Beatrice Zavarro - Dominique Pelicot's lawyer

I would imagine he chose a woman because he thought he could manipulate and control her.

There will be a special place in hell reserved for that man.

Sago

I would imagine he chose a woman because he thought he could manipulate and control her.

There will be a special place in hell reserved for that man.

Given he admitted everything and pled guilty, why would he want to manipulate a lawyer. It seems , from the link, more chance than choice that his lawyer was female.

He is whatever I may think of him entitled to legal representation.

Galaxy

He is whatever I may think of him entitled to legal representation.

I don't dispute that.

I was more interested in her justification for taking on the case.

OldFrill is right in that she was appointed to him when he was first caught "upskirting" in a supermarket, which eventually led to this whole can of worms being opened.

I'm not sure if, because she found herself in the position by default, she was duty bound to continue. I'm sure she could have withdrawn at the point the whole ghastly story came to light. I just wonder what motivated her to carry on with it.

There must be times when conscience overtakes money, surely?

Men accused of sexual assault often choose a female barrister as they think that there is a subliminal message to the jury- this " nice lady" believes me, so ....
I have barristers I my family who can confirm this.

...in my family!

People do often wonder about defending an abuser, rapist, paedophile and I'm sure it is hard. But of course it's not the barristers job to judge the clients guilt is it, but the jury's.
As for the politics or "manipulation" of a jury, I can well believe both sides are capable of influencing by whatever means permissible.
If you have ever seen Jodie Comer in Prima Facie it deals with that whole area of the credibility of the victim, subtle influence, even one person's word against another's in a rape trial.

This was not a trial by jury. There were 5 judges. I don't think they'd be delayed by the sex of the defence lawyer.

*swayed

I don’t know whether in France advocat/lawyers have any choice about who they represent. In English criminal courts, the alleged perpetrator will select their solicitor, or have one selected for them from the Duty list. If the case goes to trial/is complex, the solicitor will instruct a suitable experienced and interested Barrister. Their job is to represent their client, they might advise but ultimately follow instructions.
Zavarro seems to be suggesting her clients trauma explains his behaviour
It might give some indication as to his disgusting abusive perverted behaviour but nothing excuses the choices he made, over many years. He has the right to good legal representation
I don’t blame the lawyer for taking the case.
It’s so extreme and abusive but - fairly ordinary men?

In Britain barristers rules include The Cab Rank Rule

This states that In English law, the cab rank rule refers to the obligations of barristers to accept any work in their speciality, provided they are available and appropriately compensated; this means they cannot discriminate against particular clients even if they disagree with the client’s views or actions.

This is designed to maintain access to fair legal representation and justice for all, and also aims to protect barristers from criticism for taking certain cases where their client or the cause they are representing may be objectionable.

For more information follow this link www.stpaulschambers.com/cab-rank-rule-for-barristers/

I would imagine the French legal system probably has similar rules, even if framed differently and would explain why M. Pelicot had a woman lawyer.

I have never understood the "defence" that someone acted as they did because of "childhood abuse". Surely, if someone has been abused as a child they would be aware of the trauma and not want to inflict it on anyone else. I grew up in a violent household, yet I have never felt the urge to be violent towards anyone else, especially family!

She was doing what she trained and is paid for. It doesn't mean she supports him or agree withwhat he did

I read those articles and am not shocked she tried to use childhood trauma as an excuse for his behaviour. There must be thousands of people who’ve suffered some childhood trauma who don’t use it as an excuse for their actions.

I think Zavarro has been very clear that she did not try to excuse Pelicot (who pled guilty). Rather she tried to explain his behaviour. Of course she would have to use what he told her in order to do that, that is her job. I found her very respectful especially to Gisele.

I agree but he will also suffer in prison hopefully

I wonder if some people on this thread actually read the article?

Zavarro was offered the case entirely by chance in April 2021, after Pelicot’s lawyer failed to turn up to represent him in court on a charge of filming up the skirts of women in a supermarket, a crime that led to the uncovering of his decade-long abuse of his wife, but of which the lawyer was then unaware.

When Zavarro visited Pelicot in prison, she says he immediately told her: “I drugged my wife for years and offered her to men at night.”

I have no idea if "offered the case" in reality means was asked to take it or not but either way, when she took it on she didn't know the extent of his criminal behaviour.
I'm not saying she wouldn't have taken it but the idea that she was "selected" because she is female is obviously not true. She also doesn't really need ^ justification^for taking on the case^ - she is a criminal lawyer.

Iam says
Zavarro seems to be suggesting her clients trauma explains his behaviour - yes, but it doesn't excuse it - as she said. And he still has the right to good legal representation
Like Iam I don’t blame the lawyer for taking the case.

It doesn't mean she supports him or agree with what he did as EEjit says.
It also seems she is on reasonable terms with the group supporting Gisele.

Deverlanges, (who sounds like a spokesperson for this group) said she had spoken to Zavarro after the lawyer was booed by feminists outside the court last week. “I thanked her for having the courage to come out of the front"

“She has maintained a measured and tactful defence that has preserved the dignity of the debate and the integrity of the victim. We are very grateful for that.”

The lawyer's role was to see that her client got a fair hearing and to speak for him.
She, and everyone else, knew he was guilty.

It was the Mayor of the town that disgusted me. He stated that no one had died nor had any children had been harmed! I hope they get rid of him asap

The lawyer's role was to see that her client got a fair hearing and to speak for him.
She, and everyone else, knew he was guilty. Exactly this.

If the lawyer hadn't ensured that Pelicot had a fair hearing then he could have used that in an appeal.

Shazmo24

It was the Mayor of the town that disgusted me. He stated that no one had died nor had any children had been harmed! I hope they get rid of him asap

Lord, that's disgusting! And did you hear the excuse of one man who said 'I thought she was dead' as if that's OK then. Good grief.

ferry23

When news of this case first broke, I was very surprised that his lawyer was a woman.

She's said that her role was not to try and excuse him, but to explain his actions. She went on to describe some childhood trauma that led to him behaving in such a perverted fashion.

To me, that doesn't explain his behaviour at all.

For anyone interested, this is one of the articles about her.

www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/01/gisele-pelicot-is-not-my-adversary-says-defence-lawyer-treading-a-fine-line-in-mass-case

I'd be interested to hear others view of her role in this.

You may not think that childhood trauma explains perverted behaviour, but most psychiatrists who work with perverts would not agree with you.

And in this day and age, it should not make any difference whether the accused's lawyer is female or male. She is doing the job she is qualified to, and knows far better than any member of the public can or may before the trial what his man has actually done or not done.

It’s important we always acknowledge that not all adults who were sexually abused in childhood go on to abuse children. Not all sex offenders were abused as children.

Interesting comments.

I'd make a rubbish lawyer - I could never emotionally detach myself from cases such as these.

I wanted to be a barrisster, but lacked the cash or connections. I could emotionally detach myself from cases like this.

No one who cannot do that should be a lawyer. All lawyers, not just barristers have to apply the law even handly and with absolute fairness. As they say hard cases make bad law.