At the Paris Assize Court, on October 17, 2025, the trial of Dahbia Benkired, accused, 27 years old, for murder and rape with acts of torture or barbarity on Lola Daviet, 12 years old, who died on October 14, 2022, begins. Between the apologies of the accused and the call for truth from the brother, the jurors will have to untangle the facts. Additionally, a debate on the impairment of judgment is scheduled. They will examine this in light of material evidence and a still wavering testimony.
The essential facts, without emphasis
Justice has set in motion, Friday, October 17, 2025, in the solemnity of the Paris Assize Court. Dahbia Benkired, accused, 27 years old, appears for the murder of Lola on a minor under 15, preceded or accompanied by rape, torture, or acts of barbarity, and for rape on a minor, charges upheld by the investigating magistrates. Opposite her, Lola Daviet’s parents (father and mother), who have become civil parties. According to press reports, and based on the elements communicated by the Paris prosecutor’s office in 2022 and then recalled at the hearing, the accused has apologized, "sorry to the whole family," while Thibaut Daviet, the child’s brother, urged her to tell "the whole truth."
The judicial scene is familiar. The cold room, the platform, the court in red robes, the assessors, the randomly selected jurors. In this tense calm, a case that strikes the collective conscience.
Then comes the mechanics of the assizes: the president recalls the scope of the debates, sets the pace of the testimonies, ensures the clarity of the words. You hear the breath of the microphones, the pages turning, the measured steps of the bailiffs. In the front rows, the jurors take notes, without an unnecessary gesture.
Review of the investigation: from Lola Daviet’s disappearance to the arrest
Friday, October 14, 2022. The disappearance of Lola Daviet is reported in the early evening, around 8:00 PM. The first checks focus on the family building in the 19th arrondissement of Paris, where her parents are caretakers. Video surveillance shows the teenager entering the lobby with a woman shortly before 3:15 PM. The same woman leaves around 5:00 PM, alone, pulling luggage.
Late evening, around 11:00 PM. A plastic trunk is noticed in the courtyard of a neighboring building. The child’s body is found inside, tied up, wrapped in adhesive tape. The autopsy will conclude asphyxiation and describe multiple injuries. However, investigators will note the numbers "0" and "1" inscribed under the victim’s feet. These clues fuel uncertain interpretations of a possible motive, according to judicial sources cited by the press.
Saturday, October 15, 2022, in the morning. Dahbia Benkired (referred to as Dahbia B. in some media) is arrested. Placed in custody, she makes fluctuating statements. Indeed, they oscillate between acknowledgment and partial contestation, according to the Paris prosecutor’s office and media reports. The investigations reconstruct a tight sequence. The child would have been lured to an apartment, then forced to shower. She would have been a victim of sexual assault and violence, followed by tying up. Then, there would have been asphyxiation with adhesive tape. Then, an attempt at concealment in a trunk, still according to these sources.
In the following days, a judicial investigation is opened, and the accused is charged with the aforementioned counts. No criminal record is noted at that time. Administrative documents recall her arrival in France in 2016 with a student visa. Two months before the events, she was subject to an obligation to leave French territory (OQTF), which fueled a national controversy in 2022. Authorities had called not to instrumentalize the tragedy.
The president of the court frames the speech. She recalls the presumption of innocence for everything that remains contested, and the scope of the charges. The prosecutor recounts the facts as they result from the case files. Experts are announced at the stand: psychiatrists and psychologists. Their reports have not concluded the abolition of judgment. The possibility of impairment is, however, debated and could, if applicable, influence the sentence incurred.
Words at the hearing
At the court’s request, Dahbia Benkired, accused: "I apologize to the family." The voice breaks, then resumes. Nothing more for now, except the announcement of further explanations.
As for Thibaut Daviet, the victim’s brother: "I would like you to tell the whole truth." The phrase does not add facts, it draws a line: the hearing must clarify and specify.
These snippets, reported by several media present, convey the atmosphere: modesty, gravity, restraint. They do not prejudge anything, they set a horizon: to answer the questions that remain open, in the public framework desired by Lola’s mother, Delphine Daviet, who has renounced requesting closed doors.
