GUILTY France, Dominique Pélicot, drugged wife of 50 years nightly, filmed rape by at least 51 men, 2011-2020

  • #501

" 'I'm looking for a pervert accomplice

to abuse my sleeping wife':

How Monster of Avignon planned Gisele Pelicot's rapes

with thousands of depraved chatroom messages to other deviants."


View attachment 552278


View attachment 552285

Well, those messages certainly do give a sense that this particular rapist knew she had no clue bc her husband was about to dose her AND that she was not seen as a person who had any rights bc he asks if the rapist husband had her tested as if she was an animal.

I hope these people never see the light of day.
 
  • #502
"We have to wait at least one hour to abuse her."

So, his accomplices were waiting with him, looking at her, how she step by step got seduced enough??
 
  • #503
"Monster of Avignon
is seen arriving at court before
pleading for forgiveness from his wife
for drugging and abusing her:

50 'rapists' make their excuses while Gisele Pelicot looks on as trial nears its end."

1734554221583.jpeg

 
  • #504
  • #505
I was under the impression that these were not simply "sleeping pills" he used, but a drug that was used in surgery to put a person "under" or "asleep" so they could be operated on without causing them pain... i.e., a general anesthetic. Are they just using the term "sleeping pills" loosely to describe this anesthesia drug, or were they truly just "sleeping pills" that people regularly take when they have trouble sleeping? When I've taken sleeping pills, they just help me to fall asleep, but they never "knock me out" or put me into such a stupor that things could be done to me without my knowledge. Or who knows, maybe they do, but I would never know since no one ever did anything to me while I was sleeping under their influence. But I don't think I'm ever that completely out on them. I know at least once, someone knocked on my door after I'd gone to sleep after taking sleeping pills, and I heard it and was able to rouse myself enough to get up and answer the door. I felt pretty groggy and went right back to sleep, but I remembered all this when I woke up.

So if he was using regular sleeping pills on her, was he just giving her more than the recommended dosage every time, enough to knock her out so completely that she never knew any of this was happening and had no memory of it when she awoke? That is so risky! That's what people do when they try to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills. Sometimes it works and they never wake up, and if it doesn't work, they usually wake up in the hospital, where I assume they have to have their stomach pumped out. How was she able to wake up every time after this and not end up in the emergency room?

I still don't think I understand what kind of drug this was that he used. Maybe there's really no difference between saying sleeping pills (at high doses) or anesthesia, but I thought they were different things. Maybe at the doses he gave her, there really is no difference in the effects. No matter what it was, I think he was really playing a life or death "game" every time he "dosed" her, which is just as bad as all the things he did or allowed others to do while she was asleep. How could he live with himself all those years and still keep doing it again and again? If she had died because of an overdose of what he gave her, I suppose none of this would ever be known, and he would have played the part of the grieving husband. Such an evil thing to do to a person, and to think it was his own wife, and he did it over and over for all those years. I get sick thinking about it.
 
  • #506
"Monster of Avignon
is seen arriving at court before
pleading for forgiveness from his wife
for drugging and abusing her:

50 'rapists' make their excuses while Gisele Pelicot looks on as trial nears its end."

View attachment 552560

Why the quotation marks around the word "rapists?"
 
  • #507
I was under the impression that these were not simply "sleeping pills" he used, but a drug that was used in surgery to put a person "under" or "asleep" so they could be operated on without causing them pain... i.e., a general anesthetic. Are they just using the term "sleeping pills" loosely to describe this anesthesia drug, or were they truly just "sleeping pills" that people regularly take when they have trouble sleeping? When I've taken sleeping pills, they just help me to fall asleep, but they never "knock me out" or put me into such a stupor that things could be done to me without my knowledge. Or who knows, maybe they do, but I would never know since no one ever did anything to me while I was sleeping under their influence. But I don't think I'm ever that completely out on them. I know at least once, someone knocked on my door after I'd gone to sleep after taking sleeping pills, and I heard it and was able to rouse myself enough to get up and answer the door. I felt pretty groggy and went right back to sleep, but I remembered all this when I woke up.

So if he was using regular sleeping pills on her, was he just giving her more than the recommended dosage every time, enough to knock her out so completely that she never knew any of this was happening and had no memory of it when she awoke? That is so risky! That's what people do when they try to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills. Sometimes it works and they never wake up, and if it doesn't work, they usually wake up in the hospital, where I assume they have to have their stomach pumped out. How was she able to wake up every time after this and not end up in the emergency room?

I still don't think I understand what kind of drug this was that he used. Maybe there's really no difference between saying sleeping pills (at high doses) or anesthesia, but I thought they were different things. Maybe at the doses he gave her, there really is no difference in the effects. No matter what it was, I think he was really playing a life or death "game" every time he "dosed" her, which is just as bad as all the things he did or allowed others to do while she was asleep. How could he live with himself all those years and still keep doing it again and again? If she had died because of an overdose of what he gave her, I suppose none of this would ever be known, and he would have played the part of the grieving husband. Such an evil thing to do to a person, and to think it was his own wife, and he did it over and over for all those years. I get sick thinking about it.

