Horror.com Forums - Talk about horror.

Horror.com Forums - Talk about horror. (https://www.horror.com/forum/index.php)
-   Classic Horror Movies (https://www.horror.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   whos your favorite real killer or real history badass (https://www.horror.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6452)

thEsounDofdirT 06-10-2004 12:59 PM

you are right about 2 kinds of schizophrenics... the catatonic and the disorganized subclasses.. but some people just have short periods that leave them tormented

also, those schizophrenics that suffer from such delusions that they believe everyone is out to get them or something crazy will happen... take for instance the movie Fallen... he thought everyone was a demon and that he was receiving messages from God on the people he was supposed to kill ... that is the kind of schizophrenia you need to watch out for... some can be very scary in their organization of the incorrect ideas

feral cat 06-10-2004 01:07 PM

.... In the UK we have introduced the idea of care in the community, i.e. schizophrenics etc are monitored in the community and given medication to block the condition. As is often the case they forget or deliberately come of the meds(Often because they make them feel disorientated and sluggish) and the delusional feelings of unreality return, these people do attack and some times kill random strangers, but are caught quickly they do not become long term serial killers able to act normal in society! ... Like say Fred west from the UK who continued to be seen as a normal and who people thought of as a friendly guy!!!

thEsounDofdirT 06-10-2004 01:09 PM

yea.. this is why, successful serial killers are actually pretty rare... it's not often you find one deliberate and intelligent and focused enough to keep going and still evade the law...

Vodstok 06-10-2004 01:25 PM

.....For longer than a few years or so. Many, most even, go undetected for most of their carreers. look at how many have never been caught. Think about how many unsolved murders are actuaklly the work of an unkown serial killer.

They usually get caught when they get sloppy. Dahmer was doing pretty well for quite a while, but as his killing gained frequency, he got sloppy, and got caught.

Jack the ripper was never caught. Zodiac was never caught. The Greenriver killer was never caught. BTK was never caught.

MO plays a big part in their capture. henry lee lucas was not caught for any of his murders. He fucked up and got arrested for carrying a gun when he was on parole. It was only later that he confessed to killing. This happens in a lot of cases, they get busted for something else, and get discovered. Edmund Kemper CALLED THE COPS ON HIMSELF. Then he sat around and waited for them to pick him up.

One thing you see is that many sociopaths are chameleons, by observing others, they learn to mimic normal personalities. That is why they always "Seem like such a nice boy". I will grant you that the mentally ill exhibit what you described, but most serial killers arent crazy.

I think it was Dennis Nilsen (the english jeffery dahmer) who saifd that it was possible to be evil and sane. They know what they are doing, they know that it is wrong, but they are unable or unwilling to resist their urges.

kpropain 06-10-2004 02:23 PM

Actually the Green River killer was caught recently if I'm not mistaken

Vodstok 06-10-2004 03:29 PM

Really? Cool. Good. Sick fucker.

Steelsymth 06-10-2004 04:05 PM

I think people who don't know better mix up serial killers and spree killers, there's a diffrence

kpropain 06-10-2004 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vodstok
Really? Cool. Good. Sick fucker.
LINKAGE

thEsounDofdirT 06-10-2004 08:34 PM

riddle me this.. how can one murder... and not have some type of mental/personality disorder ("crazy")

call it anger ... call it revenge... it all links to a mental disturbance

Vodstok 06-11-2004 04:09 AM

I think you are jumbling the terms up, though. "Disturbed" doesnt mean "Crazy". Obviously, there is something wrong with them, but that doesnt mean that they are completely out of touch with reality. This is a great article on the subject:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_k...victims_1.html

I gets into some pretty deep thought about the whole thing. The basic thing is, these people arent living in a fairy world where demons chase them and order them to kill. People like that are exceedingly rare. It is thought that Son of Sam came up with the dog telling him to do it as an excuse.

Most Serial killers are organised, and have a very clear understanding of what they are doing, and that it is morally wrong. They also know full well it is illeagle. That is why these people never get off on insanity, they ARE sane. They took steps to cover their tracks, they know society deems it wrong, but they dont care, they just need to fullfill their fantasy and experience the thrill.

