Requisitions which surprised part of the court. The judgment will be pronounced this Friday.
Throughout this trial which started on Monday, the point which divided the Nîmes criminal court was the question of pimping. If Emma* maintained on several occasions that she had been “sold” by his father to around forty people, including Elise* and Luc*, the couple of friends of his father, the latter have always denied these accusations. This Thursday, November 7, during their interrogations, they reiterated their statements. “I swear, I've never touched Emma or a single child. What she says makes me sick.”declares Luc in tears. Both accused of rape, sexual assault and pimping, they face up to twenty years of criminal imprisonment.
Unbridled sexuality discussed at length
During these four days of trial, trying to find out whether or not they played a role in this affair, the court questioned them at length. First, on their “unbridled sexuality”. Group sex, use of sexual objects of all kinds or even very explicit messages exchanged with Samuel, Emma's father, everything has been dissected. “Do you understand that you have an unusual relationship with Samuel? You send each other photos of your erect penises and you talk a lot about sexuality”raises David Malicot, the attorney general. A special relationship that the couple recognizes, but they deny having any knowledge of the rapes or of Samuel's attraction to young children. “I had all my confidence in him, I could even have left my son to him”continues Luc. And precisely, on the relationship between Samuel and their son, the court questions one point: “Why did you send a photo of your child to Samuel even though he was incarcerated for raping his daughter?”questions the attorney general. “We didn’t think it was true, it seemed impossible”replies Elise, adding between two sobs: “What we want to know today is if he did things to our son”.
“If she had told me about these rapes, we would have helped her”
As for why Emma would falsely accuse them? “I really don't know why. She was like my daughter. If she had told me about these rapes, we would have helped her. I don't understand”she assures. In addition to Emma's statements, the other testimony that implicates the couple is that of the ex-inmate. A testimony which is based on the statements that Samuel made to him and which the latter admits to having exaggerated to “boost” with his cellmate. Enough to make the couple's lawyers, Me Merah and Me Roux, react: “You don't talk about the rapes to anyone, but to your fellow inmate, you tell him everything in detail and exaggeration, and you involve your friends for the first time. You understand well that today, both are there because of the closeness they had with you!”
If we ignore their simplicity of mind, we are in Outreau du Gard
So many uncertainties which will be raised by the Advocate General during his requisitions. If he does not return to the rapes suffered by Emma, acts that her father admitted, the involvement of the three other accused questions him. “If we ignore their simplicity of mind, we are in Outreau du Gard (in reference to the Outreau affair, where seventeen people were accused of sexual assault on minors and where ultimately thirteen were acquitted, Editor's note)”, he indicates, while specifying: “Did we at some point have a message suggesting a paid relationship between the various accused? No, we just have a suspicious climate. Was the grandmother aware of this? There is no item in folder”. Regarding Emma's statements, here too the attorney general wants to be cautious. “I'm not saying that she's lying. But I can't say either that her statements have been constant throughout this procedure. On the rapes at La Vis, when I question her, she tells me that there was no “There was none. But during her hearings, she said yes. Where is the truth?he explains.
“You will leave with certain secrets with you”
Faced with these persistent gray areas, the attorney general requests acquittal for the couple and release for the grandmother. On the other hand, for the father, he requires the maximum sentence, i.e. twenty years of criminal imprisonment. And if he excludes the facts of pimping, he includes the attack on his second daughter. Aggression that Samuel always contested. “In this type of case, we always expect twists and turns. If there was one in this one, it was the confession of the second attack committed on his stepson. Which leaves us to think that, obviously, you are leaving with certain secrets with you, and that we will not have done our job well…”he also emphasizes. It remains to be seen whether this Friday, the court will follow the requisitions of the advocate general during the deliberations.
