sentenced to twelve months suspended prison sentence for drug administration “in order to commit rape or sexual assault”, while the prosecution had not retained sexual intention, the ex-president of the Institut Montaigne called.
by Raphaëlle bacquée
Laurent Bigorgne was not there, Thursday, December 8, when the Paris Criminal Court rendered his judgment. The former director of the Montaigne Institute, a liberal think tank influence the right, the left, and in particular the head of state, Emmanuel Macron, therefore did not hear President Eric Vivian state this judgment Mid-goat half-“incoherent and insane”, castigates M e Sébastien Shapira, the lawyer for M. Bigorgne.
For having drugged his former sister-in-law Sophie Conrad, during an evening in February, this familiar with power circles was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with a suspended and 2,000 euros of $ fine. It was below the requisitions of the prosecution, which had requested, on November 10, eighteen months of suspended imprisonment and an obligation of care. But the court also considered that Laurent Bigorgne had drugged the young woman “in order to commit rape or sexual assault on him”, thus requaling the facts, even though the prosecution had not retained sexual intention.
“Complete recognition”
More heavy qualification, lighter pain, the judgment can amaze. His scope was however immediately understood by the complainant who expressed her relief after the reclassification of the court: “It is a recognition of what happened and the facts, and a complete recognition”, thus praised Sophie Conrad, After the deliberation, expressing in particular his satisfaction to see retained the intention to commit rape or sexual assault.
For Laurent Bigorgne, this is precisely what he wanted to avoid at all costs. From his police custody, in February, then during his trial, the former number two of Sciences Po had immediately recognized having paid MDMA (Ecstasy) into the glass of his ex-Belle Sister. He had also confessed his own addiction to cocaine. “I took up to 4 grams per day,” he explained in court, describing in detail his crazy work rates and the hellish spiral in which he had sunk. But he argued that he had drugged the one who was then his collaborator at the Montaigne Institute for the sole purpose “to speak to him”, fiercely contesting any sexual intention.
The president of the court had cited at length the dozens of sexual connotation texts which Laurent Bigorgne had bombed the young woman. He also recalled that Mr. Bigorgne had previously drugged his own companion. Before asking this simple question to which the historian had not been able to clearly answer: “Why, if you have trouble speaking, do you need to drug one or the other?”
You have 11.85% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.