Michael Meyers and Jason are not based on any real people, they are entirely fuictional. Mass murderers of that kind are also exceedingly rare. The only person that qualifies that i can think of is Edward Speck. he killed 7 or 8 women in one night. He also wasnt "Crazy", he was angry.


Just because they cant control their urges doesnt excuse them, or make them fruitcakes. They are usually very methodical. a lot of planning goes into their activities. Nuts dont plan, they react, or act out. Sociopaths are unable to relate to other people, or feel empathy. That may make the aberrant, and even psychotic, but they still "exist" in our world. They dont roam around in little worlds of their own construct, only to wake up and find they have killed. They Meant to do it.

feral cat 06-11-2004 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thEsounDofdirT
riddle me this.. how can one murder... and not have some type of mental/personality disorder ("crazy")

call it anger ... call it revenge... it all links to a mental disturbance

A soldier can kill, the only thing that distance’s it from murder is that he believes his actions are justified, killers in society even serial killers do the same, and they convince themselves that they have a right to take the life of another for what ever sick reason!
… I agree with Vodstock, that although sick and disturbed they are in the larger part sane a truly mentally ill individual would find it very hard to continue in society without his illness being apparent (That’s not to say it does not happen)

… its like a rapist he thinks of a woman as weaker, lower or that she wants it, thus giving himself justification, he is how ever sane he has chosen to warp his mind to allow himself to commit the act and justify it! The same can be said of race hate crime, you tell yourself that the other person is a lower form of life thus making it easier to justify your actions!

newb 06-11-2004 06:14 AM

I was listening to Howard Stern this morning and he mentioned that David Berkowitz aka. Son of Sam had his own web site. So for any who are interested >>>> http://www.forgivenforlife.com/

thEsounDofdirT 06-11-2004 08:15 AM

you all are getting way too technical... this thread is not about fighting in the military as a soldier.. that's a given.. geez... and yes the most successful killers have been in touch with what they have been doing... but it doesn't seem wrong to them because they are sociopathic/anti-social personality disorder case... this means no conscience or remorse

this doesn't apply to them all... but i'm telling you... anyone who goes out and MURDERS... not kills for their country... is indeed living a DELUSION that what they are doing is correct

Vodstok 06-11-2004 08:25 AM

you miss the point, they 85-90 % of the time KNOW it is wrong, but do it anyway.

that is fucked up, but in no way delusional.

thEsounDofdirT 06-11-2004 08:28 AM

actually in my abnormal and criminal psychology classes that percentage was nowhere near that high... more like 35%... the vast majority are anti-socical personality disorder

thEsounDofdirT 06-11-2004 08:32 AM

then again, that could be wrong... but it was even posted in the APA's (american psychiatric society) Journal.. which is the foremost trusted up to date reading resource for psychologists and psychiatrists...

the killing with regret and knowledge of it being wrong seems like obsessive compulsive/ritualistic behavior... which is an anxiety problem... if they had a complete grasp on reality, they'd be able to control this...

thEsounDofdirT 06-11-2004 08:36 AM

also.. just because someone knows that killing is wrong, but does it anyway... doesn't make them sane... in fact that to me makes them more problematic and difficult to deal with... however, when they're caught, they seem to be pretty admitting on what they've done..

Vodstok 06-11-2004 08:37 AM

I guess it would depend to some degree on your school of thought on the subject. I imagine many people would consider sociopathy to be a mental illness. From everything i have read ( and much of my fiance's research), most serial killers are sociopaths, and are unable to empathize, and have no conscience, but would not consider that a disorder. It is a state of mind. It isnt any more insane than believing that an all-powerful force created everything, knows everything, and will send oyu to hell if you masturbate or eat meat on friday, yet Catholacism is one of the world's largest religions.

newb 06-11-2004 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vodstok
an all-powerful force created everything, knows everything, and will send oyu to hell if you masturbate
UH-OH:eek:

thEsounDofdirT 06-11-2004 08:50 AM

actually sociopath isn't considered a mental disorder
and it's not actually labeled as sociopathic anymore.. it's labeled as anti-social personality disorder... because in the DSM IV (what all psychs use to classify and dertermine mental and personality disorders) it is listed as a personality disorder... however, mental retardation is also listed as a personality disorder...