Gisele was not only his wife
BUT
is also MOTHER of his children.

It shows his indifference not only towards his wife but his own children as well.

:(

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #508
Why the quotation marks around the word "rapists?"

It is a quote from the link (Daily Mail)
hence "..." quotation mark, and further '...'

I guess because they are NOT sentenced yet.

They are STILL defendants/charged of the crime
but NOT convicted criminals.

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #509
It is a quote from the link (Daily Mail)
hence "..." quotation mark, and further '...'

I guess because they are NOT sentenced yet.

They are STILL defendants/charged of the crime
but NOT convicted criminals.

JMO
Yes, I was aware you were quoting the Daily Mail (Apologies if that was unclear.)
My response was more of a rhetorical question, wondering why the newspaper would do that, as quotation marks used that way have a delegitmizing effect; it comes across as if the Daily Mail are expressing skepticism about the charges and minimizing what happened to Gisele Pelicot. They might as well have written "so-called," and given how heinous sexual assault is, and how loaded discussion about it is, that comes across as tone-deaf. Instead of putting quotes around the word 'rapists' the Daily Mail could have done better by referring to them as "suspects" or "the accused" in the interim, until the verdicts come down. That would still be proper in a legal sense, yet without reading as if the article was scoffing at the charges.
I don't see this as a minor quibble about punctuation, but rather as (unfortunately) an example of just how entrenched certain attitudes are, and how much of an attitudinal shift is needed when it comes to sexual assault.
 
  • #510
Yes, I was aware you were quoting the Daily Mail (Apologies if that was unclear.)
My response was more of a rhetorical question, wondering why the newspaper would do that, as quotation marks used that way have a delegitmizing effect; it comes across as if the Daily Mail are expressing skepticism about the charges and minimizing what happened to Gisele Pelicot. They might as well have written "so-called," and given how heinous sexual assault is, and how loaded discussion about it is, that comes across as tone-deaf. Instead of putting quotes around the word 'rapists' the Daily Mail could have done better by referring to them as "suspects" or "the accused" in the interim, until the verdicts come down. That would still be proper in a legal sense, yet without reading as if the article was scoffing at the charges.
I don't see this as a minor quibble about punctuation, but rather as (unfortunately) an example of just how entrenched certain attitudes are, and how much of an attitudinal shift is needed when it comes to sexual assault.

Hmmm...

Only Judge/s can state at the end of the trial that defendants are guilty or innocent,
not we (the public) or MSM.

Or Juries in some countries decide about the Guilty/Innocent verdicts after deliberations.

MSM is cautious.
Civil lawsuits are expensive.

I totally understand their decision to use quotation marks.

It is the task of the Court of Law to decide about the guilt.
Not the task of journalists.

JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #511
Hmmm...

Only Judge/s can state at the end of the trial that defendants are guilty or innocent,
not we (the public) or MSM.

Or Juries in some countries decide about the Guilty/Innocent verdicts after deliberations.

MSM is cautious.
Civil lawsuits are expensive.

I totally understand their decision to use quotation marks.

It is the task of the Court of Law to decide about the guilt.
Not the task of journalists.

JMO
I understand everything you wrote, but I think you missed my point: I wasn't implying that the Daily Mail should be declaring the defendants guilty before a verdict is issued. The paper could have easily avoided the appearance of insensitivity, and have also still been on firm legal ground (and not come across as pre-judging those facing charges) merely by using a different word, such as "alleged" or "the accused, rather than "quote rapists unquote." Words matter.
 
  • #512
I understand everything you wrote, but I think you missed my point: I wasn't implying that the Daily Mail should be declaring the defendants guilty before a verdict is issued. The paper could have easily avoided the appearance of insensitivity, and have also still been on firm legal ground (and not come across as pre-judging those facing charges) merely by using a different word, such as "alleged" or "the accused, rather than "quote rapists unquote." Words matter.

Forgive me,
English is a foreign language for me,
so such nuances are lost to me ;)
 
  • #513
Some of these men have admitted their guilt, haven't they, so yes IMO they are rapists.
 
  • #514
Re sleeping pills, I have taken them in the past, and am back on them again. And you build up a resistance to them if you're not careful, thus needing to take more and more.
 
  • #515
Were any additional charges put upon any of the men after the trial started? For example, didn't they learn in defendant testimony that at least one of the men had done the same to his own wife after having raped Mme Pelicot? And was there another one who at least drugged, possibly sexually assaulted another family member too?
I don't know much about the French legal system, but I was assuming that additional charges might come later in separate trials? MOO
 
  • #516
  • #517
  • #518
I think some of the men said they were guilty but they thought they had the husbands permission, so that should have made it ok, (in their minds)
:mad:
 
  • #519

Dominique Pelicot found guilty​

 
  • #520
Awaiting Sentencing.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
118
Guests online
2,589
Total visitors
2,707

Forum statistics

Threads
632,085
Messages
18,621,816
Members
243,017
Latest member
thaines
Back
Top