“I want to talk to you about this man”
“I want to talk to you about this man.” That’s how attorney Alexandre Novion described his client, Christophe Ellul.
“You don’t necessarily defend better when you have a certain affection for someone. But when you feel about the person you’re defending, maybe you find the words.”
“Christophe hasn’t had a life since what happened. He lives in a closet. This man is destroyed. I am one of his last acceptable relationships, with his sister,” his lawyer said.
“It has been a particularly difficult trial for Christophe. Because he is the necessary scaffolding, as if he had to respond and take responsibility with the words he can find.”
Christophe Ellul “is a man of few words.” “He is rather gruff… he doesn’t realize how to talk about love well, but he knows how to feel it.”
“We absolutely want someone to be held accountable”
The attorney stood, behind his client who was seated, as he made his point. He removed his glasses, holding them by one of the arms.
“Today, we have difficulty, when a tragedy happens, considering that there isn’t a human side that must be held responsible. We absolutely want someone to be held accountable.”
“In a tragedy like this, you are tempted to witness a framework of human responsibility.”
The lawyer pays “tribute to an important person”
He said he wanted “to pay tribute” to “an important person” in this case.
“I can’t help but acknowledge the dignity of this woman I have been observing since the beginning of the trial.”
He said she “demonstrates incredible dignity.” “She has no hatred. She is here in her grief, trying to understand. It’s terrible to lose a child.”
He was speaking about the mother of Elisa Pilarski.
“I too want to tell her that I am not an adversary of the truth. I plead what I think is possible. I have never, in my life, defended something I didn’t believe was possible.”
After this case, “no one can enter a forest peacefully”
“Grief can craft you a manipulable being,” the lawyer said. He explained that he had taken “a number of initiatives” upon entering the case, criticizing social media’s role in the aftermath.
He said the case has grow “a case of noise, of fury, told by a madman like in Hamlet.” He continued, “And after experiencing this case, no one can enter a forest peacefully without asking questions.”
Novion discusses the “controversy” surrounding the case
He addressed the “controversy” between “defenders of the hunt” and “animal defenders.”
“It was said that we were on one side, then on the other. I like hunting, I have a hunting license. And like all hunters, I love nature. I have never been a fan of horseback hunting or an fanatic of animal welfare,” Novion said. “But you are in a case that, without you knowing it, becomes controversial.”
Novion points to a “turning point” in the case
“I would say This represents an exceptional case, because it is a window open on civilization.”
(…)
“When you have a turning point in a case with such power, such virality as the image given to everyone of a biting dog, obsessed with biting, with sometimes images of this dog that are not this dog. And that will be presented as the dog from hell… the one who can do anything.”
A “unique” trial
He described the trial as “unique.” “You can’t defend someone for so long without developing a bond of trust, a certain bond of empathy.”
He continued, “I will try to share my knowledge with you… try to make you understand that the man I am defending has remained truthful and not a liar. A liar who lies as if producing red blood cells.”
Start of the defense’s closing argument
The hearing resumes. Christophe Ellul is seated on his bench. His attorney, Alexandre Novion, begins to speak.
“I have the honor to speak before you in the interest of Christophe Ellul.”
(…)
“Since Tuesday, since we have been immersed in this hearing… You have allowed, in a difficult case, the word to circulate, for everyone to express themselves with dignity.”
Hearing suspended
The hearing is suspended for a few moments. Upon resumption, the attorney for Christophe Ellul will speak.
As a reminder, a decision will not be made today. It will be deliberated upon.
Four years of suspended imprisonment requested for Christophe Ellul
The prosecutor requested four years of suspended imprisonment for Christophe Ellul. Regarding Curtis, she requested euthanasia.
Request to reclassify the charges to involuntary manslaughter by dog attack, without aggravating circumstances
The prosecutor requested the charges be reclassified as involuntary manslaughter by dog attack, without aggravating circumstances.
Curtis’s habit of biting
The prosecutor continues her demonstration, now focusing on Curtis’s habit of biting. She has been speaking for nearly two hours.
She recalls that dog bite training is illegal in France. She also recalls that Curtis’s training was poorly conducted by Christophe Ellul, according to an expert who observed him.
The illegal importation of Curtis into France
“It wasn’t Mr. Ellul who directly caused the damage,” the prosecutor reminded the court. She provided a detailed review of the law.
She listed three faults attributed to Christophe Ellul. First, the illegal entry of Curtis into French territory.
Christophe Ellul went to the Netherlands to retrieve Curtis, his country of birth.
She pointed to documents where the breed of Curtis does not match his physical characteristics, suggesting they were “falsified.” She added that one document lists him as an American Pitbull Terrier.
However, the prosecutor said, like the experts, she is unable to confirm that he is a categorized dog.
(…)
“Curtis had no veterinary follow-up in France. He is not registered in the French national database, while Chivas (another dog owned by Christophe Ellul; Ndlr) is.” She added, “At the very least, he was aware of the falsification.”
