“But when did they not meet?”
“I heard: ‘I was on remote control’, I heard: ‘I drank a glass of water, I was on drugs’. But at what point did they not go on strike?” ”Few people take responsibility for their actions. They have committed rape!
The last of the 51 accused to take the stand on Tuesday morning, just before Gisèle Pelicot took the floor, Philippe L., 62, took this same line of defense, explaining that he was “under the orders” of Dominique Pelicot , his “demon”, and who he then believed was involved in the case of a libertine couple when the woman pretended to be asleep.
“I don’t think anymore”
“I don’t think so anymore. (…) I don’t know that I am doing something unhealthy. I will know later,” explained this single man who makes his living from gardening. “I don’t know that I am dealing with a demon, an evil person. It was only after …” he tried to defend, referring to Dominique Pelicot. Being prosecuted for “aggravated rape”, he faces 20 years of criminal imprisonment, like most of the 51 accused.
Questioned by several defense lawyers, Gisèle Pelicot once again firmly defended herself from being “under the influence” or “manipulation” of her husband, during their 50 years of life together: “Nothing put the flea in you listen to me!”, she repeated. “Monsieur Pelicot had many fantasies, and I could not satisfy him. (…) Since I didn’t want to go to a swingers club, he said he found the solution by putting me to sleep! I lost 10 years of my life that I will never get back. Ever! This scar will never heal!”
The last step from Wednesday
With the questioning of Philippe L. On Tuesday, the trial of the so-called “rape of Mazan”, which is a sign of sexual violence and chemical submission, has now finished examining the cases of 51 men, between 26 and 74 years old. Ten people came back several times, at the invitation of Dominique Pelicot, up to six times for some. Few of these presented a real apology to Gisèle Pelicot, even after facing videos of their actions, projected in court, stumbling images in which their victim appears completely inert.
Dominique Pelicot, 71 years old, who is unanimously described as ”the sender” in this case, was the first to testify, at the beginning of September, without really explaining the reasons for the This trend had accelerated over the years, with around 200 rapes in total, half by himself. He is expected to speak for the last time on the facts on Tuesday evening.
The trial will then enter its final phase from Wednesday, with the beginning of the pleas of the civil parties, before being suspended probably until Monday to allow the prosecution to prepare its pleadings, which would be spread over three days. Then the defense pleas will begin, for three weeks. There will then be one week left for the court’s five professional magistrates to deliberate, and a verdict is expected on December 20 at the latest.
How do recent developments in sexual assault legislation impact public perception and accountability?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert on Recent Developments in a High-Profile Rape Case
Editor: Welcome to this special edition of Time.news. Today, we delve into a troubling case that has captivated public attention and stirred conversations around consent and accountability. Joining us is Dr. Maya Jensen, a legal expert specializing in sexual assault and criminal law. Thank you for being here, Dr. Jensen.
Dr. Jensen: Thank you for having me. This case is undeniably significant and raises important questions.
Editor: To provide our audience with some context, we are following a case involving 51 individuals accused in what has been described as a group of aggravating circumstances surrounding sexual violence. Recently, one defendant, Philippe L., claimed during his testimony that he was “under the orders” of his companion, Dominique Pelicot, and implied that he was not fully aware of the implications of his actions. How does this defense strategy fit into the broader legal framework?
Dr. Jensen: This strategy is often referred to as the “duress” defense, where a defendant claims they were compelled to act against their will due to the influence or intimidation by another party. However, the law generally requires a clear, credible threat for duress to be a valid defense, and it’s not enough to merely claim one was “following orders” without evidence of coercion.
Editor: Interesting. Philippe L. also mentioned not realizing until later whether he had committed an unhealthy act, which raises a crucial aspect of awareness regarding consent. How does the law view knowledge and intent in these cases?
Dr. Jensen: The legal concepts of consent and intent are central to sexual assault cases. Ignorance of wrongdoing doesn’t absolve someone of responsibility. The standard is typically based on what a reasonable person would understand about consent and the behaviors in question. The idea that ignorance can serve as a shield is controversial and often rejected by courts.
Editor: Exactly. And in this particular scenario, Gisèle Pelicot, when questioned, firmly claimed she was not influenced by her husband and described the dynamics within their long relationship. How does the interplay between personal relationships and individual accountability manifest in legal settings?
Dr. Jensen: Relationships can complicate these scenarios. Courts often look at the dynamics of power and influence within relationships, particularly when it comes to sexual consent. However, regardless of the relationship, each individual is accountable for their actions. Gisèle’s defense that she was not manipulated can illustrate a societal expectation that competence and self-agency exist even in personal connections.
Editor: Clearly, this case could expand discussions about societal responsibilities related to consent and bystander accountability. Where do you see potential shifts in legal opinions or societal views regarding these issues in the future?
Dr. Jensen: I believe we are witnessing a slow but significant cultural shift toward greater accountability. As awareness of consent and the nuances of sexual violence grows, there will likely be increased scrutiny of excuses based on manipulative relationships or ignorance. Legal systems may adapt to ensure that accountability is demanded, regardless of circumstances that might seek to mitigate responsibility.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Jensen, for shedding light on these complex issues. As this case unfolds, it will be essential to continue examining the implications for justice and societal norms surrounding consent and sexual violence. Your insights are invaluable.
Dr. Jensen: Thank you for having me. These conversations are vital to fostering a safer society.
Editor: And thank you to our audience for tuning in. Stay informed with Time.news as we continue to follow this important case and its broader implications.