Co-defendants plead manipulation and lack of intent

Let’s set aside the exaggerations. The objections concerning the “feminists in front of the courthouse, a knife between their teeth.” The suggestions to expatriate them “to Afghanistan,” “to Iran,” “to Yemen,” on the grounds that “they’ll have work there.” the reckless comparisons equating the accused – whose names have been published on the walls of the southern city of Avignon, where the trial is taking place, and on social media – to Jews during WWII, with comments like, “What’s next? Do we put little stars on them?”

Let’s set aside the lectures in feminism professed by these older gentlemen who, three sentences later, invoked “testosterone” or “sexual drive” to justify their client’s actions. Let’s not dwell on the man who still finds it “hard to believe that Gisèle Pelicot never perceived anything” and still believes – despite the impact of showing the videos at the hearing, as Gisèle Pelicot herself requested – that the trial could just as easily have gone ahead without this “pornocriminal spectacle.”

Some of the lawyers representing Dominique Pelicot’s 50 co-defendants have been complaining for three months that they are being gagged by “the media” and “public opinion.” That the defense is no longer free to speak. But it is, as we have just seen. Anyways.

The trial of the men accused of raping Gisèle Pelicot as she was drugged by her husband is moving toward its verdict, which is expected the week of December 16. The defense lawyers have been taking the stand one after the other at the criminal court, and roughly 20 of them had already pleaded on the evening of Thursday, December 5.

In unison, over the past week, they denounced the “excessive,” “savage” and “delirious” demands of the prosecutor’s office: 10 to 18 years against those charged with rape or attempted rape. They criticized the prosecution’s requests as “one-eyed” and “deaf,” devoid of coherence, proportionality and individual consideration. The demands, the lawyers argued, were based solely on the case file, not on the hearings. It’s as if “the three months spent together were useless,” said Antoine Minier, a lawyer for Saifeddine G., Paul G. and Abdelali D., who all have 10 to 13 years requested against them. Olivier Lantelme, who is representing Patrick A., for whom prosecutors have requested 10 years, added: “Once or many times, confessions or not, regrets or not, empathy or not, erections or not, condoms or not, related offenses or not, you haven’t made any distinctions. All in the same bag.”

You have 73.85% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.