On Monday, the complainant spoke in court. She always gave the same version, but the intervention of an expert psychiatrist, Roland Coutanceau, gave the defense food for thought.
On Monday, the complainant spoke in court. A much awaited moment obviously. The young girl first spoke alone then she was questioned by the president, the attorney general, and the civil parties. Secondly, she was questioned by the defendants' lawyers. We expected her to be pushed to her limits but that was not the case. Yes, she was questioned, but her sincerity was not questioned, and everyone spoke to her with correctness. “Our client submitted at length, as the exercise progressed, she's a little tired, which is normal, because there is a lot of interventionants in front of her on the side of the accused in particular. Mbut no, no, there was no aggression, there was no and word higher than the other” narrated Gaessy Gros.
But the peak of the day came a little later, when the court heard Roland Coutanceau, expert psychiatrist. He gave his opinion on the facts and the attitude of the young girl and especially on the perception the accused had of her at the time of sexual intercourse.
Some defenders of the accused did not hide their opinion. They had the impression that the practitioner's comments were in line with their client's arguments. This was the case of Valérie Coriatt, lawyer (with Philip Fitzgerald) of Rory Grice: “She was in an subconfusional state. He explained that when one is in an al statecoolized, but not enough to be in an absolute black hole, the corps goes into autopilot, or robotic form. He can randrespond to physical stimulation or have randflexes of memory of similar circumstances but the mind does not a not memory or consciousness. Doctor Coutanceau agrees that it is quite complicatedé for the interlocuto understand these fairly subtle phenomena. Pour become aware of it, he says that one must have been present to everyone les stades of the sevening, it is appreciated in uit is andtuation global. A bearublow insishas car it is accepted in the debate that Rory Grice was not there when she returned to the hotel. He doesn't see hert only later as a neophyte…”
Corinne Dreyfus-Schmidt, lawyer for Denis Coulson, was roughly in the same direction. “What is important is that we place ourselves on the side of the accused to understand their state of mind. IThey cannot guess that this young woman is in a state of autopilot. They see a young woman who is active, who gives blowjobs, who is on her knees, who makes moans. The blood alcohol level only proves one thing: that it has no memory. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have the capacity for action. So you have to make the difference. If you see someone who is completely listless, who is in an alcoholic coma and you abuse her sexually, that is not the same thing as if you see a woman who is acting out, who is moaning, who is behaving coordinated manner. This is what they perceived.”
On a refelt that the defense of the accused saw this intervention as a real breath of fresh air.
Gaessy Gros, lawyer for the plaintiff: “The Assize Court should not decide on that”
Gaessy Gros tried to put this intervention by Roland Coutanceau into perspective. Who, according to him, cannot exhaust the subject.Gglobally, l’expert explained to us that she was in a situation where her brain was not able to register what was happening, which explains his amnesia lacunar, that is to say the black hole and that, on the other hand, there were some reminiscences, some flashes, and that was something that seemed, at least credible, to him. On asked the question to the expert to know if madame was in the manipulation. He told us that there had been no sign to that effect, for example.“
The plaintiff's lawyer continued : “On understands well that one axes of defense will be to say: “Certes doctor, we n’understood that she didn't know what she was doing.” More about their clients, la position lawyers is to say that “they couldn't know what they were doing, eneither do they. En any case, they could not have known that Madame didn't know what she was doing.”
Then he continues, in the tone of whoever wants get back to basics and facts rather than interpretations : “Listen, itIt's eminently subjective to get into everyone's head to find out what they think. Now ite n’is not on that, I think, that the assize court will have to decide, it's on external, objective elements, a video, we see Madame who is alcoholic, a video, we see one of the accused carrying it, the use of objects which, by its very essence, in my opinion, brings togethernt the concept of surprise which goes beyond the consent that is necessary to have sexual intercourse without rape being established, and then also other elements, the fact that the five accused were, for example, early in the evening, with our client, with the client, both in a pub, both in a nightclub, therefore they were aware of this state of alcoholism. Ce sera has the Assize Court to decide the degree of awareness of each of the accusednot ours.”
The debates ended around 7:30 p.m. the forensic doctor last heard, had just detailed his findings (in fact, he was unwell, one of his colleagues spoke for him on the basis of his report). Traces of blood found in the room (sheets, pillow) do not necessarily come from the rape with objects. Nothing can prove this because the traces of blood were tiny. They can come from micro-cuts. We understood that the accused and more particularly the one who handled the objects had not been upset to hear this. We saw the lawyers of Denis Couson and Loick Jammes discussing in the room of the lost steps, with Jammes elsewhere. No doubt they were taking stock of this day and preparing for tomorrow.
Tomorrow, it will be the turn of the five players to speak. Another highly anticipated moment, obviously, of this intense trial which will be a landmark in the history of modern rugby.
