Despite extensive video evidence, the 51 men on trial for assaulting Gisèle Pelicot largely contest rape charge

AVIGNON, France (CN) — Week after week, the 51 men on trial for raping Gisèle Pelicot while she was drugged and unconscious — a systemic process orchestrated by her ex-husband, Dominique Pelicot — approach the stand to testify.

Roger Arata, the head judge presiding over the case, always leads with the same question.

“Do you contest the facts?” he asks.

Week after week, the answer is usually yes. The men on the stand largely were caught because of the thousands of files of video evidence Dominique Pelicot took during the assaults. In the videos, Gisèle Pelicot is limp and often snoring. In the rare instances that she moves while being penetrated, the men tend to jump away. Confronted with these videos, the 51 accused largely conceded that she was not in a position to give consent.

The follow-up question is always, “Did you rape Gisèle Pelicot?”

Week after week, the answer tends to be “no.”

This has been the overwhelming tendency for how the men on trial have responded to Arata’s questions. This Friday, when the final testimonies were being given, was no exception.

Judges, lawyers, journalists and some of the men on trial filled the room in the Avignon Judicial Courthouse. In the morning, sun rays poured through the skylight carved above the panel analyzing the case and into the glass box where some of the men are detained.

Charly A. — the youngest of the men on trial, accused of raping Gisèle Pelicot in 2016, when he was 22 years old, alongside her ex-husband — approached the front of the box. The sun reflected sweat on his brow and moving shadows on his white sweatshirt, revealing that he was shaking.

Charly A. is accused of raping Gisèle Pelicot orally, vaginally and anally in six separate instances. He maintains his innocence; although he acknowledged the fact that there was penetration, and that Gisèle Pelicot was unconscious, he told the courtroom he didn’t intend to rape her. Like many of the others, he blames Dominique Pelicot for manipulating him to do it.

“He asked me to penetrate her, so…” he said, shrugging and widening his eyes. He acknowledged that she was not in a state to consent.

Earlier in the day, a court psychiatrist delivered his analysis on Charly A. He said that while he didn’t present any clear psychiatric issues, he was addicted to porn at a young age, and this likely blurred a line between what is and isn’t real life.

“He wanted to participate in a script,” he told the courtroom via video call. “These are young people who are constantly subjected to scenarios where women are reduced to objects … In this case, Dominique Pelicot suggests a sleeping princess 30 minutes away, and Charly A. was able to go from screens to an inert body. But that is in no way an excuse.”

Véronique La Goaziou is a sociologist and researcher specializing in sexual violence at the Mediterranean Sociology Laboratory.

“We cannot establish a causal link, even an indirect one, between viewing pornographic images and sexual violence,” she told Courthouse News by email. “However, if we can show — during a procedure — that sexual aggressors are also spectators of this type of image, then yes, a link can be established — it will make sense in a set of other elements that can shed light on the passage to action.”

The court psychiatrist alluded to how porn presents the image of the MILF, or “mother I’d like to fuck.” Charly A. was found in possession of his mother’s underwear; he also sent a picture of her to Dominique Pelicot. Ultimately, Dominique Pelicot’s persistence in organizing something with his mother is what prompted Charly A. to cease contact.

Judges showed multiple photos and videos of Charly A. assaulting Gisèle Pelicot.

One of the videos took place on Gisèle Pelicot’s birthday.

When Charly A. testified that Dominique Pelicot made him believe that he was taking part in a consensual sex game, Stéphane Banonneau, one of her lawyers, retorted, “Do you think she wasn’t raped because you didn’t have the intention?”

Since the trial began over two months ago, this has been an overarching paradox. It would seem nearly impossible to say that she was in a state to give consent, given the visual evidence. But rape seems to be the line that the men on trial will largely not cross.

Nizar H., the next man to take the stand on Friday, was no exception. His statements prompted numerous laughs of disbelief from the audience; his tone was incredulous, blaming Dominique Pelicot for tricking him. He said Pelicot enticed him with a photo of a 36-year-old woman with big breasts sitting by a pool, and he was surprised to find a woman that could have been his grandmother.

His testimony followed the same formula of recognizing a lack of consent, while adamantly denying rape, despite previously having admitted to it when initially taken into custody.

“I’m not a rapist. I have never raped in my life. Why would I rape a 68-year-old woman?” he said as Gisèle Pelicot looked on, leaning her head against the wall, sitting behind her lawyers. “I never committed a rape in my life.”

Lawyers called for multiple pieces of video footage to be shown. In one, Gisèle Pelicot’s eyes were covered with pieces of toilet paper. In another, Debussy’s Clair de Lune played from a TV in the background as Nizar H. assaulted her. Her body was limp.

In another round of questioning after the videos are shown, Nizar H. claimed that he must have been drugged himself by Dominique Pelicot, because he would never do anything like that, his eyes were red and it was clearly not the same man standing in front of the courtroom.

He was asked again whether he thought this was a rape.

“I do not have the impression of having raped Gisèle Pelicot!” he exclaimed.

“You don’t see a problem in my head there?” Nizar H. demanded of Banonneau, referring to his theory that he was drugged.

“Yes, I do,” Bannoneau replied.

Follow @lilyradz