if he had ever seen Kim hysterically crying before.
'His answer was no,' Kroll recounted.
'This was a shock to everyone. In hindsight, you can always say things could have been done differently, but Pascal is one of the best in the world at what he does. Even now, he's working with another high-profile client.'
GANG MISTAKES
The accused robbers, now in their 60s and 70s, were seasoned criminals who reportedly didn't even recognise Kim.
Instead, they demanded that the concierge take them to 'the rapper's wife.'
One of the gang members later admitted he only realised her level of fame after seeing news coverage of the heist the following day while watching TV with his wife.
Due to their age and the complexities of the French legal system, Kroll believes lengthy prison sentences are unlikely.
One of the defendants, known as 'Old Omar,' wrote a letter of apology to Kim from his jail cell, while another, Yunice Abbas, 71, published a memoir titled I Kidnapped Kim Kardashian.
Abbas fled the scene on a bicycle but fell during his escape, spilling part of the stolen loot.
Another gang member, Marceau 'Rough Diamond' Baum-Gertner, passed away at the age of 72 just days before the trial began.
'The question is whether the French justice system will impose harsh sentences or take into account their age and the time they've already served,' Kroll said.
'Will they really give life sentences to men in their 80s?'
10
10
10
The gang's escape was far from flawless, leaving behind a trail of evidence, including DNA-covered cable ties, fingerprints throughout the hotel suite, and even a $50,000 diamond necklace abandoned in the street.
French police, with assistance from the FBI, had already been monitoring the suspects, bugging their phones and tracking their movements.
Investigators overheard them arguing over how to divide the loot at a Paris bistro.
None of the stolen jewelry has been recovered, as most is believed to have been melted down and sold through Antwerp's notorious diamond trade.
Kim's engagement ring, however, was likely too recognizable to be resold.
'In jewelry heists, it's common for gold to be melted down and diamonds to be altered,' Kroll explained.
'Otherwise, these pieces are too identifiable. The thieves made plenty of mistakes here, but the challenge is always finding a way to sell the goods.'
What happened to Kim Kardashian?
by Harvey Geh
Kim Kardashian was robbed at gunpoint in Paris, 2016, marking the biggest robbery of an individual in France for more than 20 years.
At the time the reality icon was in the French capital for Paris Fashion Week with her former husband Kanye West - before the rapper returned to the US to pick up his Saint Pablo tour.
Now left in Paris along with her sister Kourtney and various other entourage members, Kardashian stayed in an exclusive set of apartments so secret they are dubbed the No Address Hotel.
The penthouse suite Kardashian was staying in at the chic Hotel de Pourtalès - which is popular with celebrity A-listers - costs an eye-watering £13,000 per night.
On the evening of October 3, after the star had attended a fashion show with her sister, Kardashian decided to stay in the apartment alone while the rest of her crew - including bodyguard Pascal Duvier - went out for the night.
At around 2:30am, three armed men donning ski masks and dressed as police burst into the apartment block and threatened the concierge at gunpoint.
Two of them are alleged to have forced the concierge to take them to the reality icon's suite - with the worker later telling police that they yelled: "Where's the rapper's wife?"
Kardashian said she was "dozing" on her bed at the time, after uploading social media posts telling viewers that she was home alone, which she believes gave the robbers a "window of opportunity".
The star said the robbers grabbed her, tied her up with plastic cables and taped her mouth and legs before dropping her in the bathtub.
Before locking her in the bathroom they had held her at gunpoint and demanded specifically for her ring and also money.
Cops said the robbers left the room after seizing the jewels and escaped on bikes - while carrying a haul estimated to be worth about $10million including a $4million 18.88-carat diamond engagement ring from West.
Kardashian said she then managed to free herself from the restraints and rushed to help.
The trial, delayed multiple times due to the pandemic and a backlog of major cases, finally began on April 28.
Charges against the defendants include armed robbery, kidnapping, complicity, and illegal possession of firearms.
