Verdachten verkrachtingszaak Pelicot beweren misleid en gemanipuleerd te zijn

parijs - Tijdens het monsterproces in Avignon ontkennen verdachten de aanklacht van verkrachting en beweren dat ze door Dominique Pelicot misleid en gemanipuleerd zijn.

Halfway through the monster trial in Avignon, where 51 men are standing trial for the rape of Gisèle Pelicot, a vast majority of the suspects continue to claim they are not guilty of rape.

Since the start of the trial, most men have denied the charge of rape, despite all the evidence presented in court. Without the video footage carefully documented and stored on his computer by Dominique Pelicot, no one would believe what has been happening in the Pelicot couple's bedroom all these years.

The visual evidence is at the core of the trial; without these recordings, the 50 co-defendants of Dominique Pelicot would not have been identified. It is the irrefutable evidence that Gisèle Pelicot was unconscious while dozens of men sexually abused her in her own bedroom for years.

The defense of the 50 co-defendants, consisting of about thirty lawyers, initially chose to attack Gisèle Pélicot. First, they tried to cast doubt on her virtue, as if that would justify the rapes. When that did not work, the defense opted for a different strategy; the 'lack of intent' of the charges their clients are facing.

The suspects continue to insist that they did not knowingly participate in the rape. They thought Gisèle Pélicot was 'just pretending to sleep', as part of a sex game in which she was also involved. However, the video footage shown in court proves otherwise. The victim was completely unconscious and snoring loudly while the perpetrators sexually abused her.

The display of the footage led to even more disgust over the massive sex scandal. To limit the damage for their clients, the defense lawyers argued that the recordings should no longer be systematically broadcast. Especially that the media should no longer see the images, as it would affect the coverage of the case.

The defense partially succeeded in this; for several days, the recordings were only shown in closed sessions. The media and other interested parties were asked to leave the room before video footage was shown. Until the victim's lawyer put a stop to it. He pointed out that 'it was up to Gisèle Pelicot, and only her, to decide' what she wanted. By insisting that the footage be publicly shown during the trial against her rapists, the victim turned the case around.

However, the vast majority of the 50 co-defendants did not change their tune. They continue to maintain they were 'misled', 'manipulated', or even 'terrorized' by Dominique Pelicot, whom they claim lured them to his house under false pretenses. When they arrived, they only then realized that the situation was different from what he had led them to believe.

François Amic, an expert psychiatrist, took a surprising stance on the manipulation theory most of the accused are using to defend themselves. Amic believes that the men he examined (a total of ten suspects) were all manipulated to some extent by Dominique Pelicot, whom he called a 'multitalented pervert,' according to France Info.

'If the suspects had known that the victim had been drugged, they would not have gone to the Pelicot couple's house,' argued Amic in court, supporting the defense's main argument. Antoine Camus, the victim's lawyer, criticizes Amic's statement and believes that the psychiatrist was manipulated by the suspects he examined.

Moreover, 15 of the 50 co-defendants do not rely on manipulation by Dominique Pelicot. Some even stated that they knew from the beginning that the victim was drugged. This aligns with Dominique Pelicot's claim that all men knew in advance what was going on.

As early as September 17, on the day he was interrogated, the septuagenarian set the tone: 'I am a rapist, just like the others in this room (...) They all knew, they cannot say otherwise.' Co-defendants who claimed otherwise during their testimonies consistently faced criticism from the 'mastermind' commenting from his glass box.

A direct trigger for the defense to prove that Dominique Pelicot is an 'authoritarian' man who manipulates and terrorizes his co-defendants. However, the testimony of researcher Stéphan Gal paints a different picture of the defendants. Gal stated that their stories largely match.

They almost all came to the Pelicot couple's house at night, undressed in the living room or kitchen, entered the bedroom in hushed tones, whispered about the videos, making sure the victim did not wake up. Gal's statement indicates that the defendants did indeed know what they were getting into.

Like the main defendant in this massive sex scandal, the co-defendants can face up to 20 years in prison, depending on the sexual acts they performed, how often they returned, the perpetrator's history, personal situation, mental state, and any other factors considered by the judge.

The defense hopes that each one will be judged individually. 'You cannot condemn someone with no criminal record the same way as someone with a criminal record,' argued the defense. The same goes for someone who visited the Pelicot house in Mazan only once, they should be judged differently than someone who went there multiple times. 'It's all titanic work for the court,' the defense believes. The verdict in the monster trial is expected around December 20.