but i mean you have to look at what causes this kind of personality... it's something deep and almost unchangable that is mostly seen in males... borderline personality disorder is with females... but with most modern psychology we use behavioristic and cognitive theories of treatment.. which means we're stearing away from the deep collective unconcious and looking to the problematic behavior as the problem and symptom... the goal is to make that conscious behavior, unconscious...

but i still think, anybody who murders... whether it be because they enjoy it and are completely apathetic.. or if they don't want to do it and are being guided by some voice in their head .. which would in many cases be classified as hallucinations.. depending on the circumstances... or if you're looking at a revenge case or hatred of a specific group... it all goes back to killing which is obviously one of the most wrong things you can do...

and i know this is a hollywood movie, but i think hannibal is a good example of those that are aware of reality and what they are doing... however, if you really watch the character, he builds to outbursts ... which would be likely caused by unnoticed impulses... in the books it talks about his power of suggestion which is a need to be controlling... there are obviously many needs that can only be fulfilled by his brutal actions which is the same with many serial killers

this is an interesting conversation.. :)

thEsounDofdirT 06-11-2004 08:55 AM

and with the religion issue you mentioned... there are those extreme opinions yes... but it wouldn't be considered abnormal behavior ...because it is a norm and it has been accepted by society for so many hundreds of years... while it is not a worldwide norm.. it is considered to be a geographic norm... psychological abnormalities will be defined differently in all parts of the world

Vodstok 06-11-2004 09:01 AM

I agree. :) Usually by this point i would have expected one of us to start posting things like "Stfu, you dont know anything, what are you retarded?" But thank god, we seem above that :)

I think we see things very differently. If asked, i would say that Hannibal Lecter is in complete control of his actions. His attacks are usually done out of necessity, or anger. (or rather, a sense of "moral" superiority over the people he mangles).

This is a VERY interesting article, the writer actually builds a profile for Hannibal.
http://crimelibrary.com/serial_kille.../lecter/1.html

if you couldnt tell, i Live a bit at this site. MY fiance did a ton of research here for her final paper in criminal justice (she also majored in psychology).

The upside is, as with all science, it is healthy to have a difference of opinion. Keeps ideas from getting to incestuous and full of themselves.

thEsounDofdirT 06-11-2004 09:05 AM

yup.. and this is why you have people that go to different pscyhs for different problems.. just one quick note that you said about hannibal lashing out for need of superiority and ANGER.. isn't anger an impulse? :) and need of superiority seems to be a problem to me... somewhat of an obsessive compulsive nature.. the way he speaks just seems that way in general to me...

feral cat 06-11-2004 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vodstok
I agree. :) Usually by this point i would have expected one of us to start posting things like "Stfu, you dont know anything, what are you retarded?" But thank god, we seem above that :)

... Amen

Freddy Krueger. 06-11-2004 08:15 PM

Re: whos your favorite real killer or real history badass
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Thepuppetmaster
mine is dracula i like his father to there both good alot of people thinks that dracula was a mad man well he was but he had some good values about him to just do a little research on him
Dracula was real?...

Ted Bundy

Rebel Yell 06-11-2004 10:39 PM

Re: Re: whos your favorite real killer or real history badass
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Freddy Krueger.
Dracula was real?...


Yes. Vlad Dracula, or better known as Vlad the Impaler.

