The testimony of the father's fellow prisoner accused of raping his daughter brings new information to this already busy case.
A sordid climate. This is what emerges from this second day of trial at the Nîmes criminal court where Samuel, 42, as well as a couple of his friends, are accused of rape, sexual assault and pimping of his daughter . Events which happened between 2014 and 2020, near Alès, when the granddaughter was between 7 and 12 years old.
Fixed-rate acts of 50 euros
If the main accused admits to the acts of rape, he nevertheless contests the prostitution of his daughter. But the testimony of his former cellmate, who was called to the stand this Tuesday, November 5, contradicts his version. Both were in the same cell at the Nîmes remand center for eighteen months. And towards the end of this detention, the main accused allegedly made important confidences to him. “He explained to me that he prostituted his daughter at his home but also at his cousin and his partner’s for an amount of 50 euros”explains the fellow inmate in court. The cousin in question and his partner would in reality be Luc* and Elise*, the couple of friends accused of the same acts against Emma*, Samuel's daughter.
And the confessions wouldn't stop there. “He explained to me that he had a network on the Internet where individuals could meet minors to have sexual relations with them”he continues. Meetings which would have taken place at his home, but also in a “gypsy camp” in Alès and at Espiguette beach in Grau-du-Roi. Samuel notably boasted of having met a 12-year-old girl whom he brought home, suggesting that there would be other victims…
The veracity of the remarks contested by the defense
But the veracity of these revelations challenges the defense lawyers. Because during his trial, the fellow prisoner, who was also sentenced to 17 years in prison for rape of minors, was described by the personality investigator as “a great liar and an outstanding manipulator”. And that he would have “unfortunate tendency to lie to benefit from certain things”. David Malicot, the attorney general then questions him about the motivations which led him to reveal Samuel's confidences to the prison administration. “You say you have no interest, but you asked to be able to see your children”he raises. An argument that the fellow prisoner contests by explaining that the only reason which pushed him to testify is to “save the victim”. “Sure, I'm in prison for rape, but I've become aware of my own actions, so if I can help now, I will.“. A response that he reiterates when Me Aoudia, Samuel's lawyer, calls on him: “You were convicted of rape of minors, and you had already been incarcerated for seven years. Isn't the real motivation the fact that you take pleasure in discussing this subject, and that it is What would have made him brag?”
The little girl had to wax her genitals when she arrived at her father's house
But certain elements reported by the latter cannot be invented, as Christian Pasta, president of the court, points out. “Especially when you talk about the fact that the little one had to wax her genitals as soon as she arrived at her father’s house. It’s a detail that you wouldn’t have been able to know if he hadn’t clearly told you.”. The fellow prisoner discusses in particular the chemical castration started by Samuel and which would allow him “to calm my urges”explains the main person concerned. But according to the fellow inmate, he would have rather made this decision to “show his good faith in court. At the time, he thought he was only facing seven years in prison. But when he knew the sentence would be heavier, he stopped”he emphasizes.
The grandmother complicit in the pimping network?
This testimony, if its veracity is proven, is therefore essential in this matter. Because in addition to corroborating Emma's statements regarding the acts of pimping that she spoke about, it also implicates the mother of Samuel, today accused of non-denunciation of crimes. According to the fellow inmate, she was the one who managed the accounting of the prostitution network “and who had all the contacts”he specifies. During the search, however, nothing could prove his involvement. On the other hand, he specifies that Samuel would have “won” between 45,000 and 80,000 euros “grace” to this website. “He told me that he had renovated his apartment with this money, that of his mother and that he would have bought cars”he continues. Facts that everyone will explain in the coming days.
