Court report implies mass rape of Giselle Pelicot was revenge by her husband because she had had an affair

[IwantToRetire]

Dominique Pelicot may have recruited dozens of men to rape his drugged wife out of “revenge” for her having an extramarital affair, according to a written judgment by magistrates.

In the written judgment seen by Le Monde, the magistrates wondered whether Dominique Pelicot’s motives for abusing his wife and the choice of men recruited online were at least partially out of revenge for an affair Gisèle had with a work colleague.

They wrote that by specifically choosing each of the men on the basis of age, ethnicity, the size and shape of their sexual attributes, as well as collecting and storing several hundred hours of video footage of the assaults, “all contribute to feeding Dominique Pelicot’s perverse fantasies”.

They questioned Pelicot’s dismissal of revenge as a motive given that he “unequivocally confessed this desire for revenge to one of his contacts”.
“For her part, Gisèle Pelicot does not rule out the possibility of revenge,” they added.

Gisèle Picot mentioned the affair in court, saying it had gone on for some time and was the only extramarital relationship she had while her ex-husband had several.

She recounted how he had become furious when he found out.

From a longer article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/22/pelicot-drugged-wife-affair-revenge-rape-cold-cases-link/

Article in full at https://archive.is/IKwtA

This has made me so angry all over again.

He had an affair too

Several

Because it has to be her fault......

I'm struggling to figure out your motive for posting this.
People following this 'strange case' is what has made it exceptional, and has empowered GP to hold fast against every man seeking to dismiss and discredit her.

I'm not clicking on any 'click bait' but I am keeping an eye on the headlines covering this and noticing which news sources, even in a case like this where they can't find a way to blame the woman, are still trying their luck. It's interesting to me. See my previous post- the Telegraph should be ashamed of itself.

The BBC have been pretty good, apart from the 'my husband the monster' title. One glimmer of hope was the coverage of the admirable security guard who showed what every man's reaction to DPs behaviour should have been. That's the key. Men, be more like that security guard.

Indeed @napody the security man was a decent man. He was so angered by seeing Pelicit upskirting he set security onto him straight away, if he'd turned a blind eye Pelicot might never have been found out.

And Pelicot had a special bag that concealed the phone he was using to up skirt.

This man is a serial offender. Fuck all to do with his wife's affair, in my opinion.

Some one I know was murder along with her 3 children by their father. Part of his defense was that she had had an affair.
After his lawyer had brought up the affair and gave endless details to demonstrate that the affair had happened.
The judge said in his summary in very clear terms "whether or not she'd had a fair was a complete irrelevance because nothing justifies what he had done."
The same should be in this case. However I know in France they have crimes of passion as some sort of shit defense.

At one point Pelicot said he'd done it because his wife was such a good, upstanding moral person. That doesn't sound like a man looking for revenge for an affair to me

Yes, it all seems very geared in favour of these men and their right to sex

Not only is he a serial offender, there is now strong evidence that he murdered an estate agent in 1991. He's an even nastier piece of work than we already knew.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/ebbc50ef-fa97-46c4-85b2-4934d32926e6

Archive link: https://archive.is/95G9i

‘Revenge’ for an affair is divorce, not mass rape.

But if one of the defendants was repeating the nonsensical excuse that D Pelicot had given him, it would be hard to keep that out of the court case.

The worrying thing is that anyone would accept that excuse as plausible, when it’s clear he’s a sexual predator with a long history of premeditated criminal behaviour, some of which predates the first of the rapes against Gisele included in this trial (the murder he is being tried for was committed in 1991, the attempted rape of a woman working as an estate agent that he has admitted to was in 1999 and his first arrest for upskirting was in 2010. He must’ve started upskirting pretty much as soon as smartphones became available).

I agree but I believe that he got the longest sentence that the law allows. However as he's already in his 70s I very much doubt that he'll survive a 20 year prison sentence

I believe the OP brought up this article/topic in the context of a lot of discussion on here about the trial. I believe she posted it in the spirit of 'Look what they are saying now!' as a continuation of the discussion. It's obvious from the last sentence that she is neither agreeing with nor perpetuating the slur, just highlighting it.

