Plainte d’Adèle Haenel : cinq ans requis contre Christophe Ruggia, pour « remettre le monde à l’endroit »
by Sophie Boutboul - Mediapart, December 10, 2024
Photo from France Dernières Nouvelles,France Actualités
[NB: My translation of the coverage of the first day of the trial can be found here.]
On the second day of the director's trial, the prosecutor called for him to be sentenced to five years' imprisonment, including two years for sexual assault of a minor, so that justice can be a tool in the «fight against silence» when confronting sexual violence against children.
«Shut the hell up!» Tense and exhausted, Adèle Haenel finally exploded with anger in the courtroom on Tuesday December 10, the second day of director Christophe Ruggia's trial. Since Monday, the director has been on trial for sexual assault of a minor, committed between 2001 and 2004, with the aggravating circumstance of having been a person in authority over her. Adèle Haenel was between 12 and 14 years old.
In the middle of the proceedings, the actress rose and briefly left the courtroom of the Paris Criminal Court, followed by her lawyers. The woman who had chosen to withdraw from the cinema could not bear to listen to the man against whom she had brought suit as he rambled in his defense. At the stand, the director said he had suggested that Adèle Haenel change her last name «to protect her», saying «Adèle H reminded me of Truffaut.» Adèle H is the title of a film by Truffaut, released in 1975. A film about a woman consumed by a passionate love affair.
Shortly prior to this, Adèle Haenel had explained at the stand: «Who was there to tell this child: “It's not your fault”? Everyone says I should feel sorry for Mr. Ruggia’s plight, but there are consequences for sexually abusing children.»
At the end of a nine-hour hearing, prosecutor Camille Poch called for five years' imprisonment, including three years’ probation and a restraining order on contacting the actress, as well as an obligation to compensate her. She specified that the two years' imprisonment could be convertible to house arrest under electronic surveillance.
She also requested a ten-year ban on working with minors, registration with the Fichier judiciaire automatisé des auteurs d'infractions sexuelles (FIJAIS) [Automated criminal record of sex offenders] and a provisional sentence.
Two witnesses on the stand
The day began with the testimony of two witnesses: director Mona Achache, who was in a relationship with Christophe Ruggia for a year around 2010-2011, and his sister Véronique Ruggia.
The former gave precise, detailed testimony. As she had already done during the investigation, the filmmaker told the court about Ruggia's confidences during their relationship: once, Adèle Haenel was said to have had «her head»on his lap and his hand had «moved up to her breasts». He then told her that he’d withdrawn his hand when Adèle looked at him with «fright». «I think it's a laudable little confession that conceals a much more disturbing truth», said Achache. A testimony that Ruggia disputes.
The director claims that in 2019, when the accusations against Ruggia were revealed in Mediapart, her own daughter told her that he «was very controlling, with a rather heavy-handed way» with her, when she was 11 years old and they were all living under the same roof.
Mona Achache also stated that while «he talked a lot about her talent as an actress, he was also fascinated by her body». In her own relationship with him, she spoke of «a superior attitude», the fact that he had «a kind of hold» over her as a director who was «more powerful» than she was at the time.
Asked by Anouck Michelin, Adèle Haenel's lawyer along with Yann Le Bras, what had attracted Ruggia to her, she replied: «Obviously my youth [Ed. note: she is twenty-six years younger than he is], an inner fracture, my vulnerability. And a kind of intelligence, to say something positive.» She explained that when she became aware of the situation Christophe Ruggia was describing to her with a child, she «kicked him out» after being confronted with the disaster of a new «abuse» in her life.
Véronique Ruggia was also heard as a witness. The director's sister was Adèle Haenel’s coach on Les Diables, a feature film in which she was also first assistant director. Several years after the shoot, the actress allegedly told her that he had «tried to grope her», but also that he had «declared his love for her and tried to kiss her». She told the court that Adèle Haenel had said: «It's horrible, he's old», it's «disgusting».
