“There is no man alive who could ever understand what I had done.”
Baron Gilles de Rais
Serial killers are not just a modern day phenomenon. Historical criminologists speculate that they existed throughout history. However, most cases were not adequately recorded. One infamous case that was documented involves a wealthy nobleman from 15th century France named Gilles de Rais. He fought with Joan of Arc in the Hundred Years’ War but came back home to be one of the most prolific child murderers in history.
If you didn't know anything about Gilles de Rais, I could sum him up for you: He was a knight, general, lord, baron, and the Marshal of France. He was one of the richest noblemen in 15th century France who held a vast amount of property including many castles and estates. He had servants and troops who beckoned to his will. He was bestowed with a great fortune from his parents and grandfather, Jean de Craon, a powerful but equally greedy nobleman. Gilles was a renowned general and advisor to Joan of Arc, and helped to lift the English occupation of Orléans, France, during the Hundred Years' War. But when Lord de Rais decided to leave the battlefront and return home, he became one of the most notorious serial killers of all time. He preferred boys as his victims but settled on girls if he had to. The ages of his known victims ranged from 7 to 18. Historians have speculated that his death count could range anywhere from 80 to 600, but in his trial Gilles could not determine the actual number, since he had lost count and most of the bodies were incinerated.
His ring of accomplices helped him to procure his victims who mostly were innocent peasant children in Lord de Rais' feudal territories. But as the killings continued, de Rais' fortune dwindled, because he spent more money than his estates could acquire. Desperate to replenish his wealth, he sought out the Devil or any evil spirit that could help to bail him out of financial ruin. But due to a dispute over one of his properties, Gilles kidnapped and imprisoned a priest, which prompted the Church and other noblemen to launch an investigation on Lord de Rais' exploits. In the end, he was arrested and tried for witchcraft, murder and sodomy. Gilles de Rais had everything: money, servants, glory and distinction among his fellow noblemen. However, he had a terrible fall from grace. He could have been just a footnote in the history of the Hundred Years' War, if it wasn't for the fact that his crimes became so infamous and demonic to historians. As Jean Benedetti put it in his biography on Gilles de Rais, the Real Bluebeard, "In an age of extravagance he was super-extravagant; in an age of crime he was a super-criminal."
Gilles de Rais is often referred to as the real Bluebeard. Bluebeard is actually a character in a French fairytale by Charles Perrault, published in 1697. It tells the story of a nobleman who kills his wives. It has been suggested that Lord de Rais was a source of inspiration for the character. However, Gilles might not have had a beard at all and if he did, its color was perhaps red. Jean Benedetti wrote that "Gilles de Rais never had a blue beard and was never known in his own time by that name. If he had a beard at all it was probably red...Gilles had become Bluebeard by the time Perrault came to write his elegant Fairy Tales in the seventeenth century."
There are some noteworthy events on Gilles de Rais' early life. He was born in 1404 in the castle of Champtocé. His parents were Guy de Rais and Marie de Craon, wealthy nobles in France. Gilles also had a brother named René de la Suze, born a couple of years later. As most noble families, Gilles' parents treated their children as adults, since it was expected that noble children be ready to take on the family's honor and fortune if any unfortunate event might happen. Also, Guy and Marie did not have an active role in Gilles' childhood. Because his parents were pressed by politics, war and the maintenance of their estates, they often let the tutors and nurses raise him.
Both Gilles' parents died in 1415 when he was very young. Most historians agree that Marie died in 1415 before Guy's death. However, some historians maintain that she left the de Rais family and remarried, but that is only speculation. There is no recorded fact that she did. Guy de Rais was impaled by a wild boar in a freak accident when he went out hunting. He did not die immediately and while suffering from a slow, bloody death, he drew up a will and gave sole guardianship of his boys to his trusted cousin, Jean Tournemine de la Junaudaye.
However, this did not sit well with Gilles' grandfather, Jean de Craon, the father of Marie and one of the richest noblemen in France. Jean's wealth and land were growing like an empire in France at the time, and the de Rais' fortune was meant to be his. Also, Jean needed an heir to his vast fortune and estates, since his son, Amaury de Craon, died in the battle of Agincourt in which the French suffered one of the greatest defeats in the nation's history. Guy de Rais was not in the best terms with Jean de Craon and did not give him sole guardianship over his sons, believing Jean was a ruthless and lawless criminal.
Jean Benedetti wrote that "everything we know of Jean de Craon suggests that he was little better than a bandit, ruthlessly dedicated to his own gain and self-interest...Guy de Rais was not anxious for his two sons to be subjected to this kind of influence...With his daughter Marie dead, or so we suppose, there was no one to inherit but his grandson Gilles...Jean de Craon moved with customary speed and before the end of the year (1415) Gilles was in his sole charge." With Gilles as his heir, Jean acquired the de Rais' fortune and could now advance his empire, making his lineage one of the most influential and powerful ones in France.
Jean tried to teach Gilles the art of politics and finance in the hope that his grandson would play a large part in enlarging the family's political and financial empire in France. This was going to come as a blow to Jean later. Gilles did not have the mind set or instinct to increase the family's fortune. Instead he squandered his bank account later in life, liquidating his properties to fulfill his debts and lavish expenses. During his younger days with his grandfather, he was imparted by Jean with the impression that their family was above the law. If they wanted something, they got it and if anyone caused trouble, they bought themselves out.
This attitude would play a part in Gilles' thinking later when he ran amuck, killing children with abandon. In Georges Bataille's biography, The Trial of Gilles de Rais, he writes that "he (Jean de Craon) is responsible for Gilles; he has the charge of his education but he mocks it. He leaves his grandson free, in his own manner, to do all the evil he pleases. If the grandfather intervenes, it is to set an example; he instructs him to feel above the law." Jean, on the other hand, allowed more time for young Gilles to be trained as a knight, preparing him to fight in the Hundred Years' War.
By the time Gilles was a teenager, Jean de Craon was eager to advance his empire by securing a wife for him - one whose fortune or political influence would only benefit him and his grandson. After some unsuccessful attempts to find him a wife, Jean de Craon decided on Catherine de Thouars, a distant cousin of Gilles, whose family had vast lands and estates. However, other suitors were harassing her everyday. Some even camped out near one of her estates and tried to break in to get her. Jean and Gilles had to move fast. With his grandfather's approval, Gilles rode out to her place at Tiffauges and kidnapped her with a group of armed men on November 30, 1420, when he was only sixteen years old. Gilles and Catherine became husband and wife, just a week later.
Jean Benedetti wrote that “no banns were published and the ceremony was conducted by an obscure monk who doubtless had been terrorized into obedience. Catherine's mother was not present and, needless to say, no dispensation had been obtained from the Church regarding the couple's blood relationship...their only child was not born until 1429. It is possible that the almost certain opposition of the Church and the presence of so many rivals may have forced Gilles and his grandfather into this course of action...Gilles never wanted Catherine, he never cared for her." Jean de Craon and Gilles felt they were the law, so this forced matrimony and the couple’s questionable blood relationship were entirely acceptable to them unless the Church intervened otherwise. The Church in Rome allowed the marriage, only after Jean de Craon paid them off, and he and Gilles received no form of punishment for their actions. Catherine's lands were then taken by de Craon.
Time went on. France was still undergoing the strain of the Hundred Years' War, which was, in brief, a series of campaigns mostly between the French and English from the 14th to the 15th century. Yet there were some breaks between each campaign. During this period of history, the English were constantly bulling the French, trying to take over their land and the throne. Finally the French found their hope from the struggle: Joan of Arc.
She was a peasant girl who convinced people that she had divine visions telling her to liberate France from the English. Charles VII believed her and would only give her an army after they were sure she didn't come from the Devil and that she was in fact a virgin, a claim she vehemently stated was true. Jean Benedetti wrote that "she was taken to a room in the palace and examined by Yolande d'Aragon to see whether her claim to be a virgin was genuine. It was...Charles decided that before he handed over the army to her she must be examined in matters of theology, to make sure she had come from God and not the Devil. She was interrogated for three weeks...They pronounced themselves satisfied." One of Joan's primary goals was to liberate Orléans, France, from the English. She did, with Gilles' help on May 8, 1429. It was a major turning point for the French in the Hundred Years' War. It not only pushed back the English, but became a symbolic victory for French liberation.
Gilles and Joan had fought bravely during the battle and had a somewhat complex relationship during their time with one another. She was dependant on Gilles in some way. Jean Benedetti wrote that "for her part she had every reason to be grateful to him. He had saved her twice; she could turn to him in a difficult situation." For instance, during the battle of Orléans, Joan was struck by an arrow in her shoulder and Gilles managed to catch her and get her to a place where she was safe. He then took off her armor and helped to mend her wound. However, during the course of his involvement with her, he could not let his troops pillage from peasant towns - a course of action he took when she was not around. On the contrary, when he was with her, Joan upheld the highest standard for her soldiers and was strict about their behavior. There was no cursing; soldiers had to go to confession and were given a day to marry any woman they slept with or else quit. In addition to this, soldiers could not pillage peasant towns and had to pay for their food.
On July 17, 1429, Gilles and Joan helped to consecrate Charles VII at the Reims cathedral, a known place among the French to coronate kings. It was a victory for the French. Having gone through so much with the English and finally achieving victory, Joan cried with joy with Charles VII and wept at his feet. It is rumored that Gilles cried with them. On the same day, Gilles was given the title, the Marshal of France, the highest rank a soldier could obtain at the time. He was now one of the most powerful and wealthiest noblemen in France and was soon to inherit a vast fortune from his grandfather. However, when Joan was captured and burned at the stake, Gilles abandoned her and was nowhere to be seen.
In 1432 Gilles de Rais left the war behind him, but returned home to find his grandfather dying. Jean gave his sword and breastplate to René de la Suze, Gilles' brother. This was an insult to Gilles. The bestowing of the sword was considered a great honor among the nobility. Jean was obviously displeased by Gilles' expensive bills on servants, troops, gifts and entertainment. His grandson's out of control spending would perhaps destroy the fortune that Jean had so desperately built. But Jean de Craon could do nothing. On November 15, 1432, he died, leaving his fortune in Gilles' hands.
Gilles was quick to take charge of Jean's assets and was known to be very extravagant at the time. Georges Bataille writes that "he (Gilles) lapses into incredible expenditures that in a matter of years will drain one of the largest fortunes...Gilles de Rais' opulence is such that the greatest lords and the King were not equal to it. As Marshal of France he receives considerable wages; however, to him this post is above all - such is his propensity - the occasion for excessive expenditures. The need to shine makes his head swim: he cannot resist the possibility of dazzling spectators; he has to astound others through incomparable splendor...At all costs, he must dazzle others."
