The courtroom held a chilling silence as the prosecutor’s words cut through the air, painting a disturbing picture of a calculated act. The accusation: a British Airways pilot, Tim Capron, secretly filmed a woman during a sexual encounter, allegedly intending to share the footage with a friend for their mutual gratification.
The core of the case rested on consent – or rather, the lack of it. Capron admitted he never explicitly asked the woman, whom he met on Tinder, if she agreed to be recorded. He now acknowledges she did not actually consent, a crucial admission that hung heavy in the room.
Capron’s defense hinged on prior conversations, messages exchanged before their encounter in September 2021. These messages, detailing discussions of “whips, restraints and dominance,” were presented as evidence he believed she was open to such activities. However, the prosecution countered this with stark clarity.
The prosecutor argued that Capron’s assumption of consent was a “giant illogical leap.” She emphasized the fundamental difference between discussing boundaries and actively obtaining permission for a specific act – the act of being filmed and shared. It wasn’t a natural extension of their prior conversations, but a separate violation.
Details emerged of deeply troubling messages sent by Capron, referencing his fascination with “consensual rape” and “double penetration.” While the woman had explicitly stated these topics were “beyond my limits,” she nonetheless agreed to two dates with him, a complex dynamic the court was tasked with unraveling.
The evidence revealed Capron filmed two videos, totaling thirty seconds, during their sexual encounter and sent them to a friend. This wasn’t a spontaneous act, but a deliberate recording intended for shared viewing, fueling the prosecution’s claim of a planned “virtual threesome.”
The prosecutor described Capron as “egocentric” and “selfish,” suggesting his sexual approach revolved solely around his own desires and experiences. He based his assumptions about her consent on what previous partners had allowed, demonstrating a profound disregard for her individual wishes in the moment.
Further damning evidence surfaced in the form of messages exchanged between Capron and his friend after the incident. These messages revealed a callous and demeaning attitude towards the woman, referring to her with derogatory terms and expressing frustration at her perceived attempts to exert control.
The prosecution argued these messages were a clear indication of Capron’s “arrogant misogyny,” revealing a deeply ingrained disrespect for women. They painted a picture of a man who viewed sexual encounters as opportunities for his own gratification, with little regard for the feelings or boundaries of his partner.
The defense, however, attempted to reframe the narrative. While acknowledging Capron’s past conviction for possession of extreme pornography, the lawyer argued he hadn’t behaved in a misogynistic way towards this particular woman. The focus, she insisted, should be solely on whether he genuinely believed she had consented.
The defense conceded that some jurors might find Capron’s sex life “rather unpleasant and distasteful,” but stressed that the court was not a place for moral judgment. The crucial question, they argued, was not whether his actions were objectionable, but whether he knowingly violated her consent.
The trial continues, leaving the jury to grapple with a complex web of messages, admissions, and conflicting interpretations. The weight of the decision – determining whether a deliberate act of violation occurred – rests heavily on their shoulders.