Véronique Ruggia explained that she was «shattered» when she heard this statement. She recounted how she confronted her brother a few years later, and that he had «burst into tears». According to her, he told her: «I've lost Adèle», and told her about an «unfortunate action while he was crying» and a scenario about which she would have been «offended».
The defendant's sister confided her uneasiness: «I see Christophe's downfall, banished from his profession, from Paris, and he blames me for having supported Adèle on the feminist principle of saying that if there are acts of control or power imbalance, we must denounce them.»
Anouck Michelin's closing arguments
Prior to the closing arguments, in a vast courtroom still packed with Adèle Haenel's family and friends and film personalities such as actresses Aïssa Maïga and Noémie Merlant who had come to support her, Anouck Michelin began her statement.
«It's often said that speech is silver while silence is gold. In this chamber, silence is rarely golden; rather, it's more like death. [...] To unburden this word, you have to face up to the shame you feel for not having said something sooner», began Ms. Michelin, already bringing tears to her client's face.
She targets the man «who rewrites history» in the 119 pages of his account «Adèle Killed Me», found in his computer and written after our investigation was published in 2019: «M. Ruggia tells us that it's the child who is completely to blame, that she's too sensual, too wild, too dangerous for his sofa.»
Adèle Haenel's lawyer stressed that, while she would only remember «filth» about the director, she described Adèle Haenel as a rough diamond whom Ruggia would have made a «puppet». «The problem is, a diamond is tough, it’s strong», she said, eliciting a smile from Adèle Haenel, her face closed until then.
The lawyer extended the diamond metaphor to talk about a gemological term for the crack in a diamond called a flaw: «This is what you will always be, Mr. Ruggia, a flaw in a rough diamond.»
Anouck Michelin's last words are not for the director or the actress, but for «little Adele»: «You need to listen to me, you're 12 years old, it wasn't up to you to say no, to not get on the sofa... None of this is your fault [...]. I know you were alone, but you're not anymore, and you know, Adèle, when you grow up, you'll be a great actress, and it’ll all be thanks to yourself and your talent. Tonight, Adèle, go home proud because you were able to protect yourself, to free yourself from his stranglehold, his influence; tonight, free yourself for good.»
Her colleague Yann Le Bras followed up with an argument for his client, who «brings the humility of her memory to say: “I'm only denouncing what I'm absolutely sure of”».
He also spoke of a director who introduced a «permissive campaign» with regard to his actress: «He's neither the first nor unfortunately the last.» Mr. Le Bras enumerated at least 120 Saturdays over three and a half years, excluding holidays. At a rate of three or four hours per encounter, he arrives at «450 hours» in which «this man and this young child were behind closed doors»: «Fingers, Orangina and wandering hands on the breasts, on the stomach, in the panties of a little girl.»
«The only #MeToo that doesn't have a #MeToo»
For Ruggia's defense, led by lawyers Fanny Colin and Orly Rezlan, the Mediapart articles have been the target of numerous comments since they are, in their words, «a complementary indictment against Christophe Ruggia»
Colin said she understood the «anger and suffering» but that «history» had been «rewritten», since «all the witnesses either took part in [Mediapart's] investigation, or read it». She spoke of a «contamination effect» among the witnesses.
To justify Christophe Ruggia's words about his love for Adèle Haenel, she talks about his «focus» in his letters, which she says are not love letters, but those «from an admirer to the actress», as he concludes one with: «I miss your friendship terribly.»
She insisted that in her expertise, there was no «abnormal attraction of the pedophilic kind». And that his association on pornographic sites with the words «nice teen», «college teen with his professor», would be «pop-ups» (windows that are opened on the web page): as the police concluded, there was «no [history of] pedophilic searches», she said.
She also pointed out that her client would be «the only #MeToo that doesn't have a #MeToo» compared to the accusations against others that «are accruing». Since 2019, she assured that «not a single person has come forward to say that Mr. Ruggia has so much as looked the wrong way at a child or a young girl».
Colin's fear: «That the judiciary will have to dispense justice with a gun to its head.» «By virtue of the principle that the accused must have the benefit of the doubt», she asked the court to acquit, as this principle was in her opinion «not a patriarchal principle designed to protect aggressors, but to protect the innocent».