Soon, the dark life of Gilles de Rais began. He initiated a string of child murders across France. According to him, the murders started on the year Jean died. However, historians speculate this might not be true. Yet we cannot really know for sure. But no doubt that from 1432 to 1440, Gilles went on a rampage, kidnapping and killing children, both girls and boys. The details of which would come up in his trial.
A good number of Gilles' victims were probably peasant children begging for food at his castles. They were easy prey to lead into his chamber with the promise of good food and a bath. However, some victims were procured by his servants, Poitou and Henriet Griart, and even by his cousins, Gilles de Sillé and Roger de Briqueville. Other victims were also taken from peasant families under false promises that the children would be properly taken care of as pages or servants. This opportunity was a salvation for many peasant parents who could not afford to feed them. When their children went missing, the parents did not make any resistance or redress with their Lord de Rais out of fear they would be imprisoned. Gilles de Rais felt he was the lord and the law.
He could not stop his urges in killing the kidnapped children, and his accomplices dared not to question his orders in regards to the crimes. As Roger de Briqueville put in, “It was necessary to be obedient and submissive to him, without daring to contradict him or go counter to his wishes in any way whatsoever.” Lord de Rais, as his grandfather had instilled in him, was so wrapped up in his delusion that he was beyond the law that no man could touch him or question the direction that he was going.
As time went on, Gilles de Rais often relied on his accomplices, Poitou and Henriet, to help him torture his victims and cover up the crimes. They were in charge of burning the dead bodies as well. Gilles also relied on another accomplice, a priest named Eustache Blanchet, to assist him in acquiring the services of a sorcerer who could summon up evil spirits. Gilles thought that such an evil spirit, like the Devil or demon, could grant him his wish to replenish his wealth or perhaps give him even more power in France. Blanchet eventually found a priest in Italy named Francois Prelati who claimed he could invoke evil spirits. Lord de Rais quickly brought Francois to France and spent a considerable amount of his fortune for his services. They had numerous ceremonies in which they tried to call upon a demon, but to no avail. At one point, Gilles was getting desperate and even brought children's body parts and organs as sacrifices.
However, rumors were soon circulating around the surrounding villages of Lord de Rais’ castles that he was murdering children and using their blood or body parts as sacrifices to be offered to the Devil. This didn’t stop Gilles and he continued his murders unabated. But time was running out. René de la Suze, his brother, knew de Rais was a spendthrift. Gilles was liquidating the family's estates and could possibly bankrupt the entire family. René had to stop him. With the king's approval, he took over some of his brother's lands, hoping to prevent Gilles from selling anymore of the family's properties. Gilles had to move quickly to cover up all of the evidence of his crimes. He didn't want anyone to find the remaining dead bodies of his victims lying around his castles, so he ordered Poitou and Henriet to burn them.
During this period of Gilles' life, his wife and daughter were pretty much absent from history and did not play any role whatsoever in his murders. He usually lived apart from them at different castles throughout the marriage.
Gilles de Sillé and Roger de Briqueville, during their service with de Rais, had been stealing money from him, short changing him from transactions they made in his name. Gilles de Rais had no idea they were taking advantage of him. Soon, as the de Rais’ lands were being confiscated, de Sillé and de Briqueville thought it was only a matter of time until they were apprehended by authorities for being the willing accomplices of Gilles de Rais' crimes. A conviction might mean death. De Sillé and de Briqueville decided that they would use the money they stole from de Rais and flee from his castle at Machecoul before it was too late. Jean Benedetti wrote that "by living off Gilles' (de Rais) generosity and by cheating him in almost every transaction, they (de Sillé and de Briqueville) had been putting money aside against just such an eventuality. They must have known that the situation could not go on forever, and now they saw real danger signs." Soon, de Sillé and de Briqueville abandoned their cousin and escaped.
By May, 1440, Gilles de Rais became desperate for money after his fortune had greatly diminished from his lavish spending. Delirious, he decided to retake by force one of his prized castles at Saint-Etienne by kidnapping and imprisoning a priest, Jean le Ferron, who was in charge of taking care of the castle for his brother, Geoffroy le Ferron, the man whom Gilles sold the property to. Lord de Rais demanded from Jean le Ferron the keys and possession of the castle while threatening him with a double-edged axe. The plan was terrible from the start. By abducting the priest and then illegally repossessing the property, Gilles infuriated Jean V, the Duke of Brittany, and Jean de Malestroit, the Bishop of Nantes. They felt Gilles violated Church law, and gave him a very expensive fine - something that Gilles did not have the money to pay. Jean de Malestroit then began an investigation on Lord de Rais, gathering evidence from peasant families whose children were abducted and murdered by de Rais and his ring of accomplices.
On September 15, 1440, a group of armed men led by Jean Labbé, Captain of Arms, arrived at Lord Gilles de Rais' castle in Machecoul and ordered him to surrender himself by order of Jean V and Jean de Malestroit. Jean Labbé read the following warrant:
"We, Jean Labbé, Captain of Arms, acting in the name of my lord Jean V, Duke of Brittany, and Robin Guillaumert, lawyer, acting in the name of Jean de Malestroit, Bishop of Nantes, enjoin Gilles, Comte de Brienne, Lord of Laval, Pouzauges, Tiffauges and other places, Marshal of France and Lieutenant-General of Brittany, to grant us immediate access to his castle and to constitute himself our prisoner so that he may answer to the triple charge of witchcraft, murder and sodomy."
Gilles surrendered himself quietly and without resistance. His accomplices, Prelati, Blanchet, Poitou and Henriet were also taken into custody. The guards searched Lord de Rais’ castle and gathered ashes from the fireplace, believing they were the remains of the children’s cadavers. Also, they restrained Poitou and Henriet in chains. Gilles de Sillé and Roger de Briqueville were gone before the warrant was issued.
Gilles de Rais and his accomplices were taken to Nantes for questioning. Henriet wanted to slice his own throat and die. He felt that there was no hope for their case. The charge of witchcraft would definitely bring a sentence of death. At this time in history, any association with the Devil was taken very seriously by the powers that be. Most of the time, the Church could only resolve it by sentencing the accused to death. Gilles, on the other hand, appeared defiant to the court. He was the Marshal of France, he thought, and was still untouchable. This was, of course, a delusion. Jean Benedetti suggested that "there was no possibility of Gilles being acquitted. At first Gilles seems not to have realized this. He was still deluded by his own feelings of being above the law."
Below are excerpts and quotes from the annotated minutes of the actual ecclesiastical and secular trials of Gilles de Rais. They are from the book, the Trial of Gilles de Rais by Georges Bataille, which was originally published in Paris, 1965 as Le Procès de Gilles de Rais. The minutes were translated from Latin to French and English.
The summons for Lord de Rais pointed out that the investigation by the Bishop of Nantes, Jean de Malestroit, had "discovered that the nobleman...Gilles de Rais...had killed, cut the throats of, and massacred many innocent children in an inhuman fashion, and with them committed against nature, the abominable and execrable sin of sodomy." It went on to say that these sexual crimes were done "in various fashions and with unheard-of perversions that cannot presently be expounded upon by reason of their horror, but that will be disclosed in Latin at the appropriate time and place."
The summons also stated that "he (Gilles de Rais) had often and repeatedly practiced the dreadful invocation of demons and took care that it be practiced," and that "he sacrificed and made offerings to these same demons, contracted with them; and wickedly perpetrated other crimes and offenses." These crimes, according to the summons, constituted "doctrinal heresy" and an offense that Jean de Malestroit said was a "subversion and distortion" to his faith and that because of them Gilles de Rais was a "pernicious example unto many."
However, Jean went on to describe heresy in the summons as a "malady, which spreads like a canker if not immediately extirpated." Therefore, he was "not intending that like crimes...should go unremarked because of dissimulation or heedlessness." He wanted to "apply suitable remedies swiftly" to his concerns about Gilles. He then demanded Lord de Rais to appear before the court "on the Monday following the feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross...September 19th (1440)" and made sure to point out to him that he was still their "subject" and he was "justiciable (liable to stand trial) in this case."
When the court was not in session, Gilles was imprisoned in a room at the La Tour Neuve's castle, which was heavily guarded. There was no hope for escape, so he waited for his day in court. Due to his status, he was given good food, clothes, a bed and furniture. His accomplices, Henriet, Prelati, Blanchet and Poitou were kept separate from him and imprisoned in another section of the castle. On September 19th, 1440, Gilles made his first appearance to the court in the ecclesiastical trial. It was in the larger, upper hall of La Tour Neuve where he stood before Bishop Jean de Malestroit who was "sitting on the bench to administer the law." On one side was Gilles and on the other sat the "honorable Master Guillaume Chapeillon, case prosecutor."
"After numerous accusations on the part of" the prosecutor against Lord de Rais and after "reproducing...the summons," Gilles de Rais "expressed a desire to appear personally before” Jean de Malestroit and “before any other ecclesiastical judges, as well as before whatsoever examiner of heresy, to clear himself of the same accusations." In response Jean de Malestroit scheduled a follow-up court date on September 28th where Lord de Rais was requested "to appear also before...Friar Jean Blouyn, Vice-Inquisitor into Heresy," so he could "answer for the crimes and offenses brought against him by the...prosecutor..."
However, on September 28th, Lord Gilles de Rais was a no show. In the meantime Jean de Malestroit and Jean Blouyn allowed the proceedings to go on and listened to the testimonies of the victims' families. Perhaps Gilles was ashamed or annoyed by the trial, but we can only speculate.
On September 18th, 1440, the secular trial, which was separate from the ecclesiastical trial in which Gilles was scheduled to appear, commenced under the charge of Pierre de L'Hôpital, the President of Brittany. The secular part was really meant to address other charges against Gilles for the illegal takeover of the castle at Saint-Etienne and the unlawful imprisonment of the priest, Jean le Ferron, who was in charge of the property. Also, it was meant to gather evidence from the people of Lord de Rais' feudal territories. The ecclesiastical part of the trial was meant to address the charges of heresy, murder and sodomy.
In the secular court, cleric, Jean de Touscheronde, was appointed by the President to investigate the accusations from the friends of the victims’ families or parents who claimed that Gilles de Rais or his accomplices had kidnapped and murdered their children. Jean also had hoped to find evidence "proving, if possible, that...Lord de Rais and his followers...conveyed away a certain number of small children...whom they struck down and killed, to have their blood, heart, liver, or other...parts" as a "sacrifice to the Devil, or to do other sorceries with." However, most of what de Touscheronde found was tales of horror on how these children went missing and the fear Lord de Rais had on these peasant villages. Below are some key testimonies:
"Peronne Loessart, living in La Roche-Bernard, deposes under oath that two years ago this September…Lord de Rais, returning from Vannes, came to lodge in…La Roche-Bernard at the house of…Jean Colin, and spent the night there. The witness was then living directly opposite the inn of…Jean Colin. She had a ten-year-old child attending school, who attracted one of the servants of…Lord de Rais, named Poitou. This Poitou came to speak with…Peronne, requesting that she let the child live with him; he would clothe him very well and provide him with many advantages, while the child, for his part, would be the source of numerous benefits for Poitou as well…Peronne told him that she had time to wait to benefit from her son, and that she was not going to take him out of school…Poitou assured her on this point and solemnly promised that he would take her son and send him to school, and that he would give a hundred sous to…Peronne for a dress. Confident of his promise, she permitted him to take the child away.
