the Media was the public's eyes and ears in a lawsuit, but in the case of Jean-Claude Arnault it is impossible. The trial has been behind closed doors for privacy reasons, which is the norm in sexualbrottsmål. The consequence this time is that the media can not evaluate the judgment of Sweden's most talked about våldtäktsmål.Photo: Pontus Orre / AFTONBLADET Jean-Claude Arnault is sentenced to 2,5 years of imprisonment by the court of appeals
this case is like nothing else, admitted the appeals judge Lars zeus condemned . The attention has been enormous.
But the case is like nothing else in several ways. The first gives the plaintiff an (anonymous) interview for DN:s Matilda Gustavsson , where she is accusing Arnault of rape. After the positive response to the article makes the woman a police report. (It is a credit to her really that she wanted to get the charge tested.) Three months after the article, which is the talk of town, questioned the witnesses. All witnesses know a victim.
When I read the pre-trial investigation in the summer, I thought that Arnault would possibly be folded for the second indictment but not the first, but it was the opposite. Now he is convicted of both.
And something has obviously happened, even if the evidence is more complicated than both the district court and the court of appeal mean. The journey has witnesses diverged, even with themselves, whether the victim was drunk or not, sleeping or not, penetrated or not. The most eye-catching is the magazine on the floor, a unison speculation if the habitual behavior. That is to say, a proof that the man is a well designed monster.
Monster is also the image that been stirred up in the media. With precision to Arnault have sought out ”vulnerable” women which he easily availed. But an equally clear pattern is that he slept with purposeful women who either liked him or wanted to take advantage of the sex.
in light of to Arnaults character decided by the media, one can understand that the defense wanted to give a different picture. To call Catherine Miller as a witness, however, is incomprehensible. Either she is the equal of her husband, and thus the fine with his behavior, or is she co-dependent. I'm leaning towards the latter, and in that case she is the one who knows him the worst.
the Case can accommodate two stories. The only thing is legal. The other is interpersonal.
the Victim hits Arnault several times after the first rape, they eat dinner together, she follows him home. She visits him in Paris with his daughter, where it turns out that he has a woman. It can in other words not be so easy for him to understand her either. After a failed attempt from his side to lie, she describes him as ”nonplussed”.
this that makes the case so provocative, but also deeply fascinating. It simply provides a fascinating understanding of the ambivalence that makes so many relationships remain oförlösta. It is this entire world literature is all about.