French man accused of drugging his wife and inviting men to rape her

Not much consolation really though.

It's true that Dominique Pelicot is obviously way beyond the "norms" of your run-of-the-mill sex offender - that's clear. As his daughter said, they have to come to terms with knowing that their father and grandfather is perhaps the worst serial rapist in this century in France, and maybe even a murderer as well.

But TBH it's all the other men that worry me more. I took days of abuse on here for refusing to let male posters tell me that only man-haters would consider that this might indicate that there are a lot more potential rapists living ordinary lives with wives and families than most of us ever imagine.

And here's the thing: they are all "ordinary men", all those rapists. Well, not all, but most. Their wives and children are testifying today, and so far we've mostly heard about what great partners and fathers they've been.

Here, for instance, is one who is not on trial for raping Gisele Pelicot, but for conniving with Dominique P to drug and rape his own wife, who had borne him FIVE children. Pelicot raped her too, about ten times. His wife has refused to lodge a complaint for rape against him. (I presume she has done so against Pelicot but I can't remember all the charges, there were so many) Anyway, this JP Marechal says his wife is a great person, a good mother, that he has always been very close to his children. One is seriously disabled and he always helped look after him too. Some of his children are also present to testify, and they agree:

Il décrit son épouse comme quelqu'un de très bien. "Une femme modèle, qui s'occupait très bien de leurs enfants", a-t-il dit. Jean-Pierre M. assure avoir toujours été "très proche de ses enfants", se décrit comme "un père poule". L'un de ses fils est handicapé : il souffre "de dysphasie", un trouble grave du neurodéveloppement qui impacte le langage. Le couple s'est décrit comme soudé face à cette maladie, Jean-Pierre M. étant présent à tous les rendez-vous médicaux. Sa femme le décrit comme très optimiste. "Pour lui, rien n'est grave", souligne-t-elle. L'autorité reposait sur son épouse. L'accusé avait du mal à poser un cadre. "Il était toujours là pour nous gâter", a relaté l'une de ses filles, précisant que "tous les enfants, garçons comme filles, ont reçu la même éducation". Pour elle, "ils ont eu une enfance heureuse". 

The only "negative" thing there is that the wife was the one who had to be the disciplinarian. "He always spoiled us", said one of his daughters, adding that "all the children, boys or girls, were treated the same." She says "We had a happy childhood."

His son is then called to the bar (around 25 years of age) - he speaks of a model father, devoted to his family, his children, played a lot of sport, didn't smoke or drink. Undemonstrative verbally but "his eyes showed his feelings", and he was always affectionate.

Son fils est appelé à la barre (je n'ai pas entendu son âge, je dirais autour de 25 ans). Il parle d'un "père exemplaire, qui a toujours été dévoué pour sa famille, ses enfants, quelqu'un de très sportif, qui ne fumait pas, ne buvait pas. Très introverti sur les sentiments". 

Son fils a déclaré qu'il avait "beaucoup de pudeur dans les sentiments, qu'il ne verbalise pas, mais que les émotions sont dans les yeux". "Il a beaucoup de gestes affection", a-t-il ajouté.

His daughter says he was a very good father, and was perfectly normal.

Pour rappel : Jean-Pierre M. est accusé d'avoir sédaté son épouse, de l'avoir fait violer par Dominique Pelicot, et de l'avoir violée lui-même. Sa fille de 28 ans vient également témoigner. Elle parle d'un "très bon père. "Il a toujours été présent. Il était tout à fait normal.

That's just one - but there are others. And the psychiatrist/expert said previously that there is no such thing as a "rapist profile" - the fact that they are all well integrated socially is not that unusual.

But so many?? I don't know. I can't get over it.

I thought she was guilty originally. You'll fond nothing from me suggesting she was innocent until, well, it was the banned NYT article that first made me wonder. Several more things since then. But you are talking complete nonsense (again!) if you think I've made her into some emblem of women. The most I've ever said is that we don't know if she's innocent, but we can't be sure that she is guilty. And that, normally, is a reason to acquit.

Do you believe the Post Office submasters are all guilty?

Quote me?

(I did not say she is or was.)

And is there a reason why you constantly misrepresent stuff I've said? I was blaming other posters for you having been misled, but that's a couple of times now that you've done it entirely off your own bat. What is your problem, exactly?

So if we've seen off the latest attempt of a couple of posters to shut down any discussion of the actual subject here, can we get back to the court case and whether it might also have any lessons for other countries in Europe please?

Thanks, I appreciate that.

There's a problem for tomorrow it seems: Pelicot has been complaining about being unwell, and while the judge managed to insist on him coming in today, it seems he's getting a medical cert to be absent for the next two days, ie till the weekend, which is a real problem for how the trial is going to take place, because it seems he has to be questioned by the prosecution before the other defendants can be.

So it looks as though it's going to be complicated to keep it going properly over the next while.

Oh that's the guy who was something of a contrarian, right? Liked to provoke a bit as I recall. What was his name again?? It didn't sound French, I don't think.

ETA Jequon?

Yeah, couldn't help feeling sceptical too. I suppose they are under massive stress though, once they're caught, so I suppse that can cause illness. He's been in prison, what three years??

Still not feeling sorry for him, mind, because something I haven't mentioned before is that between the first and second arrests - the first for the upskirting, then they took his PC etc and worked on all that for another three months or more before they then re-arrested him for the rapes - so he must have known during those 3 months that the end was coming, and you know what he did?

He contacted some more men to rape his wife a few more times before the game was finally up.

I suspect he was building up memories to enjoy for the time in prison that he must have known was coming.

One thing that is becoming clear concerning prevention is the need to find the flashers and the upskirters etc.

That doesn't fix the problem of how many of the other men were ready to rape women, but by removing the more brazen ones, the Wayne Couzens and the Dominique Pelicots, first of all that would remove a lot of those very worst offenders/psychopaths, and in the case of someone like Pelicot, it would also have stopped him from enabling the opportunists. How many of those would-be rapists might never have dared cross that line without his encouragement and organisational skills?

These crimes need to be treated as HIGH PRIORITY, not considered as mere misdemeanours, because they are often a gateway to violent sexual assault. They are meant to frighten and intimidate, and men who want to do that to women, do it because they want to harm women.

In the context of the events this threads is concerned with, claims that "Sexual assault numbers by women are not materially different than sexual assault numbers by men" is inappropriate IMO. And trying to "prove" that claim by falsely equating a woman having an unplanned pregnancy with a man deliberately removing a condom doesn't help. Not all unplanned pregnancies are as a result of the woman having "lied" to her partner - much less that 40% of women do so. Unevidenced by any sources of course.

So I've no idea what you mean by the comment above? Women should be charged with rape if they have an unplanned pregnancy? I don't think that would work too well. And it's really not comparable to drugging and raping a woman multiple times anyway.