Five years to «set the world straight»
For her part, prosecutor Camille Poch made a specific indictment for a conviction, to «set the world straight, to remind us of the forbidden, and who was the child, who was the adult».
She pointed out that Adèle Haenel had always been «clear and consistent» in her statements, whether in the Mediapart article or before the police, the examining magistrate or during confrontation. «Adèle Haenel told us the story of a gradual influence, but just because the hold is subtle and insidious doesn't mean it's any less serious», asserted the prosecutor.
With the actress facing her, the representative of the public prosecutor's office spoke of the «collective abdication of adults, Adèle Haenel's terrible isolation during the time of the events, when Christophe Ruggia became and remained the only adult in her life».
She listed the many witnesses and confidants, including her first boyfriend, then her ex-girlfriend, the director Céline Sciamma, her own brother, and Mona Achache, who was interviewed that very morning. She also recalled the «feeling of unease» described by Christel Baras, the casting director for the film Les Diables, when she ran into Adèle Haenel on two occasions at the director's home.
The prosecutor also described Ruggia's «modus operandi»: «their respective positions, the changes of location, the attitudes, the panting, the hand in the collar of the T-shirt, on the chest». She recalled the «trigger» for the actress to speak out: fearing for new victims with the launch of [Ruggia’s] project in 2019 involving teenagers.
Camille Poch also pointed out that the acts denounced «will stop only through the efforts» of the actress. She underlined the use of a «lexical field of love» that leaves little doubt: «My heart exploded once again in my chest», «Let her know that I loved her».
In asking the court to enter a guilty verdict, the prosecutor also relied on computer expertise, which she said confirms Christophe Ruggia's «sexualized view» of Adèle Haenel, notably through his Google search for «adele haenel hot», dating from 2011, and his words in one of his texts - «Adèle at 12 years was overflowing with sensuality».
Sexual violence, an «inoculated death»
Sexual violence, said the prosecutor, quoting Gisèle Halimi, is like «an inoculated death», which is reflected here in the «massive psychological repercussions» for Adèle Haenel: the «disruption of the construction of identity markers, a depressive episode after the fact, her desire to die, everything that makes up post-traumatic syndrome».
The representative of the public prosecutor's office criticized Ruggia's «improbable line of defense», which tends to emphasize «revenge on the actress’ part». She also highlighted Ruggia's «inability» to recognize the «inappropriate nature of these encounters between an adult man and a pre-teen girl twenty-four years his junior».
«Regarding the absence of consent, coercion is characterized», asserted the prosecutor, by Adèle Haenel's age, the age difference [between them], the total absence of acknowledgement of Adèle Haenel's sexuality, the director's hierarchical advantage and the «obvious domination» in relation to an actress, the occurrence of psychological manipulation, the description of her state of «stupefaction» and her attitude of physical refusal.
In asking the court to convict him, she drew on the actress' «particular vulnerability» in facing an adult who «doesn't acknowledge the facts»: «Sentencing means putting guilt back in the right place.» Camille Poch was also keen to respond to Adèle Haenel's phrase - «Justice ignores us, we ignore justice» - to send a message to her and all other victims seeking this conviction: “Justice must also be the tool of this other enemy which is silence, justice must be there to condemn the act, it must remain as leverage for all those who have no one else.»
[Please don’t repost this anywhere, in part or in whole. Feel free to reblog, or at least cite your source and provide a link back here. Asking permission would be nice in an ideal world, but I’m a realist – I know far too well how easy it is to appropriate stuff on Tumblr. I would be the first to admit that my translations are not perfect – there are some words and phrases that simply do not drop neatly into an equivalent in English, and I constantly fix typos and make changes or corrections in older posts – but they do take a lot of work and time. Thanks for understanding. - C.]
h/t to @thexfridax for the article! Thank you, Ros!
jbbartram-illu
jacobvanloon
prguitarman
blakekathryn
izzy806
gummygunk