Vlad the Impaler was the real life Dracula, and wasn't a vampire. Thats one good thing about his life...probally the only good thing there was. Dracula, or Vlad III as he was known was a member of an aristocratic family in Walachia, a Romanian state bordered by Moldavia and the mythicized Transylvania. His father Vlad II also had the name Dracul meaning dragon or devil. Dracula means son of Dracul. For some war reasons, Vlad II sons had to spend time in Turkish prisons. Dracula was in prison between the ages of thirteen and seventeen. When he was realeased at his fathers death in 1448, he decided to make his father proud and continue with the war traditions. In 1456 he made his way to the Valachian throne. As prince and ruler of the country, he was in charge. He became known as Vlad the Impaler for his ways of inflicting agony and death. He would often impale his victims on stakes, through the heart or sometimes naval, or anus, and in women through the vagina. Often there would be mass executions. Once he impaled 500 noblemen who he thought were not sufficiently impressed with his power. He once ordered others to kill thousands of people while he sat and ate a few feet away. If women were adulterers, or had sex before marriage, he would have them skinned alive. Once he had a woman impaled for bad tailoring. A man was wearing pants and a shirt made to short by his wife, so after killing her, he supplied the man with a new spouse. He would also blind people, dismember, scalp, and boil them alive. Once he invited a bunch of beggars to his castle hall for a feast, and after the feast asked if they would like to live a care free life, after they replied yes, he had the hall set ablaze killing them all. In his six year reign at the Walachian throne, he may have been responsible for 100,000 deaths. Vlad was in exile for fourteen years. For four years he was in a Hungarian prison, where he'd impale small animals, then he was called to battle again. He would then take the throne at Walachia agian, but only for two months. In January of 1477 he was killed near Budapest in a battle against the Turks. His head was taken back to Constantinople.

KRUGERKID13 06-11-2004 10:52 PM

what she said

thEsounDofdirT 06-12-2004 07:06 AM

yes indeed... a good example is to watch the movie vlad the impaler.. while hollywood :) still cool

Morlok 06-18-2004 05:38 AM

George Bush Jr.

-KkkazikluBey- 06-18-2004 06:05 AM

Re: Re: Re: whos your favorite real killer or real history badass
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Rebel Yell
Yes. Vlad Dracula, or better known as Vlad the Impaler.

Vlad the Impaler was the real life Dracula, and wasn't a vampire. Thats one good thing about his life...probally the only good thing there was. Dracula, or Vlad III as he was known was a member of an aristocratic family in Walachia, a Romanian state bordered by Moldavia and the mythicized Transylvania. His father Vlad II also had the name Dracul meaning dragon or devil. Dracula means son of Dracul. For some war reasons, Vlad II sons had to spend time in Turkish prisons. Dracula was in prison between the ages of thirteen and seventeen. When he was realeased at his fathers death in 1448, he decided to make his father proud and continue with the war traditions. In 1456 he made his way to the Valachian throne. As prince and ruler of the country, he was in charge. He became known as Vlad the Impaler for his ways of inflicting agony and death. He would often impale his victims on stakes, through the heart or sometimes naval, or anus, and in women through the vagina. Often there would be mass executions. Once he impaled 500 noblemen who he thought were not sufficiently impressed with his power. He once ordered others to kill thousands of people while he sat and ate a few feet away. If women were adulterers, or had sex before marriage, he would have them skinned alive. Once he had a woman impaled for bad tailoring. A man was wearing pants and a shirt made to short by his wife, so after killing her, he supplied the man with a new spouse. He would also blind people, dismember, scalp, and boil them alive. Once he invited a bunch of beggars to his castle hall for a feast, and after the feast asked if they would like to live a care free life, after they replied yes, he had the hall set ablaze killing them all. In his six year reign at the Walachian throne, he may have been responsible for 100,000 deaths. Vlad was in exile for fourteen years. For four years he was in a Hungarian prison, where he'd impale small animals, then he was called to battle again. He would then take the throne at Walachia agian, but only for two months. In January of 1477 he was killed near Budapest in a battle against the Turks. His head was taken back to Constantinople.




Close enough.

Viking 06-18-2004 06:22 AM

Vlad Tepesh was bad-ass.

zwoti 06-18-2004 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Viking
Vlad Tepesh was bad-ass.
close...vlad tepes

Viking 06-18-2004 06:40 AM

No, sorry. We spell it Vlad Tepesh, thank you.[IMG]

http://orthodoxmkd.20m.com/vladtepesh.htm

It's really quite simple, all you have to do is look at the country with the absolute lowest crime rate in history: Romania during the reign of Vlad Tepesh. Why was the crime rate so low? Well, painful, violent executions for even the most mundane of crimes.

Think about it- if someone got caught stealing, and he was publically impaled, would anyone else dare risk stealing? It wouldn't even haveto go that far, if we just cut thieves hands off, like europeans used to, that would be incentive enough to stop breaking the law.

Sounds harsh? Well, it is, as it should be. We live in a society where murderers can get off scott free due to mere technicalities, where rapists and pedophiles walk the streets. A society where condemned men wait on death row for DECADES, till long after any benefit could come of their demise.

