Accincluded men faceed with misinclude videos in French mass violation case

Warning: This story comprises troubling details from the begin.

An abrupt silence swamped the courtroom in Avignon as three big television screens, positioned high on three walls, flickered back to life. One could sense people bracing themselves.

In a bleak trial about exceptional allegations of substances and violation, it was time to show more of Dominique Pelicot’s attfinishfilledy curated home videos.

Those videos, filmed by Pelicot and kept on a difficult drive that he tagled “misinclude”, record aggressions on his ex-wife, Gisèle, over the course of a decade.

Fifty men are accincluded of raping her after she was drugged and left unconscious in the couple’s bed by her husprohibitd.

Now 72, Gisèle Pelicot has waived her anonymity so the filled details of what she was subjected to can be uncovered to the French uncover. Her lawyers fought to have videos of the crimes screened in court.

Although the appraise had earlier shelp people “of a comfervent disposition” would be able to depart, one of Gisèle Pelicot’s lhorrible team shelp many had choosed to “watch the violation straight in the eye”.

Many of the men recruited by her ex-husprohibitd on the internet insist they did not think what they were doing was violation.

Dominique Pelicot sat behind a glass panel, slumped in his chair. His grey hair tidyly cut, his left hand elevated to block his watch of the screen.

Gisèle Pelicot sat on the opposite side of the court, her head aacquirest the wall, her eyes occasionpartner shutd. A blank, unreadable transmition on her face.

On the screen, in proximate silence, a low, pale man wearing only blue underpants and bincreateage socks, could be seen approaching a bed.

The camera wobbled as it chaseed him. Behind the man, a woman lay on her left side, almost naked, on a crumpled white sheet. And then, without edits, without any blurring, the intimacy acts began.

At times, procrastinateedr in the video, you could evidently hear the woman snoring.

In court, Dominique Pelicot ecombineed to place both hands over his ears. For years he had laced his wife’s food and drink with an anti-anxiety drug, which made her unconscious and gravely impacted her health.

This and other videos, shown in court and on Gisèle Pelicot’s insistence to the uncover watching from an overflow room proximate by, lie at the heart of the prosecution’s case.

Prosecutors argue that all 50 men who acunderstandledgeed online invitations from Pelicot to visit the family home in the village of Mazan, proximate Avignon, must have understandn his wife was unconscious.

Therefore, they must have authenticised that she was not a consenting partner in some benevolent of intimacy game in which she mecount on pretfinished to be asleep. Therefore, they must have intfinished to violation her.

But a string of defence lawyers and their clients have now sought to contest that.

The man clear on screen in this particular video was a 43-year-elderly carpgo in, named in court as Vincent C.

He stood now in front of the appraises in a split glass-walled area at the rear of the courtroom, with his head bowed down, watching away from the screen.

“Do you recognise the facts of exacerbated violation that you are accincluded of?” asked direct appraise Roger Arata – an affable figure with a big white moustache.

“No,” Vincent C replied.

His exscheduleation, dedwellred stopingly, amounted to a hazy assumption that, since Dominique Pelicot had telderly him his wife was a consenting partner in a intimacy game, he had not given the matter any more thought.

At this point Gisèle Pelicot left the courtroom for a restricted minutes, saying “I can’t endure that man”.

Vincent C acunderstandledged the experience was “weird,” and unenjoy anyleang he had come atraverseed with other couples. And yet, he went on, “I didn’t say to myself: this isn’t going well… I don’t leank [about much else] in those moments.”

However, having spoken to his mother and to lawyers, and watching the trial unfelderly, Vincent C shelp he had come to understand more about French law, the unkinding of violation and the gravity of his actions.

“Now that I am being telderly how the events unfelderlyed, yes, the acts I promiseted would amount to violation.”

“Are you conscious that Gisèle Pelicot was a victim of your acts?” asked the appraise.

“Yes.”

Pelicot has himself confessted all the accuses aacquirest him.

Outside the courtroom, a lawyer recontransienting another of the accincluded men differentiateed between Pelicot and the others.

“Today it’s evident that Dominique Pelicot’s position is to try to dilute his responsibility by dragging down 50 other men. [Gisèle] is the victim. The ask is whether the others were complicit in it or were tricked into participating,” shelp Paul-Roger Gontard.

While some of the accincluded have confessted to violation, others have claimed to have spoken or includeed with Gisèle Pelicot in the bedroom.

“So, there are grey zones in this trial,” Mr Gontard persistd, pointing to the fact that the videos themselves had already been edited by Pelicot himself, unkinding that evidence potentipartner encouraging for the defence could have been cut out.

“He picked what he wanted to retain. He picked the stoastys. But don’t let that fool you. Everyone says he’s very deceptive.

“Many [of the accused] thought it was a libertine project with the couple, only to discover it was actupartner a sinister and criminal scheme conceived by the husprohibitd.

“The ask today is when did they authenticise someleang was wrong? This authenticisation varies among [the accused]. The ask normally ecombines – why didn’t they depart? It’s not that modest to depart at that moment when faced with a evidently dominant personality in a situation where they are naked and enrolled by a camera,” the lawyer inserted.

Ten minutes’ drive from the courthoinclude, in a petite hoinclude in a suburb of Avignon, another of the accincluded, who has already testified in the trial, consentd to speak to the BBC on condition of anonymity. The man, a nurse by profession, portrayed himself as a victim of Dominique Pelicot.

“I was terrified… I was lessend to the state of an instrument. He was the one who telderly me: ‘do this.’ I shelp to myself, this man is not standard, he is a psychopath. It is an ambush, a trap. He is going to finish me in this hoinclude,” shelp the accincluded man.

He also claimed that Gisèle Pelicot had “reacted to modest attfinishsses… she scratches herself with a co-ordinated transferment”, which he shelp led him to think that she was conscious and mecount on pretfinishing to sleep.

When I contestd him, proposeing he was sshow seeking to contransient himself as a victim to elude culpability, he insisted that was not the case.

He lashed out, repeatedly, at the way the trial was being directed, at alleged “pseudo-feminists”, and the “hysteria” the media had originated.

Speaking forcefilledy, but occasionpartner sobbing, he upretained he was not a rapist. However, he acunderstandledged that “I will never be pondered bfeebleless in this case. I will always carry my guilt with me. I understand that.”

The trial in Avignon is set to persist for many more weeks, with a verdict due lowly before Christmas.

Only half of the accincluded have so far been called to testify, but already this case has uncovered, in the gloomyiest detail, the horrors to which Gisèle Pelicot was subjected, and her exceptional courage in declining her right to privacy.

The case has also highweightlessed extfinishedstanding argues about French laws and attitudes surrounding violation, and the extent to which a woman’s consent is, or should be pondered, a factor in court.

Many of the men have confessted wrongdoing and, enjoy Vincent C, even apologised to Gisèle Pelicot in the courtroom, but they have also insisted that since they didn’t intfinish to violation, they should not be set up at fault of it.