But what exactly does Gérard Depardieu’s so-called ‘case for acquittal’ rest on? The line of defence is now becoming clear: to challenge Charlotte Arnould’s account of the two meetings on 7 and 13 August 2018, to highlight her behaviour during and after these meetings, and, even more directly, to attempt to undermine her credibility.
The most striking argument is undoubtedly the request for a new psychiatric assessment of Charlotte Arnould. The defence wishes an expert to rule on what it presents as a possible ‘propensity to fabricate stories’. To justify this request, the lawyers cite, in particular, another rape allegation made by the actress in 2020 against a different actor. That case did not result in charges being brought against the man and, according to reports in *Le Parisien*, the investigation had supported the view that the relationship was consensual. This does not, of course, legally imply that Charlotte Arnould lied in the Depardieu case: it is precisely one of the arguments the defence wishes to use to cast doubt on the reliability of her account.
This is, moreover, nothing new. Back in 2025, *Le Monde* had already reported that Gérard Depardieu’s defence team was requesting a further psychological assessment, citing several allegations of sexual abuse made by Charlotte Arnould against other men. Here again, it is important to be extremely precise: this is an argument put forward by the defence and not a court ruling establishing that these allegations were false.
The second pillar of the case is much more concrete: the videos recorded at Gérard Depardieu’s Paris home. Some of the encounters were filmed by the CCTV system. The defence argues that these images show no obvious signs of resistance on Charlotte Arnould’s part and are inconsistent with the state of shock she describes. In particular, the lawyers highlight a kiss lasting approximately 43 seconds, as well as several instances of the couple embracing.
This is probably where the legal crux of the case lies, as the same videos are subject to radically opposing interpretations. Investigators had notably observed, in certain sequences, that Charlotte Arnould appeared calm or relaxed. The young woman, on the other hand, explains that she was paralysed with fear and unable to express her refusal in the usual way. A psychological assessment had concluded that her lack of resistance and her inhibition could be consistent with a state of psychological shock. The prosecution also considered that her vulnerability, the age difference, Gérard Depardieu’s fame and the influence he exerted over her could constitute elements of coercion.
The defence also emphasises that Charlotte Arnould admitted she had not clearly expressed her refusal verbally. As for Gérard Depardieu, he claimed that her behaviour had, on the contrary, led him to believe she was consenting to the sexual acts. However, the actor himself stated during the preliminary investigation that, with hindsight, he could envisage that she may not have consented and that he may have misinterpreted her consent.
One piece of testimony is also highlighted: that of a cleaner who was present during one of the encounters. She reportedly stated that she had seen Gérard Depardieu and Charlotte Arnould kissing normally and had thought that the young woman was the actor’s girlfriend. For his lawyers, this testimony reinforces the idea that no obvious outward signs of distress or refusal were perceptible at the time.
Another key piece of evidence: the messages sent after the alleged incidents. On 19 August 2018, six days after the second encounter, Charlotte Arnould sent Gérard Depardieu an affectionate message in which she mentioned, amongst other things, her wish to work on a scene with him soon and to see him again. The defence argues that this type of exchange is difficult to reconcile with the account of a woman who had just suffered two rapes. Charlotte Arnould offers a completely different interpretation: she explains that these messages did not reflect her inner state and that she was trying to manage a situation of control and avoid direct confrontation.
Finally, the lawyers intend to exploit what they regard as inconsistencies or weaknesses in the complainant’s various statements. However, this argument clashes directly with the investigating magistrate’s analysis. According to details of the indictment order obtained by AFP, the investigating magistrate, on the contrary, considered Charlotte Arnould’s statements to be ‘clear and precise’ from the time of her first complaint and deemed them to be corroborated by CCTV footage. The judge, on the other hand, described certain statements made by Gérard Depardieu as inconsistent.
This is therefore a particularly interesting case because it does not rest solely on the simplistic question of whether a physical relationship took place: this is no longer really at the heart of the debate. The fundamental issue is that of consent and, above all, how it may or may not be inferred from behaviour. Do a kiss, the absence of screams, returning to someone’s home a few days later or an affectionate text message prove consent to specific sexual acts? In Gérard Depardieu’s defence, the combination of these elements creates, at the very least, sufficient doubt for no criminal charges to be brought. For Charlotte Arnould, her solicitor, the Crown Prosecution Service and the investigating judge, however, such behaviour may, on the contrary, coexist with a state of shock and manipulation.
The Crown Prosecution Service is, moreover, seeking confirmation that Gérard Depardieu should be referred to the criminal court. Carine Durrieu Diebolt, Charlotte Arnould’s solicitor, accuses the actor’s new legal team of pursuing a strategy of ‘denigrating the victim’. The decision of the Investigating Chamber is due to be handed down at a later date. At this stage, neither the defence’s arguments nor those of the civil party constitute a definitive ruling on Gérard Depardieu’s guilt: it is precisely the question of whether these matters should be debated during a trial that is now in the hands of the courts.