A suspended moment follows these words. You hear the ventilation, a rustle of fabric. The president nods slightly, invites to resume. The jurors look alternately at the stand and the dock. The debate settles in, without éclat, with this mix of restraint and demand that sets the tone of the assizes.
The framework of the assizes and the issue of judgment
The assize court judges, in the first instance, the most serious crimes. The trial is public, unless otherwise decided to protect public order or the privacy of individuals. In this case, the civil party has not requested closed doors. The jurors, randomly selected citizens, will deliberate alongside the court.
The charges are summarized as follows: murder of a minor under 15 preceded or accompanied by rape, torture, or acts of barbarity. Additionally, there is also rape of a minor under 15 with torture or act of barbarity. In French law, the murder of a minor under 15 is severely punished. Indeed, when accompanied by aggravated violence, it incurs life imprisonment. Sexual assaults with torture or act of barbarity fall under the same order of gravity.
A legal point expected in the debates: the question of judgment. The expert reports have not concluded irresponsibility in the legal sense. They describe a disturbed but responsible personality. If impairment were recognized, it could reduce the sentence incurred, without erasing it; if not, full and complete responsibility would prevail. The jurors will assess, based on the reports and hearings.
In law, impairment of judgment does not exonerate: it recognizes that at the time of the events, the ability to understand and will may have been weakened. It invites the court to modulate the sanction, without reducing the gravity of the acts. Conversely, abolition would entail irresponsibility; however, it has not been retained by the experts cited at this stage. The outcome will depend on the credibility of the expert reports. Moreover, it will rely on the coherence of the accused’s path. Finally, the material evidence will play a decisive role. It is here that the scale of punishment will be very concretely determined.
Away from the tumult: repositioning the case
Autumn 2022: the emotion is immense. Elected officials from all sides express themselves. The mention of the OQTF targeting the accused fuels a political quarrel. The head of state then publicly calls to respect the family’s grief and not to instrumentalize. Three years later, the assize court stands far from the clamor. Here, only the evidence, the experts, the witnesses, and the contradictory speech are valid.
Delphine Daviet wished for the debates to be public. This decision gives the trial a civic dimension: what is said there can be heard. It is accompanied by another requirement: sobriety in narration, modesty in details. This is the line followed by the court, relayed by the lawyers, journalists, and listeners.
In the wake of the controversies of 2022, jurists reminded that some shocking expressions do not cover any legal reality and that the OQTF is an administrative measure whose execution depends on multiple factors. These methodological reminders allow the trial to be kept away from slogans. They bring it back to what the file precisely says.
What is known, what is discussed
First, according to the accusation and based on the forensic findings communicated, several points appear stabilized in the file: the cause of death by asphyxiation in the Lola murder case; the discovery of the body on October 14, 2022, around 11:00 PM; marks noted under the child’s feet; finally, video surveillance images showing the teenager entering the building with a woman and the latter leaving later with luggage.
Then, remain in debate the motive and the coherence of the accused’s statements. The versions have varied, mixing confessions and retractions, sometimes esoteric explanations and silences. The hearing will have to determine if there was impairment of judgment at the time of the events. This point could influence the sentence, without prejudging responsibility.
Furthermore, regarding the administrative profile, the press recalls that the accused, without a criminal record, would have arrived in 2016 for studies and would have been subject, in August 2022, to an obligation to leave French territory, known as OQTF, not executed. These elements do not explain the tragedy. They set a framework and shed light on the context, nothing more.
An expectation of truth, a duty of measure
In the benches, the brother speaks little. He says the essential. The mother looks at the dock, then the press benches. The court follows the usual formalities, then proceeds with the calling of witnesses. It is known, from the experience of the assizes, that the judicial truth is tested in layers. What seems obvious is discussed, confirmed, or refuted. The jury listens. The defense questions.
A judicial truth, without promise of full repair
In Paris, the opening of this trial does not promise simple answers. It offers a method: contradiction, rigor, listening. The material evidence will be revisited, the experts heard, the witnesses confronted. The accused’s speech, fragile and variable, will be tested. Judicial truth never erases grief. It frames it, sometimes it soothes. That is all that can be expected, without excessive promise, from an assize court in 2025.