Why are our jails overpopulated? Why is it costing us, the U.S. taxpayers, $40,000 dollars per prisoner, per year? Why, when all such problems could be eliminated with simple, cost effective butchery?

Of course it sounds savage, but the only people who get hurt are those who willingly and knowingly break the law. Criminals will suffer as they should.

And, consider this: Vlad Tepesh is still considered, by the people of Romania, to be the greatest leader in the history of their land.

X¤MurderDoll¤X 02-26-2005 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Viking
No, sorry. We spell it Vlad Tepesh, thank you.[IMG]

http://orthodoxmkd.20m.com/vladtepesh.htm

It's really quite simple, all you have to do is look at the country with the absolute lowest crime rate in history: Romania during the reign of Vlad Tepesh. Why was the crime rate so low? Well, painful, violent executions for even the most mundane of crimes.

Think about it- if someone got caught stealing, and he was publically impaled, would anyone else dare risk stealing? It wouldn't even haveto go that far, if we just cut thieves hands off, like europeans used to, that would be incentive enough to stop breaking the law.

Sounds harsh? Well, it is, as it should be. We live in a society where murderers can get off scott free due to mere technicalities, where rapists and pedophiles walk the streets. A society where condemned men wait on death row for DECADES, till long after any benefit could come of their demise.

Why are our jails overpopulated? Why is it costing us, the U.S. taxpayers, $40,000 dollars per prisoner, per year? Why, when all such problems could be eliminated with simple, cost effective butchery?

Of course it sounds savage, but the only people who get hurt are those who willingly and knowingly break the law. Criminals will suffer as they should.

And, consider this: Vlad Tepesh is still considered, by the people of Romania, to be the greatest leader in the history of their land.

impalings for all.

X¤MurderDoll¤X 02-26-2005 11:19 PM

Probably Elizabeth Bathory

Quote:

Countess of Transylvania

In order to improve her complexion and also to maintain her failing grasp on her youth and vitality, Elizabeth Bathory slaughtered six hundred innocent young women from her tiny mountain principality.

...iin order to consolidate more tenuous clingings to influence there was considerable intermarriage amongst the Báthory family, with some of the usual problems of this practice produced as a result. Unfortunately, beyond the 'usual problems' some extraordinary difficulties arose (namely hideous psychoses) and several "evil geniuses" appeared, the notorious and sadistic Erzsébet the most prominent of them.

Unusual for one of her social status, she was a fit and active child. Raised as Magyar royalty, as a young maid she was quite beautiful; delicate in her features, slender of build, tall for the time, but her personality did not attain the same measure of fortuitous development. In her own opinion her most outstanding feature was her often commented upon gloriously creamy complexion. Although others were not really so equally impressed with the quality of her rather ordinary skin, they offered copious praise if they knew what was good for them, as Erzsébet did not accept unenthusiastic half-measures of adulation; and she was vindictive.

She was only 15 when she was 'married off' for political gain and position to a rough soldier of (nevertheless) aristocratic stock and manner. By reason of the marriage, she became the lady of the Castle of Csejthe, his home, situated deep in the Carpathian mountains of what is now central Romania, but which then was known only as Transylvania.

While her husband was pursuing his passion, the soldier business, and off on various campaigns, for Elizabeth -- who did not wish to amuse herself in the out-of-doors where those loutish peons were grubbing in the mud -- life became poundingly boring in very short order. Being an energetic teenager, although one with a view and experience of life which was 'special,' she set about finding novel amusements to occupy her days.

Her tastes were of a certain slant, and consequently she began to gather about herself (as her ample financial resources readily accommodated) persons of peculiar and sinister arts. These she welcomed into her presence, affording them commodious lodging and lavish attention to each of their most singular needs and interests. Among them were those who claimed to be witches, sorcerers, seers, wizards, alchemists, and others who practiced the most depraved deeds in league with the Devil and too painful to mention even in a story such as this. They taught her their crafts in intimate detail and she was enthralled. But learning such unspeakable things was not enough.