One female defendant has argued that she could not have been involved, claiming, 'Attacking a woman isn't one of my principles.'
Kim, who is now studying law in California, had avoided the trial proceedings until her recent testimony.
Kroll thinks she will be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder "for life," especially as she recalled the horror night her life "flashed before her eyes."
'This is my closure,' Kim told the court. 'This is me finally putting this behind me.'
10
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Captain of MV Matthew carrying 2.2 tonnes of cocaine ‘feared for his life'
A retired marine engineer who was captain of the MV Matthew while it was carrying more than 2.2 tonnes of cocaine claimed that he feared for his life and his family if he did not follow instructions, a court has heard. Iranian Soheil Jelveh, 51, said there was an element of fear on board the vessel, and admitted he was aware that the consignment on the ship was not 'spare parts'. He said that he was captain in name but he had to follow orders like everyone else. The non-jury Special Criminal Court in Dublin was told on Tuesday that he was in fear of being killed and that his family, who were in Dubai, would also be killed. The court was also told that a number of the crew were hired by a transnational organised crime group for the operation. Jelveh is one of seven men charged with offences arising from the seizure of 2.25 tonnes of cocaine with an estimated value of more than 157 million euros (£132 million), which was on board the ship the MV Matthew, a Panamanian-registered bulk carrier. Ukrainians Mykhailo Gavryk, and Vitaliy Vlasoi, both 32; Iranians Jelveh and Saeid Hassani, 39; Filipino Harold Estoesta, 31, and Dutch national Cumali Ozgen, 49, all pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for sale or supply on board the MV Mathew between 24 and 26 September 2023. Ukrainian national Vitaliy Lapa, aged 62, with an address at Rudenka, Repina Str in Berdyansk, pleaded guilty to attempting to possess cocaine for sale or supply between 21 and 25 September 2023. Jamie Harbron, aged 31, of South Avenue, Billingham in the UK, also pleaded guilty that on a date between September 21 and September 25, 2023, both dates inclusive, he attempted to have cocaine in his possession for the purpose of sale or supply, an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Detective Superintendent Keith Halley told the court in Dublin that messages sent to crew members of the MV Matthew told them to consider moving the bags containing drugs on to a lifeboat and then release it into the sea as Irish authorities got closer to the vessel. The court heard that Ozgen, who was described in court by his barrister Brendan Grehan as having a lack of sea experience, was to go into the lifeboat with 22 tonnes of drugs in 'one of the worst storms'. Six men who were arrested on board ignored instructions from the LE William Butler Yeats naval vessel a number of times. Detective Halley, who was a Revenue Customs liaison for Irish police, gave evidence that the authorities received information about a fishing trawler being used to import drugs, which led to the formation of a joint task force between gardai, the Revenue Customs Service and the Irish Naval Service. Jelveh, a father of two, claimed he felt violated by people in the 'head office' who were not present on the vessel, and that there was a threat over him that was not there in relation to his co-accused. Jelveh qualified as a maritime engineer in 1997 and worked as a marine engineer until 2008 and moved through the ranks to became first deck officer. He became captain in 2019. He had since retired and was working as a football coach. Prosecution barrister John Berry SC told the court that the crew had attempted to set the drugs on fire as they attempted to flee Irish authorities and head into the high seas. Messages discovered in a WhatsApp group, called The Deck Officers, revealed how the crew was instructed to be ready to burn the cargo and head towards Sierra Leone if a helicopter tried to intercept the ship. The crew were told to 'make sure everything is burnt' and to use paint thinner to set the cargo alight. They were also ordered by people not on board the vessel not to communicate with Irish authorities. The crew had been ordered by authorities to steer the vessel towards the Irish coast and dock at Cork. The court heard that they were willing to comply with the instructions, however, they were going full steam ahead to the high seas and were planning on travelling to Sierra Leone. The court was told that the crew had been making efforts to deter the arrival of the Army Ranger Wing to allow for the removal of the drugs. Footage and photographs shown to the court revealed there was smoke coming from the lifeboat after an attempt was made to set the drugs alight. Cans of paint, used to set it on fire, were also found on the life raft. Detective Halley also told the court today that the people instructing the crew had 'immense capabilities, unlimited resources and a global reach'. He said it became apparent through the message groups that those who were controlling the vessel and sending instructions on what to do were based in Dubai. They had sent messages instructing the crew to keep going, including reassuring messages like 'just relax and this will all be over soon'. They also gave the wrong information that Irish authorities could not board the vessel. The sentence hearing is taking place before Ms Justice Melanie Grealy Judge Sarah Berkeley and Judge Grainne Malone. The sentencing hearing continues on Wednesday.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Scaring Putin is the only route to a just peace
