Pelicot trial: TikTok lawyer El Bouroumi closes pleadings

She closed the two-week sequence of pleadings in one hour. Her colleagues had decided together that Master Nadia El Bouroumi would close the bench. These clients were not the most numerous, nor their required sentences the greatest. But undoubtedly the defense lawyers were waiting for an offensive and decisive plea, perhaps spectacular, which could tip the scales of the Avignon Departmental Criminal Court in their favor.

From the outset, Master Bouroumi decided to play the province against Paris. She is “from Avignon” like many of his colleagues, is “fell in this trial” without imagining the scale it would take, in France and internationally. In essence, it is obviously distinguishable from the origins of the civil parties and their Parisian lawyers. Master Bouroumi says he defends “simple men, like this agricultural worker, mechanic in his spare time”. Since the start of the trial, she has decided to distance herself from the classic image of justice notables, recounting her hearings on TikTok, criticizing immediate media time, while abusing social networks like an influencer, using of an everyday lexical field. When she begins her argument, she does not refer to Victor Hugo or André Malraux, like her colleagues, but to Francis Cabrel. Even having fun singing along in the courtroom, humming: “Is this world serious? »

Quickly, this trial “has passed him”. She thought she represented simple men, she was told that she defended “ rapists.” “I’m told this trial will settle a lot of things, finally women will be free” she shouts at the bar. “I’m sad because, once again, women are being fooled.” Nadia El Bouroumi resents this over-media coverage which is a smokescreen, which wants to transform society, while “#metoo didn’t allow anything.” The lawyer “still struggling as much” when she accompanies a woman to file a complaint at the police station. The press is “missing the point because she is not in the trial”, quicker to talk about consent, to advocate changing the law on rape, and ignored the presumption of innocence.

“This is the trial of chemical submission, not consent,” says Nadia El Bouroumi indignantly. She is offended by the conclusion of the public prosecutor’s indictment – ​​which thus left it to the court: “You will guide us in the education of our sons” -, treating him with “morale maker”. “We want to educate our sons, carry out social transformation, politics, there is no government, but we will get there with the Mazan trial! “, she quips, punctuating her interventions with resounding “wow! ». At that time, François Bayrou had not yet been appointed Prime Minister…

Nadia El Bouroumi wants to stay in the courtroom, concentrate on the law, the presumption of innocence, the intention. If there is no intention, there is no rape. For her, the videos of Dominique Pelicot incriminating the defendants are “wind”: “We’re diverting you”she tells the Court. This is not a legal and factual argument, she assures. For the lawyer, “the video is the end of a scenario” written solely by Dominique Pelicot in a film shot by him, “this serial rapist worthy of a Netflix series”. The council is convinced that “ the trial missed his personality”. Nadia El Bouroumi insists on the two other Ile-de-France cases for which he was indicted. “He’s a serial rapist who started in 1990.” The man is terribly dangerous, suspected of murder, and matches the descriptions of “American profilers” on serial rapists. The defense lawyer does not give up her thesis: his wife Gisèle Pelicot was, and remains, under influence, after fifty years of living together. So how can we be surprised that the accused were all abused by this manipulator, especially those she defends? Omar D. and Jean-Marc L. For the lawyer, Dominique Pelicot set up “a ploy, a modus operandi” by targeting weak beings. When Gisèle Pelicot claims that she saw nothing, Nadia Bouroumi replies: “I believe you Mrs. Pelicot but I tell you that my clients were victims of your husband”. This man is “a predator”, “an exception”, when she defends “men who are the normality of our society”, curious about libertinism but who have been “used as objects”. The lawyer raises her voice even further by pointing to the main accused: “We have a monster in the box.” And to conclude that its customers “are not rapists”. For her, they are “victims” and therefore the court must “acquit these people”.

The final argument ends. The hearing is adjourned until Monday December 16 when the accused will be able to speak one last time if they wish. Upon her release, Nadia El Bouroumi was pursued by journalists. All smiles, the one who loves to castigate the media responds with pleasure to the microphones held out. When everyone puts away their equipment, she confidently asks: “Was it good or not anyway? »