A lot of awful stuff was said by the defence barristers, some of it just-about-justifiable in terms of their duty to defend their clients, some of it, outside of the courtroom, just plain indefensible, and it has been repeated in posts here, without any suggestion that the posters were condoning what was said.

For what it's worth, I think wreaking that level and duration of havoc on a woman, and a family, as revenge for an affair is so grotesquely out of proportion that it doesn't even put a dent in Dominique Pelicot's guilt and depravity, and I doubt if it will affect how Gisele Pelicot is regarded.

The thing that needs highlighting very clearly is the French laws and consent. I was shocked by how many of the men who raped Giselle thought having Pelicots permission made it legal. Consent seems to be optional in French law, no wonder they have so many men SA women

I don't believe the OP posted the article other than to say 'ffs look what the judges have said, it seems a bit victim blamey'. That was my reaction when i read a similar article yesterday. And it did anger me.

There will never be a 'perfect' victim for the press, for a certain section of the public and, apparently, for some judges. To try tbf, as it had come up in the trial they possibly had to mention it in their judgement, to show it had been considered and prevent him using that to try to get his sentence reduced.

The press will use anything to try to generate a few more column inches and their readers are interested in the case. I read the articles.

I think that some women, and I've done it myself, learn about a violent or sexual crime. While still sympathising with the victim(s) and condemning the criminal(s) they try to comfort themselves by saying 'this wouldn't have happened to me, to mine because...'.

It shouldn't be in the courtroom though. Rape myths, victim blaming, what she did, didn't do, wore, didn't wear, where she went, didn't go, kiss, smiled at. They can fuck off with the lot of it. It's always the predator who's to blame.

I’m shocked I’ve hardly seen any discussion of this murder that he is suspected of having committed. What a depraved inhuman piece of shit.

As if she hasn't already been through enough without Judgy Judges laying into her sexual history.

Point taken, @MarieDeGournay @icakethereforeIam but creating a thread to discuss GPs alleged affair just highlights details that really ought to have stayed in the courtroom, and not raked over on social media. Can't we just leave that poor woman alone and stop discussing her private life. Is nothing sacred?

Yes, absolutely. What value is it to anyone to poke and pry, and why do that to someone who has suffered so much.

Not only that, but once the security man had involved the police, the other factor was the police applying some professional curiosity and deciding to look into it further and check his devices.

Imagine if this had been the Met? They’d have waved him on his way. And he’d have carried on his abuse.

I assume they had to wait until the trial had finished before information about these historic cases could be disclosed.

Who is trying to justify anything?

He claimed it wasn't revenge but they were considering that perhaps he was lying and maybe it was part of his motivation.

That doesn't make it better.

And what has Mme Pelicot's affair got to do with being serially raped? Nothing. It's the usual 'it was her fault because' argument - sickening.

What a bizarre comment.

Seriously take care when reading.

Where is there any indication I am maligning her.

What perspective of the world, let alone FWR do you have.

Honestly sometimes its like posters come on a thread to find a fault and then have a very public tantrum to show how they truely understand what is going on.

Again, it isn't the Telegraph that is creating click bait, they are reporting the officials documents which include this despicable comment. ie the Magistrates thought he did do it out of revenge even though later denying it, and the obscene detail (if true) that this grotesque man went out of his way to select men who looked like the man she had had an affair.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. I provided the archive link as the original is behind a paywall.

Added to which, if the magistrates are right about the motive being "revenge", compare that to Gisele Pelicot NOT setting out on endless campaigns of revenge for the many more than the single affair that her loathsome husband had had.

So many batshit responses am wondering if everybody has been at the christmas brandy or something.

But thanks to those who did respond to this really inhuman "understanding" by the court. Is this just a French thing, or is this how courts in the UK see male sexual predators as well?