Nobody in their right mind thought Putin would come to the latest round of peace talks in Istanbul with any seriousness. And so it has proven. His demands are straight out of Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko's negotiating playbook: demand the maximum, present ultimatums and do not give one inch. Putin's terms for a final settlement are no different from his diktats from the start, including international recognition of Moscow's occupation of the four regions he considers Russian territory, and a guarantee Ukraine never joins any international alliances. Even Putin's pathways to a temporary ceasefire require withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from all of the four regions, demobilisation of the armed forces, cessation of international military aid and electing a new government. In other words: total capitulation, with Ukraine surrendering its sovereignty, partitioned, isolated, disarmed and a Russian puppet government in Kyiv. That doesn't mean negotiations shouldn't continue in the hope of achieving less punitive terms. The Ukrainian government has already signalled it would be ready to accept the temporary occupation of territory Russia has already captured. But it is hard to see how Putin will climb down from his maximalist position without significant changes on the battlefield or to the economic situation. President Trump tried a softball approach with Putin, extending the prospect of major economic benefits through a return to normalisation in US-Russia relations. Putin hasn't bought that even though he has ham-fistedly attempted to mollify Trump and encourage him to abandon Ukraine with his disingenuous ploy of engaging in negotiations. Trump obviously sees right through that. He said he was 'p----d off' by Putin's proposal that Ukraine should be placed under external administration with elections overseen by the UN. The US now needs to try a different approach. Trump can say he did everything he could to end the bloodshed in the first months of his presidency but Putin's intransigence now demands different tactics. What would those tactics be? Continue to hold out an olive branch while doubling down on US military backing to Ukraine and pressuring European allies to do the same thing. It was Biden's faltering leadership that allowed most West European countries as well as the US to do the least they could get away with. That needs to change and we've already seen how Trumpian hectoring can compel Europeans to boost their own defence spending, both in his first term and even more in his second. Renewing US commitment to Nato would also help encourage European leaders. It would send a powerful message to Putin too, whose overriding strategic objective is dividing the West. We need to move on from providing Ukraine with just enough to defend themselves but never enough to prevail. The effort required to drive Russia back out of Ukraine is probably too much to expect, but the point would be to enable Kyiv to do even more damage to Russian forces to compel Putin to reconsider his current calculation that he can grind Ukraine down and outlast the West's support. Among the most harmful constraints Biden imposed on Ukraine was forbidding use of US-supplied weapons to attack Russian sovereign territory. That was the consequence of his fear of Russian escalation, both against Ukraine and Nato countries. It allowed Putin to continue to shield the Russian population from the conflict, keeping it limited to a 'special military operation'. Kyiv didn't play ball though, firing home-made drones into Russia and even mounting the first invasion of its territory since the Second World War. The latest breathtaking drone attack on Russia, which destroyed a large chunk of its strategic air force on the ground shows what can be done. Some say the US and European countries should distance themselves from that, dreading Moscow's retaliation. But irrespective of the diplomatic position they choose to take, they should do the opposite, by giving Ukraine what it needs to carry out further strikes to undermine Russian military capability, drive the war home to the population and humiliate Putin. Trump should start to do real economic damage to Russia. Much can be achieved by more effective military action to increase weapons and equipment loss rates, potentially forcing Putin to transition the economy to a full war footing. The half-hearted sanctions against Russia have not been good enough and European countries have paid more to Russia for hydrocarbons than they have given in aid to Ukraine. We need to turn the screws by tougher measures against the Russian energy sector, finally detaching Moscow from the international banking system and disrupting the ghost tanker fleet that has allowed oil revenues to surge. A bitter blow would also be landed by seizing the entirety of Russia's $330 billion of frozen assets in Western countries to pay for the war, or at least plan to do so subject to negotiations.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Third of granted asylum claims are deemed ‘exceptional' by judges