The infamous text message: “I’ll have him put down”
The prosecutor returned to the text message: “I’ll have him put down.” It was discovered on Elisa Pilarski’s phone. Ellul had sent it after receiving a plea for help from his partner.
He hinted that the gendarmes may have deleted the message, which was never found on his phone.
“He tells us that he didn’t delete the text. You tell us that. I didn’t know… he immediately deletes the text because he doesn’t want anyone to understand that the attack was initiated by his dog.”
“He no longer wants Curtis to be in contact with other dogs”
“The grief can make you easily manipulated,” the prosecutor said. She explained that she had taken “a number of initiatives” upon entering the case.
She said the case was becoming “a case of noise, of fury, told by a madman like in Hamlet.” She continued, “And after experiencing this case, no one can enter a forest peacefully without asking questions.”
“I demonstrate that Curtis initiated the attack”
“I demonstrate that Curtis initiated the attack. First, Elisa calls you. She calls no one else. She calls her partner because she can no longer control her dog, and she wants her partner to yell at it.”
(…)
She recalls the testimony of hunters who all say the same thing: Christophe Ellul presented his dog as “dangerous” upon arriving in the Retz forest.
She elaborates: if Elisa Pilarski had said she was attacked by a pack, Christophe Ellul would have said the hunters’ dogs were dangerous.
“It was to kill Elisa”
“It is quite possible, sir, that your dog, the first time he bit, was trying to kill Elisa.”
“They are part of the pack”
The prosecutor revisited the timeline of events in the Retz forest. “The dogs, which he sees when he arrives, are part of the pack.”
Christophe Ellul has consistently said he encountered four or five dogs upon arriving in the forest, after receiving his partner’s call for help.
“Between the truck (where the hunting dogs were; Ndlr) and Elisa’s body, there are 700 meters as the crow flies. This route cannot be taken directly, even for a dog.”
“No evidence of failure to assist a person in danger”
She continued what she described as an “introduction.”
“There is no evidence in this procedure of failure to assist a person in danger and of modifying the crime scene.”
“I will ask that you be found guilty”
“Justice is not for or against anyone, ever. Justice doesn’t care if horseback hunting has money, if it’s a powerful lobby. Justice takes a case, it searches, it gathers the evidence,” the prosecutor said.
(…)
“I’m not going to prolong the suspense, I will ask that you be found guilty.”
“She would have forgiven you”
“Mr. Ellul, you asked for proof of Curtis’s involvement when you started speaking… I don’t know where you are now. Yesterday you took a step towards us… then you stepped back.”
(…)
“I wanted to tell you, that what I felt, is that she would have forgiven your lies (Elisa Pilarski’s mother; Ndlr) if she could have known her daughter’s last words.”
Prosecutor begins her statement
The prosecutor begins her statement, addressing her first words to the family of Elisa Pilarski.
Hearing suspended
The hearing is suspended. It will resume at 1:45 PM. Upon resumption, the attorney for Christophe Ellul will speak.
Pleadings continue
The pleadings are not finished. The court hears the attorney representing the association “A Shelter for All.”
“You committed clear faults, sir”
He recalls that Elisa Pilarski was six months pregnant. “You committed clear faults, sir.”
“A turning point” in the case
The attorney speaks. He explains that Christophe Ellul went to the Netherlands to purchase Curtis specifically for illegal competitions.
“He is the only one responsible”
“He knew very well from the beginning that it was his dog, and he led everyone towards horseback hunting.”
“I’ll have him put down”
The attorney turns to Christophe Ellul. He returns to that text message: “I’ll have him put down.” The message was found on Elisa Pilarski’s phone.
Attorney for Pilarski family says Ellul committed two errors from the start
Attorney Xavier Terquem-Adoue begins to speak. He represents the mother and uncle of Elisa Pilarski.
“I have never seen such carnage in the history of horseback hunting. And I asked my clients to separate from Christophe Ellul.” The defendant had moved in with them after Elisa Pilarski’s death.
The attorney says Christophe Ellul committed two errors.
“The only one responsible is Curtis”
“The only one responsible is Curtis.” Attorney Guillaume Demarcq concludes his statement.
He speaks of “the ordeal” Elisa Pilarski endured
He discusses the dog bite training. “The result is this dog jumping, jumping… totally obsessed with catching the sausage he was trained with. He has only one goal: to catch what he considers prey.”
“You can imagine what kind of ordeal this woman went through,” he continues.
(…)
He returns to the time the animal bit its owner, two days after Elisa Pilarski’s death.
“This dog attacks the coat of the sister. You can imagine the scene? He attacks Christophe Ellul. It’s his master!”
“Curtis, what is he? It’s a mystery”
“A dog remains a dog. And, incredibly, the first responders didn’t believe it. Given the severity, they said: impossible, a dog can’t do that,” said Demarcq.
“Curtis is not a dog like the others, there have been expert opinions. One specialist says that the size/weight ratio makes it quite possible… he obviously has the strength to do what he did.”
(…)
“Curtis, what is he? It’s a mystery. You have false papers. You are told he comes from a crossbreed… this dog was bought in the Netherlands because Christophe Ellul wanted this dog specifically for illegal competitions.”
