A former professor and former research chair at the University of Montreal, described as the “queen of sadomasochism,” faces two years in prison for destroying an ex-lover’s career by publicly portraying him as a violent sexual predator, among others. the guise of the #metoo movement.
Posted at 5:15 PM
Ann Letellier was found guilty by a jury last March on two charges of criminal harassment and racketeering at the Sorel-Tracy courthouse. The trial of the 57-year-old university researcher immersed the jurors in a quasi-porn film by describing the particularly daring sexual practices of the two former lovers for days.
† [La victime] described her as the queen of sadomasochism with things never seen before, such as fruits and vegetables,” said Attorney Mrs.and Alexandra Longueville, Wednesday, while judging submissions. The defense asks for a suspended sentence, while the Crown proposes a two-year prison term.
A few years after their 20-year extramarital affair ended, Ann Letellier launched a smear campaign in 2018 and 2019 against her ex-lover, a University of Montreal employee whose identity is protected by a court order.
In addition to multiplying the complaints against the victim, Ann Letellier sent a lengthy letter to about thirty people in which she claimed to have been sexually abused by the victim. The researcher with a 140-page resume painted an extremely dark and defamatory portrait of her ex-lover by portraying him as a pedophile, among other things.
Ann Letellier, however, completely invented these sexual assaults to destroy her ex-lover’s career, emphasized the Crown Prosecutor, Mrs.and Genevieve Beaudin. “If she says she’s been a victim for 20 years, I have to tell you she’s lying to you and she’s not credible,” she begged. “His testimony was totally implausible,” the prosecutor added.
The “planned and premeditated” harassment led by Ann Letellier had “extremely significant” and “devastating” effects on the victim’s life, which continue to this day, argued Ms.and Beaudin. The man was therefore incorrectly labeled as a sexual aggressor in the context of the #metoo indictment movement.
Judge Hélène di Salvo also questioned during the hearing whether Ann Letellier had “used the #metoo movement to scare the victim”.
In addition, the Crown adds, the victim was tried in some way for sexual assault as part of the accused’s intimidation process. “I had to warn the jury that this is not Mr. Di Salvo’s trial,” Judge Di Salvo said.
Indeed, the victim had to spend days explaining very intimate details of the countless sexual scenarios that the lovers have shared for 20 years, for example a scenario of “gardener” or Santa Claus.
Ann Letellier’s crimes could land her in prison for up to three years, according to Ms.and Beaudin. If the Crown only asks for two years, it is to allow the victim to receive “longer protection” by imposing a three-year probation period and a contact ban. In any case, the sentence should not be less than 18 months, believes Mand Beaudin.
No “Machiavellian plan”, according to the defense
The defense painted a portrait that conflicted with the suspect, suggesting that Ann Letellier was indeed the victim of sexual assault. Thus, it is “dangerous” for the Court to conclude that Ann Letellier “consent to each of the extremely specific sexual activities described,” Ms Van den Berg argued.and Longueville.
“We don’t make these kinds of Hollywood movies for nothing. Why would this sensible woman decide to make this plan? […] That the lady made a Machiavellian plan and was never attacked, the shoe pinches there,” the defense attorney said, claiming the accused had “no motive” to get away with it.
According to the defense, Ann Letellier does not deserve a prison sentence, but a simple suspended sentence, taking into account the many mitigating factors, such as her lack of risk of recidivism and her severe depression at the time of the events. In addition, she was fired from the University of Montreal, Ms.and Longueville.
Accompanied by The pressthe University of Montreal declined to confirm whether the accused still worked for the establishment and when she would have lost her job.
The judge will rule on June 21.