Not long afterwards, Poitou brought her four pounds for the dress. She told him that twenty sous were missing; he denied this, saying that he had promised her only four pounds. She told him then that she knew by this that he would have difficulty keeping his other promises because he was already short twenty sous. He told her to stop worrying so much, that he would give her and her child plenty of other gifts. Then he led the said child away, conducting him to Jean Colin's, the innkeeper of the said lord. And so, on the following day, as Gilles de Rais was leaving the…inn, this Peronne asked him for her…child, who was with him; but Lord de Rais did not respond at all. But he turned to…Poitou, who was there, and said that the child had been well chosen, and that he was as beautiful as an angel…Poitou then responded that there had been no one but himself to make the choice, and the said Lord told him that he had not failed to choose well. Not long after this, the child left with the said Poitou in the company of the said Lord, riding on a pony that…Poitou had bought from Jean Colin. Since then, this woman has had no more news of him; she has heard no word of where her…child might be, and she did not see him in the company of the said Lord who had since come through the…place of La Roche-Bernard. And she has not seen…Poitou in the retinue of the said Lord since then. Those of the said Lord's men whom she asked where her son was told her that he was at Tiffauges or Pouzauges."
"Jean Colin and his wife, and Olive, mother of the said Colin’s wife, living at La Roche-Bernard, depose under oath that two years ago this September the said Lord de Rais, coming from Vannes, lodged at their inn and spent the night there. And that a fellow named Poitou, a servant of the said Lord, did so much for Peronne Loessart, who was living opposite their house then, that she entrusted him with her son, who was going to school, and who was one of the most beautiful children in the region, so that he might live with him; and…Colin sold …Poitou a pony he had for the sum of sixty sous, in order to take the said child away. And the said women said that, on the evening when the mother entrusted this Poitou with her son, he led him to the inn belonging to the witnesses, telling the other servants of the said Lord that this was his page; whereas these latter told him that he would not be there for him but that the said Lord, their master, would keep him for himself. And on the following day, when the said Lord came out of the said inn to get going, these women heard the mother of the child ask for him of the said Lord, in the presence of the child and Poitou; whereupon the said Lord told Poitou that the child was well chosen; Poitou responded that there had been no one but himself to choose, and the said Lord told him that he had not been mistaken and that the child was as beautiful as an angel. Not long afterwards, the latter left, riding on the said pony with…Poitou in the company of the said Lord. And…Colin declares that two or three months later in Nantes, he saw someone other than the said child mount the said pony, which shocked him. And the…witnesses say that since then, they have not seen the said child nor heard where he was, save what the said women say, that when they had inquired of the Lord's men, some of them responded that he was at Tiffauges, others that he was dead: that while he was crossing over the bridges in Nantes, the wind had blown him into the river. Since then, she had not seen that said Poitou come through the said place of La Roche-Bernard in the retinue of the said Lord, although he had himself come through. And the last time he had come through, six weeks before, returning from Vannes, they heard it said by the said Lord's servants, whom they asked where the said Poitou was, in order to find out where the said child was, that Poitou had taken off in the direction of Redon; and they imagined that this was because of the shocking complaints that the said Perrone had made on the subject of her child; which complaints the said Poitou could have learned of through the said Lord's men."
"Guillaume Fouraige and his wife, Jeanne, the wife of Jean Leflou, Richarde, the wife of Jean Gaudeau, of Port-Launay near Coueron, depose under oath that about two years previously, a young boy of approximately twelve, the son of the deceased Jean Bernard, their neighbor, of the said place of Port-Launay, and another young child of Coueron, the son of Jean Meugner, took off for Machecoul for the charity that was then customary there, with the intention of receiving alms; and from that day forward they had not seen the son of the said Bernard again and have had no news of him, save what they heard the son of Jean Meugner say, that after three days, he returned from the said place of Machecoul, and that one evening the son of Jean Bernard had told him to wait for him in a certain spot, beyond the houses, in the said place of Machecoul, and that he was going to find a place for them to stay; and with these words he departed, leaving the said Meugner in the spot where he had said and where the latter waited for him for over three hours, hoping that he would return, but since then, he had not seen him again nor heard any news."
"André Barbe, shoemaker, living at Machecoul, deposes under oath that since Easter he had heard that the son of Georges Le Barbier of Machecoul had been lost, that on a certain day he had been seen picking apples behind Rondeau's house and that he had never been seen since; certain neighbors of his had told Barbe and his wife that they ought to watch over their child, who was at risk of being snatched, and they were very frightened about him; in fact, the witness had even been at Saint-Jean-d'Angély, and someone asked him where he was from, and when he responded that he was from Machecoul, that person was shocked, telling him that they ate little children there.
He further states that a child of Guillaume Jeudon, who was living with Guillaume Hilairet, a child of Jeannot Roussin, and another of Alexandre Chastelier, of Machecoul, had been lost. He also heard complaints of the loss of other children in the said place of Machecoul. He adds that nobody dared speak for fear of the men in Lord de Rais' chapel, or others of his men; those who complained risked imprisonment, or ill-treatment, should anyone report their complaints.
Furthermore, he states that he heard a man complaining in the church of the Trinité at Machecoul, whom he did not know, who was asking whether anyone had seen his child, whom he claimed was seven years old; and this about eight months earlier."
"Jeannette, the wife of Guillaume Sergent, living in the parish of Sainte-Croix of Machecoul, in a hamlet called La Boucardière, declares that about a year ago last Pentecost, her husband and she had gone digging in a field to plant hemp. They had left one of their sons, eight years old, at home, to tend their little girl of one-and-a-half, but on their return they could not find the said child of eight, which greatly astonished and dispirited them; and they went to inquire about him in the parishes of Machecoul and elsewhere, but since then they have had no more news of him and have never heard that anyone had seen him."
"Guillaume Hilairet and his wife, Jeanne Hilairet, living at Machecoul, declare that they had heard that the son of the said Georget Le Barbier had disappeared around the aforesaid time, and since then they have not seen him again or heard that anyone had seen him. Moreover, the said Guillaume Hilairet recalls that, about seven or eight years previously, a twelve-year-old child, the son of Jean Jeudon, was living with him to learn the furrier's trade. And the said Guillaume Hilairet declares that in the presence of Roger de Briqueville, around the aforesaid time, Gilles de Sillé requested that he lend him his said valet to carry a message to the said castle of Machecoul, and the said Hilairet lent him the valet and sent him to the said castle. And the said Guillaume and his wife declare that since then, they had not seen the said helper again nor heard that anyone else had seen him. And much later that same day the said Guillaume Hilairet asked the said Sillé and Briqueville what had become of his said valet: they told him that they did not know, unless he had had to go to Tiffauges, and into such a place, the said Sillé said, where thieves had snatched him to make him a page...the said Guillaume Hilairet declares that about five years before, he had heard a man named Jean du Jardin, then living with Milord Roger de Briqueville, state that a conduit filled with dead little children was found at the castle of Champtocé...the witnesses declare that it was public and common knowledge that children were put to death in the said castle…"
“Jean Roussin, of Machecoul, declares that about nine years previously, a child of his, nine years old, was to watch the animals one particular day, on which day he never returned home; he and his wife were greatly astonished by this, not knowing what had happened to him. And thereafter, after the complaints and outcry of his wife and family, two of his neighbors, who are now deceased, told him that they had seen Gilles de Sillé, wearing a tabard (a tunic or cape-like garment), his face thinly veiled, speaking with the said child, and that the said child left for the castle, going through the back gate. What is more, he says that his said child, who was living close to the castle, knew the said Gilles de Sillé well and occasionally carried milk to the castle for those who wanted it. And he declares that he has heard no more talk of his said child since then.
He adds that the day before he lost his son he had heard complaints of the loss of the said Jeudon's son, who was living with the said Guillaume Hilairet. He also states that he heard other men complaining of the loss of their children.”
“Jeanne, widow of Aimery Édelin and former wife of Jean Bonneau, living at Machecoul, states that she had a young boy aged eight, who went to school, and who was very beautiful, very fair, and clever. He was living with the mother of the said Jeanne across from the castle of Machecoul; and about eight years ago this child disappeared without anyone being able to find out what happened to him. And previously, a child of Roussin and another of Jeudon had also been lost. And about fifteen days later a child of Macé Sorin, whose wife was the aunt of this Jeanne, had also been lost; and, following on the complaints that they heard, these children were thought to have been taken to give to the English for the liberation of Milord Michel de Sillé, who was a prisoner of the English, so it was said; and the said Lord's men were supposed to have said that, for the ransom of the said Lord Michel, the stipulation was to furnish the English with twenty-four male children...She declares having heard that many other children had been lost, in Brittany and elsewhere, about which there was a great outcry.”
“André Bréchet, of the parish of Sainte-Croix of Machecoul, declares under oath that about six months previously, he was supposed to spy on the castle of Machecoul, but that after midnight he fell asleep; and, as he was sleeping, a small man he did not know appeared on the ramparts, who woke him and showed him his naked dagger, saying: 'You're dead.' However, because of the said André's pleas, this man did nothing to him, but continued on his way and took off. The said André was terrified, sweating all over...And thereafter he no longer dared to spy on the said castle.”
“Ysabeau, the wife of Guillaume Hamelin, living in the borough of Fresnay, where she and her husband had gone to live about a year before, from Pouancé, declares under oath that about seven days before the end of last year, she sent two of her children, two boys, the one aged fifteen, the other seven or thereabouts, to the village of Machecoul to buy bread with the money she had given them, and they did not return, and since then she has been unable to find out where they were. But the day after she had so dispatched them, Master Francois (Prelati) and the Marquis, who were living with Lord de Rais, whom she says she knows well and has seen many times, came to her house. The Marquis inquired whether she had recovered from the problem with her breast; in response to which she asked him how he knew she had been suffering, because, in fact, she had not. He told her that she had, after which he said that she was not from the region, but from Pouancé; and she asked him how he knew that, and he responded that he well knew it; then she acknowledged that he was right. Thereupon he cast a glance inside the house and asked her whether she was married, and she responded yes, but that her husband had come into their region looking for work. And as he saw two small children in the house, namely one girl and one boy, he asked her whether they were hers; she responded yes, whereupon he asked her whether she had only two children; to which she responded that she had two more, withholding the fact of their disappearance from him, which she dared not tell. Then they left and when they did she heard the Marquis say to the said Master Francois that two of the children had come from that house. She says...about eight days earlier she had heard that Micheau Bouer and his wife, of Saint-Cyr-en-Rais, had also lost a child who had not been seen since.”
