Called on Wednesday to defend men accused of having come up to six times to rape Gisèle Pelicot, who has become in France a symbol of victims of sexual violence, lawyers pointed out the manipulative role of the “wolf” Dominique Pelicot, sometimes invoking the past trauma of their clients.
• Also read: Mazan serial rapes: jury asked to think of “the man” and not just the “rapist”
• Also read: Serial rapes in Mazan: a “rolled in flour” accused wants to be acquitted
• Also read: Serial rape trials: “A message of hope to victims of sexual violence”
Dominique Pelicot, aged 72, is accused of having drugged his now ex-wife, raped her and handed her over to dozens of strangers recruited via the internet over a period of ten years.
While the lawyers denounce “the ogre”, “the wolf”, “the perverse director” or “the manipulator”, the main accused, tried like 50 other men for three months in Avignon, in the south-east of France, remains impassive most of the time, his head resting on his hand.
On the civil parties’ bench, Gisèle Pelicot, back after a day of absence, listens attentively. Sometimes a gesture reflects his annoyance or his indignation.
While praising his “courage”, “his intelligence” or “the dignity” of his fight against violence against women, the defense lawyers took care to remind, like Me Emile-Henri Biscarrat, that we should not not “judge a news item as a social fact” nor wait for “an exemplary verdict”.
AFP
First to speak on Wednesday morning, the lawyer regretted that defense colleagues could have been insulted or the names of their clients publicly revealed, in this case with international repercussions.
Handling of Dominique Pelicot
“There is a need for perspective” to judge the fifty men recruited by Dominique Pelicot, insists Me Henri Amr.
Me Biscarrat speaks on behalf of Dominique D., 45, a truck driver who admitted, during the trial, to having come to the couple’s home in Mazan six times between 2016 and 2020, knowing that the victim was asleep and therefore not consenting. Against this man, one of ten who came several times, the prosecution requested one of the heaviest sentences.
AFP
“Seventeen years required against Dominique D.! You even forgot that he admitted on the stand! These 17 years, they do not pass!” protests the lawyer, recalling that in this case there are “no child pornography images”, like those found in other co-defendants against whom the requisitions are less .
“I could not understand from the file that MD chemically subjected anyone”, as did Dominique Pelicot, against whom the prosecution requested 20 years of imprisonment, he adds.
“The experts stressed at the hearings that Dominique Pelicot knows how to manipulate,” continues Mr. Biscarrat, calling the latter “the wolf”: “In everything he has done, that is not what will absolve Mr. D., but there is this conditioning,” said the lawyer, asking the court to reduce the sentence required against his client.
AFP
Sexual urges
In addition to the jurisprudence of penalties for rape, which are lower according to him, he recalls the abandonment of Dominique D. when he was six months old, the sexual urges which, according to him, could have made him less “vigilant”, but also his commitment to army for external operations, and work done in prison “to make amends”.
“I ask you to take this experience into account,” he told the court, which must deliver its verdict on December 20.
AFP
Taking over, Me Amr evokes the “emotional, social and sexual misery” of his client, Redouane A., 40 years old, “psychotic”, suffering from “mental retardation” since childhood, who seeks to fill this misery by going to dating sites where “flesh seeks flesh”.
Unlike Dominique D., Redouane A. does not admit to having raped the victim, recalls the lawyer, evoking in turn the “manipulation” of Dominique Pelicot, who invites this man into his “notable house” by making him believe that his wife is consenting.
“Yes, this man saturated with pornographic images could have believed it” and “he came back a second time”, maintains the lawyer, requesting acquittal in the face of the 12 years of imprisonment required.
In its indictment, the prosecution denounced as “another age” the theory of consent “by proxy”, which would be given by the husband.
