Bernadette Dimet was considered the Isere assizes for murdering the man who brutalized the years. The case Jacqueline Wild, partially pardoned on Sunday by President of the Republic, marked the two-day trial.
Special Envoy to Grenoble
There is nothing worse than trying to reduce crime to a simple gesture. The foundation is, usually, the violence of a passage to the archaic act combined with the infinite complexity of a human situation.
The crime of Bernadette Dimet does not escape Rule. January 2, 2012, this woman, who turns 60 on February 19, was killed by a rifle shot her husband Bert Bernard, who terrorized, humiliated, brutalized the years. For the prosecution, it is a murder, punishable by life imprisonment. Thursday, the first day of the hearing was the amazing scene of the revelation of a family secret: in 1976, Bert Bernard, married for four years to Bernadette, had raped one of his sisters-and a child Jerome was born of this enforced relationship; he also sexually assaulted another sister of his wife, still a minor. Denis and Christophe, the two son of the deceased have learned – through the press – that their cousin was also their half-brother at the time of the death of their father.
At the time of the indictment, the Advocate General Therese Brunisso terrain ahead especially undermined the case Jacqueline Wild, sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the murder of her husband and partially pardoned on Sunday by President of the Republic, pollutes the minds. “Everything you have seen, read, heard, you must set it aside, rightly urges Ms. Brunisso. Every human history is special, no criminal case is like another. ” A little dig at the president Guilaine Grasset: “We may not have much about the charges against Dimet Bernadette, who was interviewed yesterday between 19h and 20h …”
“She left with four cartridges, there’s at least two too many for a suicide”
now, the Advocate General is developing a indictment of very high quality. She refuses facilities, shortcuts, platitudes, these warts thought that disfigure justice. About a perfectly straight, who dares to say that the case is complex, and that if the accused “has nothing Machiavellian,” “his memory was a work of transformation” elegant way to ask the jury not to think about everything. For Ms. Brunisso, intended homicide is no doubt, and Bernadette Dimet never had the intention to commit suicide. This 2 January 2012, she took a gun belonging to her husband, load two cartridges and two other slips in his pocket, concealing the weapon under a blanket and announces that goes “to the water tower “belted clearing of trees not far from the marital home. Her husband follows. “Why would he have taken the risk if he knew in possession of a loaded gun ?, asks the General Counsel. It is likely that it has offered to join him for some reason. “
” She left with four cartridges, there’s at least two too many for a suicide “poursuit- she. Finely, preventing the defense issue earlier hypothesis intended to sow doubt, she adds: “It might have wanted to kill her husband and then turned the gun against her in a sort of suicide in two. But first, she has never spoken since 2012 and, secondly, there is nothing to say that Bernard Bert was consenting. “
Thérèse Brunisso does not only second question the violence suffered by the accused, “his fear, threats, humiliation. It was a pathological couple, but in which there was also a form of pathological attachment. The mental hold of Bert Bernard led her to think that the only way out of his “prison” was to eliminate him. Otherwise, it was she who would eventually be killed. Bernadette Dimet was convinced that she had no alternative to free her husband. But objectively, it had the means to escape the otherwise “.
” Bert Bernard, the few people crying. This does not give as much to Bernadette Dimet a license to kill. “
At this time, the judge is attacking bravely in a speech that spilled ad nauseam Wild during the case: justice would otherwise be indifferent, at least mollassonne against violent men. Relying on his experience, it addresses a subject that obviously close to her heart, and lists all the legal institution has implemented in recent years to help battered women. “It is also necessary that the victim agrees, says Ms. Brunisso, she put aside her shame, her fear. Can you help protect a person against her? Often on domestic violence, complaints are filed and then withdrawn. Should the parquet always continue to pursue? I did, as a prosecutor. And saw the victim tell the president of the court, in the eye, “I lied.” I then asked if, in pursuing, I had not chosen the worst solution “
.
How not to draw a parallel with the accused, who never wanted to file a complaint against him that her husband since 1972, which benefited from what he threw out in December 2011 to settle in a flat, supported by her son and her sisters, but came back to spend the holidays in the marital home at the urging of his tormentor, sheltered behind a ridiculous non-aggression pact signed on the kitchen table by the gross, which knew he would not respect him? Bernadette Dimet she believed he would respect?
“Bert Bernard, took the Advocate General, the few people crying. This does not give as much to Bernadette Dimet a license to kill. You will consider what was his life, but your grief will be in terms of the value you place on human life. She spent 10 months in custody. Ten months is a punishment fit for a small burglar. If you do not send the accused to jail, you dénierez the victim’s quality of being human. You will take into account the seriousness of the facts, significant mitigating circumstances, the responsibility of alteration envisaged by the psychiatric expert. I ask you to vote against Bernadette Dimet, 8 years in prison. “
” The transition time in prison is not a fatality. “
in defense, Frédéric Doyez me, at first simply refill the court his client’s version, complete with formulas of his own. He cites Mauriac, specifically Thérèse Desqueyroux heroine who bears the name of the Advocate General, received a dismissal and whose husband – who does not die – first name is Bernard. Or he says the following about the hamlet where the drama was played: “Suptilieu is the end of the world. It is also said to be the land of the red vipers, under every stone there is a snake. “True, but in every clearing, there is not a corpse, and Me Doyez has trouble explaining why January 2, 2012, his client, “a silent woman, a kind of sleeping water,” killed her husband instead of suicide.
However, with timeliness and without twist Penal code, a right tone, he explains quietly that jurors may condemn jail because “the passage time in prison is not a fatality.” Never stray into the hazy concept of “legitimate defense deferred” – “legal heresy” had scolded the Advocate General on this they agree – without ever saying the word “acquittal”, he disputes the intent to kill, speaks of assault causing death without intention to kill, and suggests a sentence totally suspended shall (2 to 5 years) or allowing immediate penalty layout (no more than two years firm). A reasonable argument, too small for a criminal for his actions. An argument which is not defending a cause but a modest working Dauphiné, crushed by an odious husband, crushed by a shameful secret, crushed by the pain of seeing away from her own son, she killed the father. A practical argument, in that it offers a range of solutions to the jurors.
When the court returned its verdict two hours and a half after being part deliberate, the Dimet sisters sit in rank onion and hold hands so hard that distance, we see their knuckles whiten. President gives answers to questions, it is not the third: voluntary homicide is discarded. The sentence now: five-year suspended sentence for voluntary violence causing death without intention to kill. “Thank you!”, Launched welded sisters.
Each has held its place in the foundations of the Isere. The Crown sought the conviction of a criminal. The defense suggested a sentence appropriate, given the unrealistic acquittal. So, the matter resurfaced Jacqueline Wild. The latter, for killing an abusive husband, was sentenced twice to ten years’ imprisonment, despite intense media campaign. Jurors Grenoble just shown that citizens drawn to try one of their fellows are sensitive to the plight of a woman when she is not in doubt – perhaps the Advocate General there underestimated this natural impulse by requiring a little higher than necessary. Their verdict proves that one can condemn a heart humiliated wife that theoretically liable to imprisonment for life.
It also asks a question, ridiculous insofar as it never has answer in the name of what did we felt, to the highest level of the state, the jury of Orleans and Blois were wrong about Jacqueline Wild
?
No comments:
Post a Comment