"Jean Hubert and his wife, of Saint-Léonard of Nantes, declare under oath that two years previously, on the Thursday following Saint John the Baptist's Day, they lost a boy of thirteen, who was attending school; Lord de Rais then residing in his house in Nantes. Theretofore, this child, who had been employed for a week, lived with Princé, a member of the said Lord's retinue. Princé, on engaging him, was supposed to set the child up in the best conditions and had promised to do him and his parents much good, but he did not return them their child or even give them a reason for letting him go. The child told them that this Princé had a horse that he dared not mount for fear the horse would kill him. Whereupon his parents told him that he should return to school, but the child responded that there was a proper gentleman staying with Lord de Rais, who called himself Spadin, whom he had struck up a friendship with, and whom he desired to stay with, as he had promised to fit him out well, convey him to another region, and do him much good. Trusting the child, the parents let him go, and he left, in fact, the very next day after his return from the said Princé, in fact, so that he spent only one night in their house. Subsequently, as he went to live at La Suze, where the said Lord was then, they saw their child there during the next seven days. But during this time, the said Lord was absent for four or five days, having left a party of his men and the said child at La Suze. And the day the Lord returned, the child came to his parents and told his mother that Lord de Rais was quite fond of him, that he had just cleaned his room and that his master had given him a round loaf of bread made for the said Lord, which he had brought her. Also he told her that a fellow named Simonnet, one of the said Lord's servants, had given him another round loaf of the same bread to take to a woman in town. And the witnesses say that since that time, they have not seen their child again nor had any news of him, even though they complained about it to the said Lord's men, who responded that a Scottish knight, who was quite fond of him, had taken him away. Also, a month before, they unsuspectingly complained in front of the wife of Master Jean Briand, and this woman accused the said Hubert's wife of claiming that the said Lord had killed her child. To which Hubert's wife responded that she had done nothing of the sort, but Briand's wife retorted that she had, and that she was going to regret it, she and the others."
On October 8th, 1440, the court was nearly finished with the testimonies from the victims' families in the lower hall of the La Tour Neuve's castle and moved up to the great upper hall to proceed with the ecclesiastical trial. Lord Gilles de Rais and the prosecutor, Guillaume Chapeillon, were present before the Bishop of Nantes, Jean de Malestroit, and Vice-Inquisitor, Jean Blouyn, who were both presiding the case. Chapeillon "verbally pronounced the articles of the bill of indictment." The key points of the indictment charged Gilles de Rais that in "the castles at Champtocé...and Machecoul and Tiffauges, as in the house of...Lemoine, at Vannes, in the upper chamber...where he was staying at that time, and in the...house called La Suze," he "killed treacherously, cruelly, and inhumanly one hundred and forty, or more, children, boys and girls, or had them killed by the said Gilles de Sillé, Roger de Briqueville, Henriet, Etienne (Poitou)" and others. Also, Lord de Rais then "immolated the members of the said innocents as sacrifices to evil spirits," and with these children "he committed the abominable sin of sodomy...before and after their death and also during." These crimes, the indictment went on to say, "defiles heaven..."
Gilles then "said, verbally and not in writing, that he was appealing to" Bishop Jean de Malestroit and Inquisitor Jean Blouyn and "as well as to the prosecutor." However, the judges declined his appeal, "because it was frivolous and not presented in writing," and "taking into account the nature of the case," it "could not be complied with by law." The trial would then go on and the judges "declared that proceedings would subsequently be brought against...Gilles" who "denied the truth of the said articles" and stated that he "renounced the devil and his ceremonies." Gilles further declared to "being a true Christian." Chapeillon then "swore that he himself was telling the truth." Gilles, "at the prosecutor's insistence...was asked to take the same oath," but after "called upon one, two, three, and four times by" the Bishop of Nantes and the Vice-Inquisitor and being "threatened with lawful excommunication," Lord de Rais "declined and refused." Court was then adjourned.
On October 13th, 1440, at 9 a.m., court was again in session in the great upper hall. Guillaume Chapeillon started the proceedings and read the forty-nine articles of the bill of indictment. The judges then "interrogated...Gilles, the accused, at the...prosecutor's request, to know whether he himself intended to respond to these...articles or contradict them." Gilles then said that "he did not intend to respond to these...articles, stating clearing that" Bishop Jean de Malestroit and Jean Blouyn "had never been nor were his judges, and that he would appeal." Then, abruptly, Gilles shouted at them as being "simoniacs and ribalds" and that "he would much prefer to be hanged by a rope around his neck than respond to such ecclesiastics and judges,” and “could not tolerate appearing before them." Still defiant, he turned to Jean de Malestroit and "delivered these words in French, 'I will do nothing for you as Bishop of Nantes.'"
The judges at the "prosecutor's insistence” asked Gilles de Rais “to know whether he intended to speak or object against the” the indictment. Gilles then "responded that he did not intend to say anything against” it. Then, "at the insistence and request of the prosecutor," the judges asked Lord de Rais four times, with the "threat of excommunication” if he didn’t comply, “to respond to the...articles exposed." Gilles still "refused to respond to them, attesting that he was...as good a Christian and true a Catholic as they themselves" and that "he was shocked that...Pierre de L'Hôpital, President of Brittany, would allow the...ecclesiastical lords knowledge of such crimes thus proposed against him and, moreover, that they could accuse him of such abominable acts." Again, "at the request of the prosecutor," the judges "excommunicated him (Gilles) by writing, then pronounced and published the excommunication," and further stated that the trial would still proceed as planned. Court then adjourned for the day.
Two days later, on October 15th, Gilles de Rais appeared before the court as a changed man. He was cooperative and even offered an apology to the judges for his outbursts and insults. Historians speculate that his change of behavior was probably due to his desire for the salvation of his soul. The court gave him a pardon and permitted him back into the Church. The trial then proceeded. Gilles admitted to some of the crimes, except to the charge of heresy. He said that he "renounced the Devil and his ceremonies" and that "he had never invoked, nor caused others to summon evil spirits." He went on to say that he never "offered...anything whatsoever in sacrifice to these spirits." The one minor thing he did, he stated, was that he "practiced the...art of alchemy for a certain period of time." And despite any testimony saying otherwise, he could still prove his innocence by undergoing "the test of fire."
Guillaume Chapeillon then requested to the judges that he and Lord de Rais take the oath. The request was approved and Gilles and Guillaume, in turn, took the Holy Gospel and declared an "oath to abstain from calumny and to tell the truth." With the oath being read it was now time for the prosecutor to produce his witnesses starting on the following day of October 16th, 1440. The most damaging testimonies came from the self-proclaimed sorcerer, Francois Prelati, who assisted Lord de Rais in the invocation of demons, and also from Henriet and Poitou, Lord de Rais' servants, who were in his service for several years and had first-hand knowledge of the children's kidnapping, torture and death.
Étienne Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, was a witness for the prosecution. He, along with Henriet and Prelati, decided to make a full confession or else the court would send them to the torture chamber. Some historians speculate that their confessions were coerced. However, so many similar details in their testimonies on Lord de Rais’ crimes contradict that assumption. Poitou gave a graphic account on the details of the murders during his deposition to the court on October 17th, 1440. In it, he related how the murders were carried out and how he became part of the ring of accomplices. Below are prominent excerpts from his deposition:
"The said witness (Poitou) stated and deposed that the said Sillé, Henriet, and he, the witness, found and led to the said Gilles de Rais, the accused, in his room, many boys and girls on whom to practice his lascivious debaucheries, as indicated below in greater detail, and they did so by order of the said Gilles, the accused.
Interrogated as to the number, he said very likely up to forty.
Interrogated as to the place or places to which the children were conveyed, he responded: sometimes to Nantes, sometimes to Machecoul, sometimes to Tiffauges, and elsewhere....he stated and deposed that in order to practice his unnatural debaucheries and lascivious passions with the said children, boys and girls, the said Gilles de Rais first took his penis or virile member into one or the other of his hands, rubbed it, made it erect, or stretched it, then put it between the thighs or legs of the said boys and girls, bypassing the natural vessel of the said girls, rubbing his said penis or virile member on the bellies of the said boys and girls with great pleasure, passion, and lascivious concupiscence, until sperm was ejaculated on their bellies
Item, he stated and deposed that before perpetrating his debaucheries on the said boys and girls, to prevent their cries, and so that they would not be heard, the said Gilles de Rais sometimes hung them by his own hand, sometimes had others suspend them by the neck, with ropes or cords, on a peg or small hook in his room; then he let them down or had them let down, cajoled them, assuring them that he did not want to hurt them or do them harm, that, on the contrary, it was to have fun with them, and to this end he prevented them from crying out...he killed them or had them killed thereafter.
Interrogated as to who killed them, he responded that occasionally the said Gilles, the accused, killed them by his own hand, occasionally he had them killed by the said Sillé or Henriet or him, the witness, or by anyone among them, together or separately. Interrogated as to the manner, he responded: sometimes beheading or decapitating them, sometimes cutting their throats, sometimes dismembering them, and sometimes breaking their necks with a cudgel: and that there was a sword dedicated to their execution, commonly called a braquemard (cutlass, or short-sword).
Interrogated as to whether the said Gilles de Rais perpetrated his lusts only once or more often on the said children, boys or girls, he answered only once, or twice at most, on each of them...he stated and deposed that the said Gilles de Rais sometimes practiced his lusts on the said boys and girls before injuring them, but rarely; other times, and often, after their suspension or before other injuries, sometimes after cutting into a vein in their neck or throat, the blood spurting, or having others make the cut, and other times after their deaths and when their throats had been cut, as long as the bodies were warm...he stated...that the said Gilles de Rais practiced his lascivious debaucheries on the girls in the same way as he abused the boys, disdaining and bypassing their sex, and that he had heard several people say that he took infinitely greater pleasure in becoming debauched on the said girls thus, as above said, than in using the appropriate vessel in a normal manner.
Interrogated as to what was done with the said boys and girls after their deaths, or with their cadavers, he responded that they were burned with their clothes.
Interrogated as to who made the fires, he responded that he, the witness, and Henriet often did.
Interrogated as to the manner, he responded that it was done on andirons in the room of the said Gilles, with thick pieces of wood, thereafter arranging faggots on the dead bodies, and kindling a large fire; they laid the clothes piece by piece on the fire, where they were consumed, so that they burned more slowly and no one would smell the nasty odor.
Interrogated as to the place where they threw the ashes or dust, he responded: sometimes in the sewers, other times in the pits or moats or other hiding places, according to the various spots.