Judges are granting 'exceptional' asylum claims in a third of cases, it has been revealed, after murderers and paedophiles were allowed to stay in Britain due to their right to a family life. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said the 'system around family migration has become so complex' that courts were now applying human rights guarantees to a 'much broader proportion' of claims. She said: 'The proportion of decisions being taken as exceptional — often under interpretations around the [European Convention on Human Rights], around Article 8 — end up being about 30 per cent of the cases. That is not exceptional, that is a much broader proportion.' Among those using Article 8 of the convention to stay in Britain in recent months were a paedophile convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter and an Albanian wanted for murder in his home country. Cooper said the government would instead bring in 'a clear framework set out by parliament that then can be much easier for the courts to interpret'. Plans to tighten the rules around exceptional circumstances were revealed last month in the government's immigration white paper but it is the first time the home secretary has revealed how many cases hinged on the rule. The Times previously reported on an Albanian burglar who snuck back into the UK after being deported winning his case to remain by invoking Article 8. In March, judges decided that another Albanian criminal jailed for more than three years for running a cannabis factory would not be deported as it would deprive his daughter of a 'male role model'. In another case, a woman's deportation to Grenada was delayed after she argued that her husband did not like Caribbean food and would struggle with the heat. Ministers announced changes last month that would prevent judges blocking the Home Office from deporting foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers. The government will provide judges with a tighter legal definition of what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances' when deciding whether to overturn Home Office decisions to deport foreign criminals or reject an asylum seeker's application. Multiple countries have launched a fresh push for reform of the ECHR amid concerns the European Court is extending its interpretation of the convention too far, such as in its last-minute injunction to block the UK government from deporting migrants to Rwanda in June 2022. Nine European leaders wrote an open letter calling for 'a new and open-minded conversation' about the interpretation of the ECHR. They called for the 46 signatories of the ECHR to back plans to 'restore the right balance' between human rights and the nations' ability to control immigration. Britain was not among the countries calling for reform, despite Lord Hermer, the attorney general, signalling that the government was open to change. Instead it was signed by the leaders of Italy, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Cooper told the home affairs select committee that remaining in international agreements such as the ECHR had led to Britain being able to reach deals with Germany and France to help tackle illegal immigration. However, she added: 'We also need to look at the way in which laws are being interpreted. So, as we put in the immigration white paper, there are areas, for example, where the system around family migration has become so complex.' Critics of the ECHR have warned that it is being increasingly exploited by migrants who wish to stay in Britain. In other cases, a Gazan family was granted the right to live in the UK after applying through the Ukraine Family Scheme. Their application was initially rejected but their appeal was granted after the judge concluded that the decision interfered with their right to a family life. In another instance, an Albanian criminal's deportation from Britain was halted over his son's distaste for foreign chicken nuggets. An immigration tribunal ruled that it would be 'unduly harsh' for the ten-year-old boy to be forced to move to Albania with his father due to his picky eating, according to court documents quoted by the Daily Telegraph. The judge allowed the father's appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to a family life under the ECHR, citing the impact his removal might have on the son. Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, has previously said he wanted to ensure the 'right balance' was struck in migration cases in relation to the national interest. 'There's a balance set out in legislation already that needs to be adjusted, in my view, and that's what we will do,' he said. However, he also said he did not think it was necessary to leave the ECHR to continue a crackdown on immigration, as being signed up to international agreements provided a basis for deals with other countries on migration.