“I have no doubt that Curtis is solely responsible for Elisa Pilarski’s death”
He discusses the size of the dogs’ jaws. “This is an element that further indicates that it wasn’t the horseback hunt,” the attorney emphasized.
“I have no doubt that Curtis is solely responsible for Elisa Pilarski’s death. Because the size of the jaws corresponds, because you have his DNA throughout Elisa’s hair.”
“The horseback hunt wasn’t there”
He addresses the theory of the hunting dogs, which was naturally investigated at the beginning of the case.
“The prosecutor recalled that all investigations into the dogs were identical for all the dogs,” the attorney for the horseback hunting society emphasized.
(…)
“The horseback hunt wasn’t there at that time,” he continues, relying on the various elements debated throughout the hearing.
Novion speaks of a “turning point”
“I would say this is an exceptional case, because it is a window open on civilization.”
(…)
“When you have a turning point in a case with such power, such virality as the image given to everyone of a biting dog, obsessed with biting, with sometimes images of this dog that are not this dog. And that will be presented as the dog from hell… the one who can do anything.”
“This tragedy has been instrumentalized”
“This tragedy has been instrumentalized by a number of people who, I believe, didn’t care at all about who Elisa Pilarski was, and who used the remains of this young woman as an abject stepping stone.”
He mentions the crowdfunding campaign and the receipt of threatening letters.
Start of civil party pleadings
Attorney Guillaume Demarcq, representing the horseback hunting society, begins to speak. He is the first civil party attorney to plead.
“I knew Christophe was in denial”
Elisa Pilarski’s uncle speaks. “I wanted to have Elisa’s last words (referring to her call for help to Christophe Ellul on November 16, 2019). After the hearing, I knew Christophe was a little bit in denial.”
The civil party pleadings begin.
“Is he understood what she was saying?”
Elisa Pilarski’s mother takes the stand. “Everything leads us to believe that it was Curtis who attacked Elisa,” she says. “Mr. Ellul believed from the beginning that everyone was against him… since he was at my house at the time, he had phone conversations saying that everything said was false.”
She returns to “the shock of the death.” “We didn’t know where we were… our lawyers brought us some truth about the circumstances.”
“Everything leads us to believe that Curtis attacked Elisa”
Elisa Pilarski’s mother speaks. “Everything leads us to believe that Curtis attacked Elisa,” she said. “Mr. Ellul has believed since the beginning that everyone is against him… since he was at my house at the time, he had discussions where he said that everything being said was false.”
She recalls “the shock of the death” of her daughter. “We didn’t know where we were… our lawyers brought us a little truth about the circumstances.”
Hearing resumes
The hearing resumes. The president invites the mother to the stand. She is a civil party in the case.
Brief suspension
The president announces a brief suspension of the hearing.
“You lied”
“Throughout this hearing, you have only shown that you lied,” the prosecutor concluded after difficult exchanges with the defendant, particularly regarding the conspiracy theory advanced by Ellul.
The theory involved claims that gendarmes deliberately gave Curtis Elisa Pilarski’s scalp to chew on shortly after the facts, to create false evidence of the dog’s guilt.
“I ask you the central question”
The prosecutor addresses Christophe Ellul. She explains why no canine DNA was identified on Elisa Pilarski’s wounds.
“On a wound, there is bleeding. There is a lot of DNA contained in the blood. It is very often seen, it is extremely rare to find different canine DNA.”
She moves on to the only unknown canine DNA, identified in three places: on the victim’s coat and scarf.
The prosecutor addresses Christophe Ellul
Christophe Ellul is at the bar, still dressed in black. The president now addresses the different phases of evidence collection after the discovery of Elisa Pilarski’s body.
Biological samples were taken from Christophe Ellul’s dogs and from the 21 dogs that participated in the horseback hunt.
On November 16, 2019, Elisa Pilarski had an altercation with a man walking his dog. He was located and his dog was also examined.
“I didn’t confess”
“Yesterday, you said the president gave you proof that he was guilty (Curtis),” said the prosecutor.
“I didn’t confess,” Ellul replied.
Today, the defendant says he is “waiting for the truth.” This follows his admission yesterday that he believed the president had revealed the truth.
“I asked for proof of Curtis’s involvement when I started speaking… I don’t know where you are now. Today, I think we have the evidence.”
No canine DNA found on Elisa Pilarski’s wounds
No canine DNA was identified on Elisa Pilarski’s wounds. This is explained by the abundance of the victim’s blood and the mud. For some wounds, the bites were made through clothing, and DNA was found on the clothing.
A mixture of uninterpretable canine DNA
The president continues reading the report. She reports a mixture of uninterpretable canine DNA on the coat.
This can be explained by various factors: the presence of more than two canine DNAs or the insufficient quality of the canine biological material.
Experts’ extraction method
The prosecutor explains how the DNA comparisons were carried out on the various sealed items she lists: the muzzle, the harness, Elisa Pilarski’s clothing, her mobile phone, her hair, and a white towel.
These sealed items were sent to a laboratory.