Interrogated as to the place of the murders, he responded as above: sometimes at Machecoul, for the largest share of them, and sometimes at Tiffauges and elsewhere.
Item, he stated and deposed that the largest part and number of the said boys and girls who had been lasciviously abused by the said Gilles de Rais and killed during the time when he, the witness, was in his service, were taken among the poor asking for alms, as much by the said Gilles as otherwise; that occasionally the said Gilles chose according to his pleasure, and occasionally he had the said Sillé, Henriet and him, the witness, choose, who then brought them secretly to the said Gilles in his room.
Item, he stated…that Catherine, the wife of a painter named Thierry, then living in Nantes, entrusted the said Henriet with her brother, to bring him to the said Gilles de Rais and get him admitted among the children in his chapel, or at least with this hope, according to what the witness had heard this same Henriet claim; the said Henriet led the child to the said Gilles and delivered him to Machecoul. And not long afterwards, the said Gilles carnally and lasciviously soiled the said child and killed him by his own hand.
Interrogated as to how he knew this, he responded that he was there and saw Gilles do it.
Item, the present witness stated and deposed that, by order of the said Gilles, and thinking to merit his recognition thereby, he conducted a young and beautiful boy from La Roche-Bernard, in the diocese of Nantes, to Machecoul and handed him over to the said Gilles, who committed on him his abominable, lascivious crimes; until finally the young boy had his neck cut like the aforesaid others.
Item, he stated and deposed that the said Gilles took possession of a young boy who was the page of Master Francois Prelati, who was also very beautiful himself; and the said Gilles de Rais, after having abused him lasciviously, killed him or had him killed in the above said manner.
Item, he stated and deposed that during Pentecost in 1439, he, the witness, together with the said Henriet, took from Bourgneuf, in the parish of Saint-Cyr, in the diocese of Nantes, a very beautiful adolescent, approximately fifteen years old, who was staying with a man named Rodigo; and they led him to the said Gilles who was then lodging with the Cordeliers of the same place, where the said Gilles committed and exercised his lusts on the said child, in the aforesaid execrable manner, and the said witness and Henriet, by order of the said Gilles, killed the said child and brought him to the castle at Machecoul where they burned him in the room of the said Gilles, the accused.
Item, he stated and deposed that two and a half years before, as it seems to him, a certain inhabitant of Nantes and native thereof, named Pierre Jacquet, commonly called Princé, who had a young, extremely suitable page of approximately fourteen living with him, gave this young boy to the said Gilles, the accused, to be his valet and his servant in place of him, the witness, who was then proposing to retire from service and had many times asked permission of the said Gilles de Rais; who, after having made use of the said adolescent in his lascivious debaucheries, as he had done with the others, killed him by his own hand.
Item, he deposed and stated that a certain André Buchet, who was first in the chapel of the said Gilles de Rais and then in that of the Lord Duke, had led a child of approximately nine from the vicinity of Vannes all the way to Machecoul to the said Gilles, who received him, through one of his servants, named Raoulet; and the said child was dressed as a page, and to pay him back, the said Gilles gave the said Buchet a horse that Pierre Heaume had given him, which was valued at sixty gold royals; and the said Gilles practiced his lascivious debaucheries on the said child, who was then killed like the aforesaid others.
Item, the witness, present and hearing, stated and deposed that the said Gilles de Rais sometimes boasted of taking greater pleasure in killing and cutting the throats of the said boys and girls or having them killed, in seeing them languish and die, and in cutting off their heads and members and in seeing their blood, than in practicing his lust on them.
Item, he stated and deposed that when the said Gilles de Rais found or saw two boys or girls, brothers and sisters, or otherwise related, if one of them were not to his liking, and if he only wanted to practice his lust and become debauched on one but not the other, in order not to alert the displeasing one the other's having been taken, the said Gilles, the accused, took both of them, or had both taken, and practiced on him who was to his liking his carnal abominations in the manner expressed above, then cut both their throats or had them cut, one and the other.
Item, he said and deposed that the said Gilles, the accused, once performed the said carnal act on him, the witness, in the manner described above, as soon as he, the witness, came to stay with the said Gilles, and he said that he was afraid of being killed by him; and he thinks that he would have been, with a dagger, if the said Sillé had not prevented the said Gilles from doing so, saying that he was a pretty lad and that it was better that the said Gilles make him his page; and the said accused became enamored of him, the witness, and demanded that he take an oath not to reveal any of this or of his other secrets in any fashion.
Item, he stated and deposed that he heard it said by Master Eustache Blanchet, priest, who frequently saw the said Gilles de Rais, that he could not accomplish what he was intending to do and had undertaken, without giving or offering the devil a child's foot, hand, or other member.
Interrogated as to whether he saw or knew that some of the said members were given or offered to demons by the said Gilles, he responded no. But when in the company of others, he had once seen the said Gilles, after having taken the hand (he does not know whether it was the right or left) and heart of a child killed by his order in the castle at Tiffauges, put the said hand and heart in a glass chalice on a cyma of the fireplace in his room, and cover them with a linen cloth, telling the witness and the said Henriet to close and lock the said room.
Interrogated as to what was done with said members, he responded that he did not know, but he believed that the said Gilles, the accused, subsequently gave them to the said Master Francois Prelati to be offered to the Devil.
Item, he stated and deposed that the said Gilles de Sillé reported to him, the witness, and the said Henriet, that a fortnight or three weeks before Lords de La Suze and Lohéac arrived at the castle at Machecoul, the said Sillé, according to what he told him, the witness, and the said Henriet had removed and taken away from a tower near the lower hall of the said castle the bones of approximately forty children, and had them burned; and on that subject the same Sillé said that it happened in the nick of time for the said Gilles, the accused, Sillé himself, and all others who loved, and were loved by, the same Gilles, the accused…
Interrogated as to who killed the said children, and when, and who put them or their bones in the said tower, he responded that to the best of his belief, the said children were killed by the said Gilles de Rais, Gilles de Sillé, and Roger de Briqueville, before he, the witness, was living with the said Gilles; and he knew nothing else.
Item, he stated and deposed that when the said Gilles, the accused, was unable to find more children at his convenience, boys and girls on whom to practice his execrable debaucheries, he practiced them on the children in his chapel, in the manner set forth above; and principally, according to what he had heard, on the younger of two sons of Master Briand, resident of Nantes.
Interrogated as to whether Gilles de Rais killed any of the said children in his chapel after practicing his debaucheries on them, or had them killed, the witness responded no, because he esteemed them highly and because they themselves kept these acts secret…
Item, the said witness stated and deposed that last July the said Gilles, the accused, went to Vannes for an audience with the Lord Duke, and lodged with a man named Lemoine, outside the walls of the city of Vannes, opposite and near the Episcopal palace, in a place commonly called La Mote; which André Buchet, abovementioned, handed over to Gilles de Rais a child of approximately ten, on whom the said Gilles committed and perpetrated his abominable sins of lust in the manner above stated; which child was led to the house of a man named Boetden, where the squires of the said Gilles, the accused, were lodging, a house situated close to the marketplace of Vannes, and relatively near the house of the said Lemoine. The child was led there because there was no place secret enough at Lemoine's wherein to kill him; which child was killed in a room in the house of the said Boetden, his head having been cut off and separated from his body, then burned in the said room; as for the body, tied with the child's own belt, it was thrown into the latrines of the house of the said Boetden, where he, the witness, descended, with much pain and difficultly, in order to sink the body into the depths of the said latrines; and the witness added that the said Buchet knew all about this.
Item, he stated and deposed that the said Gilles, the accused, after cutting into a vein in the necks or throats of the said children, or into other parts of their body, and while they bled, and also after their decapitation, practiced as above cited, would occasionally sit on their bellies and delight in watching them die thus, sitting at an angle the better to watch their end and death.
Item, he stated and deposed that occasionally and fairly often after the decapitation and death of the said children, effected thus and otherwise, as related above, the said Gilles delighted in looking at them and having them looked at by him, the witness, and others who were privy to his secrets; and he displayed to them the heads and members of the said slaughtered children, asking them which of these children had the most beautiful member, the most beautiful face, the most beautiful head; often he found joy in kissing one or another of these slaughtered children whose members were being examined, or one of those that had already been examined by someone and seemed to him to have the most beautiful face.
And such was the deposition of the witness. And he was enjoined to reveal nothing of it to anyone whomsoever...”
Henriet Griart followed up Poitou’s deposition as another key witness for the prosecution on the same day of October 17th, 1440. He, like Poitou, gave graphic details about the torture and murder of the kidnapped children to the court. He also gave a full confession later in the trial which, on the one hand, corroborated much of what he said in his deposition. Below are excerpts from his confession which give more details on exactly what Lord de Rais’ “lascivious debaucheries” were:
“Let it be known that the said Henriet had been a servant and valet of the said Lord de Rais...the said Lord made him take an oath to reveal nothing of the secrets he intended to confide in him. That oath taken, he ordered the said Henriet and Poitou, as well as a fellow named Petit Robin, now deceased, to go into the tower where the said dead children were, take them, and put them in a coffer to be carried to Machecoul. And in the said tower he had discovered thirty-six heads that were put in three trunks, which were bound with cords and taken across the water to the said place of Machecoul, where they were burned, and not in Champtocé, because the said Lord de Rais only stayed there a day or two after having recovered the said place...Lord de Rais betook himself to Machecoul where the said children were, who were nearly totally putrefied, because they had been killed well before...
Item, the said Henriet declared that the said Gilles de Sillé and Poitou had delivered many little children to the said Lord de Rais in his room, with whom the latter had intercourse, exciting himself and spilling his seed on their bellies; but he did not have his way with them but once or twice. Sometimes the said Lord himself cut their throats, sometimes Gilles de Sillé, Henriet, and Poitou slit them in his room; and they wiped up the blood that ran on the spot; and dead, the children were burned in the said room of the said Lord, after the latter had gone to lie down. The said Lord took greater pleasure in cutting their throats or watching their throats be cut than in knowing them carnally. And this Henriet, Gilles de Sillé, and a man named Rossignol had brought and handed over to him about forty, who were killed and burned in the same fashion. This Henriet nabbed those he delivered while they were begging, and the said Sillé, Poitou, and Rossignol burned them.
Item, the said Lord and Master Francois Prelati met alone for five weeks in a room at Machecoul to which the said Lord had the key. And the said Henriet heard that a hand of wax and a piece of iron had been found in it.
Item, he declared that Catherine, the wife of a man named Thierry, who was living in Nantes, gave him her child to be admitted as a chorister of the said Lord. And he, Henriet, led him to his room at Machecoul. And there the said Lord and Poitou made him swear to reveal nothing of their secret. The child delivered, the said Henriet returned to Nantes, where he remained for three days. But on returning to Machecoul, he did not see the child again and was told that he was dead. Henriet said that this was the first child that he had delivered to the said Lord; and he thinks that it was about four years previously.
