How guilty is Gabriel Armandou of killing his wife?

The trial has opened in the Parisian suburb of Creteil of Gabriel Armandou, a man accused of killing his wife.

It's certainly no cut and dried case, leaving you perhaps wondering who exactly was the victim and at the same time maybe how you would have reacted in the same circumstances.

For beginners Armandou is 79 years old and the crime for which he stands accused is that of the murder of his wife Paulette back in September 2008.

She was reportedly discovered by their son one evening, dead and almost naked, lying on the family's sitting room floor, with multiple injuries and bruises.

An autopsy revealed that Paulette had suffered blows to the neck, chest and back.

When questioned by the police, Armandou said he didn't know why he had done it and that he had simply lost control and "cracked" under the pressure.

But of course that's not the complete story.

The couple had been married for 48 years and in 2000 Paulette was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

Armandou apparently didn't want any outside help and had refused to have his wife committed to a specialised care home, preferring to look after her himself.

In the three months preceding her death, Paulette's condition had deteriorated significantly, putting Armandou under increasing pressure.

But he continued to care for his wife because, in the words of his lawyer Arnaud Richard, "He had promised to help and support his wife to the very end. The couple belonged to a generation where outside help wasn't sought."

Armandou is neither denying he killed his wife, nor does he have an explanation as to why he committed an act which he, in his own words, "doesn't understand."

'If I'm found guilty, I will be found guilty," he told the court during the first day of his trial.

"It won't change anything. My wife is dead and I loved her."

The trial is due to finish on Wednesday and a decision expected shortly afterwards.

Armandou could face a maximum 20-year sentence.

0 members like this

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of SURVIVE FRANCE NETWORK to add comments!

Join SURVIVE FRANCE NETWORK

Comment by Andrew Hearne on June 20, 2012 at 21:21: Quite Cate, the judges didn't have any other option given that he was pleading guilty and the "avec sursis" is their way of saying they understand why and let's leave it at that. Let's just hope he can live out his last days in some sort of inner peace.

Comment by cate dal molin on June 20, 2012 at 21:12: very succinctly put shiela - as you know I deal with this illness in both clinical and research contexts and partners and families suffer just as much as the person who has the disease, and have to cope with a long drawn and extremely painful bereavement process, most of which takes place while their relative is still alive. however I think it is a bit judgmental to describe the sentence and people involved in delivering it as 'morally reprehensible' as yous sais sheil, there was a guilty plea and french judges are bound by statute to sentence in that case.they do not have the freedom of english judges to 'decide' what sentence the crime merits, and this can be difficult to understand for people not familiar with french sentencing laws. the 'sursis' is their way of showing understanding of this man's plight. this cannot be equated to a 'crime passionnel' - it was more a crime of 'désespoir'.

Comment by Brian Milne on June 20, 2012 at 19:21: There was just one old great-aunt who I hardly remember on either side of my family, so I have never really seen it close up. What I have seen of frustrated people, locked inside themselves with no memory is frightening. I had seen the Le Fig report before this came up but nonetheless, whatever his plea I believe they had a verdict to decide and got it wrong no matter how lenient it appears.

Comment by Johnny Summerton on June 20, 2012 at 19:14: Here's a link to Le Figaro's report on the verdict.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/06/20/01016-20120620AR...

Alzheimer's is so cruel to all involved. Don't know whether anyone saw the Annie Girardot documentary a couple of years ago. I bawled my eyes out and was completely knocked for six for several days following.

Facilitator Comment by Sheila Walshe-Blackmore on June 20, 2012 at 19:05: What a tragic case. However, I think that given his guilty plea, the court would have had no option but to convict, and I think the suspended sentence is a fair outcome of this aspect of the case but it calls into issue the difficulties experienced by many people dealing with loved ones who suffer from Alzheimers, a dreadful affliction which takes your loved one away but leaves you with a living body who can also be quite violent. What a nightmare for any family.

Comment by Brian Milne on June 20, 2012 at 19:01: I find the guilty verdict morally reprehensible and any sentence likewise. I hope those people can live with themselves if they think about even that.

Comment by Johnny Summerton on June 20, 2012 at 18:57: Quick update (and well said Brian. My thoughts exactly).

He was found guilty and given a five-year suspended sentence.

Comment by Brian Milne on June 20, 2012 at 18:11: The country that gave the world the concept of 'crime passionel' is trying a man for that. I can only imagine that the poor man was exhausted, frustrated and so at his wit's end he lost it for a few minutes and beat the life out of her. Is that murder? Is he not the victim of the entrapment his devotion to his wife became and deserve compassion rather than even a trial, let alone a possible sentence? Does the court have the moral imperative to have this man stand accused before them and thus play 'god' since a lengthy sentence will mean this man's life will almost certainly end in prison? Has he not been punished enough by living with himself after this crime passionel? There is more to question in the justification for trying him than there are possible answers. For me he needs to be shown compassion and walk free from the court.

Comment by Andrew Hearne on June 20, 2012 at 12:43: I can only echo Nick's sentiments. A very sad end to two people's lives, tow people who seem to have been devoted to each other.

Facilitator Comment by Nick Ord on June 20, 2012 at 11:07: Very sad Johnny. You do have to ask the question who really was the victim?