Item, he said that he delivered to the said Lord, at his house, La Suze, in Nantes, a child of Guibelet Delit's, another of Jean Hubert's, another of one named Donete, another of one named Lemion, all four from Nantes. The said Lord had sexual intercourse with them in the said house, and they were killed and burned…Item, he said that Poitou conveyed a beautiful child from La Roche-Bernard to the said Lord at Machecoul, who was likewise put to death.
Item, he said that children were taken to Nantes, and brought to the house of La Suze, where they were killed and burned in the room where the said Lord slept, who was in bed when they burned them; by his order, they placed large or long logs on the andirons in the fireplace, and two or three dry faggots on top of the logs, after which they placed the children; and the ashes of those burned were dispersed in various spots at Machecoul.
Item, he said that he had a beautiful page of Master Francois' killed at Machecoul.
Item, he said that a young and beautiful boy who was living with Rodigo at Bourgneuf-en-Rais had been brought by Poitou and killed at Machecoul, so Poitou told him. And Henriet said that he was not present at the death of the said child, but that he heard it said by Poitou or by Gilles de Sillé that this child had been put to death like the others.
Item, he said that Princé delivered to Poitou a young page who was living with him, whom Henriet knew, who was put to death as well; he adds that the said murders of children had occurred in the room where the said Lord slept at Machecoul, or at the entrance, and that after burning their bodies, to move more quickly, they sometimes burned the garments and shirts of these children piece by piece in the flames, in such a manner that no one could detect the smoke.
Item, he said the Master Francois Prelati often went into the room of the said Lord and remained there an hour or two alone with him.
Item, he said that Master Eustache went looking for the said Master Francois and that he heard him say that he would summon Master Aliboron, that is, the devil; and that he heard Master Eustache say that Master Francois would make him come for a jug of wine.
Item, he heard that André Buchet, who belonged to the chapel of the said Lord, and presently belongs to that of the Duke, sent children from Vannes to the said Lord at Machecoul, and that his own servant, named Raoulet, brought him one who was put to death, and that this was around the time when the Duke paid the said Lord money due on Champtocé…Item, he said that Milord Roger de Briqueville, Gilles de Sillé, Poitou, and Rossignol knew about the aforementioned.
Item, he said that he had heard that he (Gilles de Rais) loved to see the children's heads cut off after having had sex with them on their bellies, their legs between his own; and sometimes he was on their bellies when the heads were separated from their bodies, other times he cut them behind the neck to make them languish, which he delighted in doing; and while they languished it happened that he had intercourse with them until their death, occasionally after they were dead, while their bodies were still warm; and there was a braquemard (short-sword) to cut their heads off with; and if occasionally the beauty of these children did not conform to his fantasy, he cut their heads off himself with the said cutlass, whereupon he occasionally had intercourse with them.
Item, he heard the said Lord say that there was no man alive who could ever understand what he had done, and it was because of his planet that he did such things.
Item, he said that occasionally the said Lord had the said children dismembered at the armpits and that he delighted in seeing the blood; and he heard Master Eustache Blanchet say that the said Lord could not accomplish what he had set out to do without offering up the feet, legs, and other members of the said children to the Devil; that he, Henriet, killed twelve by his own hand; and sometimes the said Lord asked Milord de Sillé, him, Henriet, and Poitou which of the slaughtered children had the most beautiful heads...he stated that one day at Tiffauges, he, Henriet, entered the said room of Lord de Rais', after the latter and Master Francois Prelati had remained there alone for a long time and then left, and that he noticed on the ground of the said room a large circle, inside of which were characters and crosses, the meaning of which he did not know.
Item, he said that the said Lord had a small book written in blood or red ink, but he is not certain which.
Item, he stated and confessed that to prevent the children from crying out when he (Gilles de Rais) intended to have intercourse with them, the said Lord de Rais had a cord put around their necks beforehand, and had them suspended about three feet off the ground in a corner of the room, and before they were dead he let them down or had them let down, asking them not to say a word, and he rubbed his penis in his hand, after which he spilled his seed on their belly; that done, he had their throats cut, having their heads separated from their bodies, and occasionally, after they were dead, asked which of these children had the most beautiful heads.
Item, he declared that the said Lord sometimes gave him two or three crowns for the said children; the said Lord chose them himself when they came begging, asking them where they were from and, when they were not from the region and said they had neither a father nor a mother, and they pleased him, he had them admitted to the castle of Machecoul. He then had the gates of the castle drawn apart.
Item, he said that occasionally the said Lord chose little girls, whom he had sex with on their bellies in the same way as he did with the male children, saying that he took greater pleasure in doing so, and had less pain, than if he had enjoyed them in their nature; thereafter these girls were put to death like the said male children.
Item, he stated that if two of the children were brothers, and if they were brought together, he took his pleasure with just one of them but kept them both in the castle, and so that he who remained would not reveal anything of his brother's fate they were both put to death.
Item, he stated that occasionally, when the said Lord did not have intercourse with the said children, he had it instead with those in his chapel, which was not the witness' concern, because he kept it a secret.
Item, he stated that on the last trip the said Lord made to Vannes, pretending to be waiting for money that the Duke owed him, and staying there two or three days, - and this was last July, it seems to the witness, - André Buchet led to the said Lord's lodging a child, who was killed, whose body was thrown into the latrines of the house, where the said Poitou descended by means of a cord to shove the said body down, whence Buchet and he, Henriet, who helped in the task, had difficulty removing him.”
Francois Prelati was called to the stand on October 16th, 1440, as a key witness for the prosecution. His deposition was crucial to the prosecution case, since it established much of the evidence in regards to the charge of heresy. Below are prominent passages from it:
“Francois Prelati, examined and interrogated October 16, 1440...a cleric, as he affirms, having received the clerical tonsure from the Bishop of Arezzo; having studied poetry, geomancy, and other sciences and arts, in particular alchemy; aged twenty-three or thereabouts, to the best of his belief.
Item, he stated and deposed that about two years ago, while he was staying at Florence with the Bishop of Mondovi, a certain Milord Eustache Blanchet, a priest, came to him, who made his acquaintance through the mediation of a certain master from Monte-Pulciano, and that then the same Eustache and he saw each other frequently for a time, eating and drinking together, and doing other things; finally the aforesaid Eustache asked him, among other things, whether he knew how to practice the art of alchemy and the invocation of demons; to which the aforesaid Francois responded yes; and then the same Eustache asked whether he wanted to come to France. To which the aforesaid Francois responded that a relative of his acquaintance, named Martellis, lived in Nantes in Brittany, and that he would be glad to see Martellis. Then the aforesaid Eustache told the same Francois that in France there lived a great personage, named Lord de Rais, who much desired to have about him a man learned and skilled in the said arts, and that, if the aforesaid Francois were skilled in that department and wanted to accompany him to the aforesaid Lord, he could receive generous accommodations. Whereupon, on account of the aforesaid things, the aforesaid Francois consented to accompany the same Eustache to the aforesaid Lord de Rais, and with that they took to the road to France; and the same witness carried with him, from Florence, a book dealing with invocations and the art of alchemy. And they arrived at Saint-Florent-le-Vieil, a city that belongs to no diocese, situated in the ecclesiastical province of Tours, and they stayed there for several days. And from this same place the aforesaid Eustache wrote to the aforesaid Lord de Rais in order to announce their arrival; upon learning which, the said Lord immediately sent the men named Henriet and Poitou, namely Étienne Corrillaut, his familiars, with two others, to travel towards the said witness and the said Eustache, who arrived at Tiffauges, in the diocese of Maillezais. After their arrival, having received the aforesaid Francois and Eustache, and having been informed by the latter that this Francois was skilled and learned in the aforesaid arts, Lord de Rais rejoiced immensely; with which Lord the aforesaid witness stayed continuously for a period of about sixteen months thereafter.
Item, he said that after staying a while at Tiffauges he made the acquaintance of a certain Breton from Brittany who, at the same place, at Tiffauges, in the diocese of Maillezais, was lodging at the house of Geoffroy Leconte, the captain of the castle of the same place, and was caring for his wife, who was suffering from an eye malady; among this Breton's things the witness found a book bound in black leather, part paper, part parchment, having letters, titles and rubrics all in red. Now, this book contained invocations of demons and several other questions concerning medicine, astrology and more; which books the witness showed a little later to the aforesaid Gilles. After having looked at and glanced through them, the same Gilles decided that together they would try out and test the contents of these books, particularly those parts regarding the aforesaid invocations. Thus, one night after dinner, in the large lower hall of the castle at Tiffauges, the aforesaid Gilles and witness, having taken candles and other things, with the book in question that the witness had brought, as he said, drew, using the tip of a sword in the soil, several circles comprising characters and signs in the manner of armories, in the composition and drawing of which the aforesaid Gilles de Sillé, Henriet, and Poitou, also known as Étienne Corrillaut, as well as Milord Eustache Blanchet, participated. After the aforesaid circles and characters were drawn and the light was lit, all the aforesaid except Milord Gilles de Rais and the witness, by order of the aforesaid Milord Gilles, left the aforesaid room, while the same Gilles and witness placed themselves in the middle of the aforesaid circles, at a certain angle close to the wall, where the witness traced another character with burning coal from a earthen pot; upon which coals they poured some magnetic dust, commonly called magnetite, incense, myrrh, aloes, whence a sweet-smelling smoke arose. And they remained in the same place for almost two hours, variously standing, sitting, and on their knees, in order to worship the demons and make sacrifices to them, invoking the demons and working hard to conjure them effectually, the aforesaid Gilles and witness reading by turns from the aforesaid book, waiting for the aforesaid invoked demon to appear, but, as the witness affirms, nothing appeared that time.
Item, the witness said that one could read in this book how demons had the power to reveal hidden treasures, teach philosophy, and guide those who acted. The words of invocation that they used then were conceived thus: 'I conjure you, Barron, Satan, Belial, Beelzebub, by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, by the Virgin Mary and all the saints, to appear here in person to speak with us and do our will.' Interrogated to know whether, in the event the demon had appeared in the same place, they would have made some gift or offering, the witness said yes: a live cock, dove, pigeon, or turtledove to engage him not to harm them during his invocation, and so that he would more easily grant them what they solicited…
Item, he said that one night, he and Poitou, namely Étienne Corrillaut, the aforesaid servant of the aforesaid Rais, the latter knowing and prescribing it, and in his name, left the aforesaid castle at Tiffauges, in the aforesaid diocese of Maillezais, bringing the aforesaid book with tapers, magnetic dust, and other aromatics with which to summon demons, and arrived at a field about the distance of an arrow's flight below the pond of the aforesaid place, close to Montaigu; and there they drew a circle and characters similar to the aforesaid others and then lit the fire as above, and made the aforesaid invocations. And the witness recommended that the aforesaid Poitou…not cross himself while entering the circle, and while they remained there, lest it prevent the invoked demon from appearing; and they performed the said invocation as the witness and said Gilles had in the aforesaid room, and nothing appeared; and they remained there about half an hour; they made that invocation about an arrow's flight away from an old, uninhabited house. As they were returning from the place of the said circle it began to rain torrentially; and the wind blew violently, and it was pitch dark.
Item, he declared that he had heard it said by a certain Guillaume Daussy, a familiar and servant of the said Gilles, that the same Gilles killed young boys, and caused them to be killed, in his room at Tiffauges, and in his room at Machecoul and at the entrance to the same said place, and that he offered their blood and members to demons, performing the aforesaid evocation of these same demons.
Item, that he had heard the man named Guillaume say that the said Gilles committed sodomy on the said boys.
Item, he said that about one year before, he had seen a child six months old, in the said room at Tiffauges, killed and stretched out on the floor, in the presence of Gilles de Sillé; which child he believes was killed by the said Sillé.
Item, that, as the said Gilles and witness performed several invocations together, at which the conjured demon did not appear, the said Gilles asked the witness why it happened thus and for what reason the invoked demon had not appeared or spoken to them, and he told the witness himself to ask the same thing of the devil. To find out, the witness made an invocation, and obtained from the invoked demon the response to the aforesaid question, which was that the said Gilles promised to give the conjured demons many things, but did not keep his promises; and that, if the same Milord Gilles intended the demon to appear and speak to him, each time he appeared and spoke to him, Gilles would have to give a cock, hen, dove, or pigeon, provided that the same Gilles did not solicit from this invoked demon anything considerable, and that if by chance he solicited something of the sort, he was then obligated to provide the demon some member of a young boy; and this is what the witness reported to the aforesaid Gilles.
Item, he said that this being brought to the attention of the said Gilles, the same Gilles, on one occasion a little later, carried into the said Francois' room the hand, heart, eyes, and blood of a young boy, kept in a glass, and gave them to him so that, as soon as they performed an invocation, Francois could offer and give them to the demon should he respond to the said invocation; as to whether the said members were those of the child the witness said he had seen dead in the said hall at Tiffauges, or those of another, he does not know, as he affirms.
Item, that not long after the aforesaid, the witness and the said Gilles, in the aforesaid place, that is, in the hall at Tiffauges, performed an invocation with the aforesaid ceremonies, with the intention of offering and giving the hand, heart, eyes, and blood to the demon if he appeared; at which invocation the demon did not appear, which is why a little later the witness wrapped the aforesaid hand, heart, and eyes in a piece of linen and buried them close to Saint Vincent's chapel, within the enclosure of the said castle at Tiffauges, in sacred soil, to the best of his belief.
Item, he said that he practiced several invocations in the aforesaid hall, placing incense, myrrh, and aloes on the fire lit in the earthen pot set in the center of the circle. At which invocations the devil named Barron appeared to him often, and as many as ten or twelve times, in the form of a handsome young man about twenty-five years old.
Item, he said that he practiced three invocations in the presence of the said Milord Gilles at which the devil did not appear, nor had he ever again appeared to Gilles in the presence of the witness, and the witness did not know whether he had ever appeared to Gilles again.
Interrogated to know with whom, or by whom, and where the witness learned the art of the aforesaid invocations, he responded that it was in Florence and with a certain Master Jean de Fontenelle, a doctor, three years before…Item, he said that when, accompanied by Poitou, namely Étienne Corrillaut, he went into a field outside the village of Tiffauges, as was reported before, the said Milord Gilles gave him a letter, written in French in Gilles’ own hand, to deliver to the devil if he appeared at the invocation that the witness and the said Poitou…were about to perform, and that they did as stated before; which letter contained, in effect, the following: 'Come at my bidding, and I will give you whatever you want, except my soul and the curtailment of my life.' Which letter he later returned to Gilles, the devil not having appeared at the aforesaid invocation…
Item, on the return of the said Lord Gilles from Bourges, the witness performed an invocation in the aforesaid hall at Tiffauges, at which Barron appeared in human form; from whom the witness, in the name of the said Lord Gilles, asked for money. And not long after that, in fact, he saw a large quantity of gold ingots appear in the room; this gold remained there for several days. As soon as he saw it, the witness wanted to touch it, but the evil spirit's response was that he should refrain because it was not yet time. Which the witness reported to the said Milord Gilles; and the same Milord Gilles asked him whether he might see it, whether that were permitted; to which the witness responded yes; and the two of them headed for the said room and, as the witness opened the door, a huge, winged, and vigorous snake, as big as a dog, appeared to them on the ground; and then the witness told the said Gilles to take care not to enter the room, because he'd seen a snake there; frightened, the said Gilles started to run for cover and the witness followed. After this the said Milord Gilles took a cross that contained splinters of the Holy Rood in order to enter the room more safely; but the witness told him it was not good to use a holy cross in such an affair. A little while later the witness entered the said room and, when he touched the said apparition of gold, he perceived that it was nothing but fawn-colored dust, and he knew by this the duplicity of the evil spirit...”
On the morning of Thursday, October 20th, 1440, court was again in session in the "great upper hall of La Tour Neuve." The prosecution wrapped up its case. It was now the defense’s turn. In the tense courtroom Guillaume Chapeillon, the prosecutor, sat "on the one side," and "Gilles de Rais, the accused, on the other" before the "Bishop of Nantes (Jean de Malestroit) and Friar Jean Blouyn, Vicar of the...Inquisitor," who were "sitting on the bench to administer the law." Guillaume Chapeillon asked the judges "to fix and assign a convenient term for" Lord de Rais "to speak or object to anything he wanted, orally or in writing, against the" evidence and testimonies presented.
"At the said prosecutor's request" the judges "interrogated anew...Gilles, the accused, to know whether he intended to give or propose something of importance on his behalf or in his justification, on the subject of the offenses and crimes raised and proposed against him." Gilles "responded no," and that "he was abiding by what he had already said at another time." However, "once again, at the said prosecutor's insistence," the judges "asked...Gilles, the accused, whether he intended to say or allege, orally or in writing, anything of importance against the said witnesses' characters or against their depositions." And again Gilles said no.
Guillaume Chapeillon wanted a confession from Gilles in order to strengthen his case, even if it meant sending him to the torture chamber to force it out of him. The prosecutor turned to Bishop Jean de Malestroit and Friar Jean Blouyn. He said that "considering the production of witnesses, their statements, and their depositions that sufficiently established the intent of the accused in the case," he had to make an important request in regards to Lord de Rais' full confession to the charge of heresy and sodomy. He asked the judges that "in order to shed light on and more thoroughly scrutinize the truth, torture or the rack ought to be applied to...Gilles, the accused."
The judges, "having discussed everything with their experts, and having considered everything that had gone before," determined that Gilles "should suffer torture and be submitted to interrogation and tortures..."
The next day Lord de Rais was escorted to the lower rooms of La Tour Neuve where the plan of torture was to take place. At the last moment, "Gilles begged them humbly to be willing to postpone the...application" of torture "until the following day...saying that in the meantime he would deliberate somehow on the subject of the crimes and offenses brought against him," and that "he would satisfy them to the extent that it would not be necessary to question him" in the torture chamber. Jean de Malestroit and Jean Blouyn, with the Bishop of Saint-Brieuc, who was "present and accepting the charge graciously," delayed the plan to torture Gilles until "the second hour of the afternoon of the present day..."
Gilles, wishing to avoid the torture chamber, gave his out of court confession "in the presence of the…Bishop of Saint-Brieuc," and others, including the President of Brittany, Pierre de L'Hôpital, and cleric, Jean de Touscheronde "in the convenient room given in La Tour Neuve castle in Nantes to” Gilles de Rais. The trial records state that “the confession was made voluntarily, freely, and under no constraint, on the afternoon of Friday, October 21st (1440)."
Gilles de Rais, “interrogated by the…Bishop of Saint-Brieuc and the…President, ...confessed that he had committed and maliciously perpetrated on numerous children the crimes, sins, and offenses of homicide and sodomy; he confessed also that he had committed the invocations of demons, oblations, and immolations, and made promises and obligations to demons, and done other things that he had confessed recently…”
When Pierre de L'Hôpital asked him where and when “he began perpetrating the crime of sodomy,” Gilles replied “in the Champtocé castle,” but he did not “know when or in what year,” but probably he had “begun doing it the year his grandfather, Lord de La Suze, died.” Pierre de L'Hôpital interrogated him further and asked him “who had persuaded him to the…crimes and taught him how to commit them.” Gilles explained “that he did and perpetrated them according to his imagination and idea, without anyone's counsel and following his own feelings, solely for his pleasure and carnal delight, and not with any other intention or to any other end.”
Pierre de L'Hôpital was surprised that Lord de Rais would commit the “crimes and offenses of his own accord and without anyone's instigation.” The President persisted to ask Gilles “what motives, with what intent, and to what ends he had the…children killed,” so that he may “be willing to declare these things thoroughly, in order to disburden his conscience.” Lord de Rais was “indignant at being solicited and interrogated in this manner,” and “spoke in French to the…Lord President: 'Alas! Monsignor, you torment yourself and me along with you.'”
Pierre de L'Hôpital replied in French: “'I don't torment myself in the least, but I'm very surprised at what you've told me and simply cannot be satisfied with it. I desire and would like to know the absolute truth from you for the reasons I've already told you often.'”
Gilles then responded back: “'Truly, there was no other cause, no other end nor intention, if not what I've told you: I've told you greater things than this and enough to kill ten thousand men.'”
Still not satisfied, Pierre de L'Hôpital “ordered that Francois Prelati be brought into the…room.” When the guards brought Francois to him, the President interrogated both he and Gilles “on the invocation of demons and the oblation of the blood and members of the…small children.” Pierre de L'Hôpital was trying to establish a connection between the murders and the Devil.
Both Francois and Gilles “responded that…Francois performed several invocations of demons, and of one named Barron specifically, by order of” Lord de Rais, “as much in his absence as in his presence.” In addition to this, Gilles “said that he was present at two or three invocations, especially at...Tiffauges and Bourgneuf-en-Rais, but that he was never able to see or hear any demon” and that he “had conveyed an obligatory note written and signed in his own hand to the same Barron by way of… Francois.” Gilles, in the note, “promised to obey” Barron’s “orders, while retaining his soul…and his life.” He also had “promised…Barron the hand, eyes, and heart of a child, which Francois was supposed to offer him.” However, “Francois did not do it…”
Francois agreed with Gilles’ confession. Then, Pierre de L'Hôpital “ordered…Francois to return to his room or wherever he was being guarded.” Lord de Rais quickly went over to Francois and “spoke in tears and gasps to him in French: 'Goodbye, Francois, my friend! Never again shall we see each other in this world; I pray that God gives you plenty of patience and understanding, and be sure, provided you have plenty of patience and trust in God, we will meet again in the great joy of paradise! Pray to God for me, and I will pray for you!'” Gilles embraced him but Francois was then “taken away immediately."
The next day, on October 22nd, Baron Gilles de Rais gave a more detailed confession in court. The key parts of it are stated below:
"The said Gilles de Rais, the accused, voluntarily and publicly, before everyone, confessed that, because of his passion and sensual delight, he took and had others take so many children that he could not determine with certitude the number whom he'd killed and caused to be killed, with whom he committed the vice and sin of sodomy; and he said and confessed that he had ejaculated spermatic seed in the most culpable fashion on the bellies of the said children, as much after their deaths as during it; on which children sometimes he and sometimes some of his accomplices, notably the aforesaid Gilles de Sillé, Milord Roger de Briqueville, knight, Henriet and Poitou, Rossignol and Petit Robin, inflicted various types and manners of torment; sometimes they severed the head from the body with dirks, daggers, and knives, sometimes they struck them violently on the head with a cudgel or other blunt instruments, sometimes they suspended them with cords from a peg or small hook in his room and strangled them; and when they were languishing, he committed the sodomitic vice on them in the aforesaid manner. Which children dead, he embraced them, and he gave way to contemplating those who had the most beautiful heads and members, and he had their bodies cruelly opened up and delighted at the sight of their internal organs; and very often, when the said children were dying, he sat on their bellies and delighted in watching them die thus, and with the aforesaid Corrillaut (Poitou) and Henriet he laughed at them, after which he had the children burned and their cadavers turned to ashes by the said Corrillaut and Henriet.
Interrogated as to where he perpetrated the said crimes, and when he began, and the number of deaths, he stated and responded: in the first place, at the Champtocé castle, in the year when Lord de La Suze, his grandfather, died, at which place he killed children and had them killed in large numbers - how many he is uncertain; and he committed with them the said sodomitic and unnatural sin; and at this time Gilles de Sillé alone knew, but then Roger de Briqueville, then Henriet, Étienne Corrillaut, also known as Poitou, Rossignol, and Robin successively became his accomplices; and he said that he had the bones of the children killed at Champtocé removed, heads as well as bodies, which had been thrown into the base of the tower; and he had them put in a coffer and transported to the castle of Machecoul, where they were burned and reduced to ashes; and that in the said place of Machecoul he had taken and killed other children, and caused them to be taken and killed - a large number of them, how many he did not know - and in the house named La Suze, in Nantes, which he possessed at that time, he killed, caused to be killed, burned, and turned to ashes many children, whose number he could not remember, whom he abused and defiled, committing with them the unnatural vice of sodomy, as above. Which crimes and offenses he committed solely for his evil pleasure and evil delight, to no other end or with no other intention, without anyone's counsel and only in accordance with his imagination..."
On Tuesday, October 25th, 1440, Gilles appeared before the court in the large hall of the La Tour Neuve’s castle. As usual, he sat on one side and the prosecutor, Guillaume Chapeillon, on the other, before the judges, Jean de Malestroit, the Bishop of Nantes, and Friar Jean Blouyn, the Vice-Inquisitor. The court was filled to capacity with many spectators, both priests and noblemen alike. Outside a long throng of people waited anxiously for the verdict. The judges “deemed it appropriate to proceed with their sentence and to all their definitive sentences.” They declared:
“We, Jean, Bishop of Nantes, and Friar Jean Blouyn...sitting on the bench and with our minds set on naught but God alone...considering the depositions of witnesses summoned by us and by our prosecutor...against you, Gilles de Rais, our subject and justiciable (liable to stand trial)...considering your confession given voluntarily before us, and other items and matters considered on that side that justly roused our souls, we decree and declare that you, the aforesaid Gilles de Rais, present before us in trial, are found guilty of perfidious apostasy as well as of the dreadful invocation of demons, which you maliciously perpetrated, and that for this you have incurred the sentence of excommunication and other lawful punishments...we decree…the aforesaid Gilles de Rais…guilty of committing and maliciously perpetrating the crime and unnatural vice of sodomy on children of both sexes; and for it with these instruments we excommunicate you and conclude that you have incurred other lawful punishments, in order to punish and…correct you..."
The judges then wanted “to know whether he (Gilles) wanted to be reincorporated with the Church.” He replied “that he had never known what heresy was,” and “that he did not know that he had lapsed into and committed it.” He felt that “since the Church judged that the acts he had committed smacked of heresy,” he then “devoutly supplicated to her on his knees.” And he “did so while sighing and moaning - to be reincorporated by” Jean de Malestroit and Jean Blouyn. The judges “received and admitted” Lord de Rais back. Gilles, in response, “solicited it humbly,” and then “on his knees, with continued sighing and moaning, supplicated to be absolved of the sentences of excommunication brought against him.” He began “imploring them to grant him pardon.” The judges “for the love of God” allowed Gilles to be “absolved...of the sentence of excommunication...and restored to participation in the sacraments and to the unity of the faithful in Christ and his Church.” But “at the earnest request” of Lord de Rais, Jean de Malestroit and Jean Blouyn also “charged the male religious, Friar Jean Jouvenel” to “hear the secret confession of the accused” and “to absolve him of his sins previously confessed or needing to be confessed.”
Even though Gilles de Rais was granted a pardon from the sentence of excommunication, he still awaited the court’s decision if he was going to be sent to prison or condemned to hang. Later, on the same day, he was taken by armed escort to the castle of Bouffay to hear his final sentencing. As far as some of his accomplices were concerned, Francois Prelati, who was sentenced to prison for life, succeeded in escaping, but was later caught and hanged. Eustache Blanchet was condemned to banishment for the rest of his life. Poitou and Henriet awaited their fate with Gilles.
Soon, on October 25th, 1440, in the secular proceedings of the court, Lord de Rais was found guilty of the illegal seizure of the castle in Saint-Etienne and as well as the unlawful imprisonment of Jean le Ferron. For this particular crime, the President of Brittany, Pierre de L'Hôpital, sentenced Gilles to a large fine, which was to be acquired by the sale of his lands and possessions. The court also decided that “Henriet and Poitou would be hanged and burned.”
Pierre de L'Hôpital, now presiding for the court, “requested the advice of many upright men and council members present at the trial” before giving his final sentence to Lord de Rais for the charges of murder, sodomy and heresy. The President then “declared that he (Gilles) deserved to die” for these particular crimes and that he “was to be hanged and burned” on “the following day at eleven o'clock.” Gilles then “thanked God” and Pierre de L'Hôpital “for having notified him of the hour of his death.” De Rais then asked that he be hanged with Poitou and Henriet on the same day and time, so that “he might be able to comfort them” and “speak to them of their salvation at the hour of execution.” He also requested that, since he “was the principal cause of the misdeeds of his servants,” he wanted to die first in front of them as an example. He was afraid that if he didn’t, Poitou and Henriet would “fall into despair, imagining that they were dying while he, who was the cause of their misdeeds, went unpunished.” The court granted all of Gilles’ requests and Pierre de L'Hôpital further stated to him that his body, after the hanging, was “to be placed in a coffin and buried in this city of Nantes, in whatever church” he wanted. Gilles then thanked him and asked that he “be buried in the church of the Carmelite monastery of Notre-Dame in Nantes.” The lengthy trial thus ended.
The execution of Lord de Rais and his accomplices, Poitou and Henriet, was watched by a large crowd, peasants and noblemen alike joined. Below is the official passage of their death:
"In the performance of the said sentences pronounced against the said Gilles de Rais, and against his servants Henriet and Poitou, they were led together to the place prepared for the said execution, in a field not far above the bridges of Nantes. And earlier that same day, at nine o'clock or thereabouts, a general procession took place wherein a great multitude of people prayed to God for the said condemned, who were present at the said place of execution; the said Gilles de Rais confessed and exhorted his aforesaid servants on the subject of the salvation of their souls, urging them to be strong and virtuous...and to have profound regret and contrition for their misdeeds...and to believe that there was no sin a man might commit so great that God in His goodness and kindness would not forgive, so long as the sinner felt profound regret...And they ought very much to desire to be out of this world, where there was nothing but misery, so as to enter into eternal glory. And thus, as soon as their souls left their bodies, those who had committed evil together would thereby meet each other again in glory, with God, in paradise. And he begged them to be sure to do as he asked...
The said Henriet and Poitou then thanked the said Gilles de Rais for the good advice and warning he had given them on the salvation of their souls...praying to their master to seek for himself what he counseled them in. And after having exhorted them thus, Gilles got down on his knees, folding his hands together, begging God's mercy, praying to Him to be willing to punish them not according to their misdeeds, but, being merciful, to let them profit by the grace in which he put his trust, telling the people that as a Christian, he was their brother, and urging them and those among them whose children he had killed, for the love of Our Lord's suffering to be willing to pray to God for him and to forgive him freely, in the same way that they themselves intended God to forgive and have mercy on themselves...And the said Gilles then made beautiful speeches and prayers to God, recommending his soul to Him. And then, so as to set his aforesaid servants a good example, he wished to die first. Just before his death, his said servants told him and implored him to be a strong and valiant knight in the love of God...Which Gilles de Rais died repentant. And before the flames could open his body and entrails, it was drawn away and his body placed in a coffin...And immediately the said Henriet and Poitou were hanged and burned, such that they were reduced to ashes...”
All of our Serial Killer Magazines and books are massive, perfect bound editions. These are not the kind of flimsy magazines or tiny paperback novels that you are accustomed to. These are more like giant, professionally produced graphic novels.
We are happy to say that the Serial Killer Trading Cards are back! This 90 card set features the artwork of 15 noted true crime artists and will come with a numbered, signed certificate of authenticity for each set. get yours now before they are gone forever.
SERIAL KILLER MAGAZINE is an official release of the talented artists and writers at SerialKillerCalendar.com. It is chock full of artwork, rare documents, FBI files and in depth articles regarding serial murder. It is also packed with unusual trivia, exclusive interviews with the both killers and experts in the field and more information that any other resource available to date. Although the magazine takes this subject very seriously and in no way attempts to glorify the crimes describe in it, it also provides a unique collection of rare treats (including mini biographical comics, crossword puzzles and trivia quizzes). This is truly a one of a kind collectors item for anyone interested in the macabre world of true crime, prison art or the strange world of murderabelia.
All of our Serial Killer books are massive, 8.5" x 11" perfect bound editions. These are not the kind of tiny paperback novels that you are accustomed to. These are more like giant, professionally produced graphic novels.
We are now looking for artists, writers and interviewers to take part in the world famous Serial Killer Magazine. If you are interested in joining our team, contact us at MADHATTERDESIGN@GMAIL.COM