War in the 16th century was a brutal affair. While fashionably fighting the Turks and attempting to gain information from prisoners captured, her husband employed a horrid device of torture: clever articulated claw-like pincers, fashioned of hardened silver; which, when fastened to a stout whip would tear and rip the flesh to such an obscene degree that even he, a cruel man, abandoned the apparatus in disgust and left it at the castle as he departed on yet another heroic foray.

Elizabeth was not alone in her 'unusual' interests. Aware of Elizabeth's complex preoccupations, and amused by them, her aunt had introduced her also to the pleasures of flagellation (enacted upon desolate others of course), a taste Elizabeth quickly acquired. Equipped with her husband's heinous silver claws, she generously indulged herself, whiling away many lonely hours at the expense of forlorn Slav debtors from her own dungeons. The more shrill their screams and the more copious the blood, the more exquisite and orgasmic her amusement. She preferred to whip her 'subjects' on the front of their nude bodies rather than their backs, not only for the increased damage potential, but so that she could gleefully watch their faces contort in horror at their most grim and burning fate.

Her husband died in 1604 (some say 1602) of stab wounds imposed on him by a harlot in Bucharest whom he had not paid, and Elizabeth immediately dreamed of a lover to replace him, since she never cared for him in the first place -- so much for her mourning. However, the mirror showed her that her prurient indulgences, as well as time, had taken their toll on her appearance. Her 'angelic' complexion had long since faded to something less than perfection; she had reached 43. Her desire for a lover did not fade; she raged deep within, cursing time.

Such a simple interest as a new husband was not to rule the day, it was merely a detail. With the demise of her husband, prowling highly placed men began to smell a ripe opportunity to seize the power and influence encapsulated in the Báthory name; likely by acquiring her and then eliminating her. As well, she was next in line to become King of Poland, and she wanted the job. This seeming anomaly was possible within the governing constructs of the time, and the office of queen held no political weight. At the same time, she was educated beyond all those around her, reading and writing four languages while the prince of Transylvania was an illiterate boor (who bathed regularly -- every year on his birthday).

Maintaining her youth and vitality became central to this developing plot; the absolute divine right to power she understood was hers to keep and protect would be essential to the attainment of all that she sought. Vanity, sexual desire, drive for political power all were seamlessly blended into a central primordial passion. If she lost her youth, she could forfeit all.

Her mood deteriorated markedly and one day, as she viciously struck a servant girl for a minor oversight, she drew blood when her pointed nails raked the girl's cheek. The wound was serious enough that some of the blood got onto Elizabeth's skin. Later, Elizabeth was quite sure that that part of her own body - where the girl's blood had dropped - looked fresher somehow; younger, brighter and more pliant.

Immediately she consulted her alchemists for their opinion on the phenomenon. They, of course, were enjoying her hospitality and did not wish to disappoint, so, fortunately, they did recall a case many many years before and in a distant place where the blood of a young virgin had caused a similar effect on an aged (but generous) personage of nobility and good grace.

With such clear evidence at hand, Elizabeth was convinced that here was a brilliant discovery; a method to restore and preserve her youthful glow forever, or at least until she got what she wanted. The advice of her 'beauty consultant,' a woman named Katarina, concurred that her clever realization was most surely sound.

Elizabeth reasoned that if a little was good, then a lot would be better: she firmly believed that if she bathed in the blood of young virgins -- and in the case of especially pretty ones, drank it -- she would be gloriously beautiful and strong once again.


She then used the witches' help to find these girls.When back in the castle, each batch of young girls would be hung, alive and naked, upside-down by chains wrapped around their ankles. Their throats would be slit and all of their blood drained for Elizabeth's bath, to be taken while the heat of their young bodies still remained in the thickening and sticky crimson pool.

And every now and then, a really lovely young girl would be obtained. As a special treat, Elizabeth would drink the child's blood: at first from a golden flask, but later, as her taste for it increased, directly from the stream, as the writhing and whimpering body hung from the rafters, turning pale.

Although she had held off her political foes, after five years of this enterprise Elizabeth at last began to realize that the blood of peasant girls was having little effect on the quality of her skin. Obviously such blood was defective and better blood was required.

In early 17th century Transylvania, parents of substantial position wished their daughters to be educated in the appropriate social graces and etiquettes, so that they might gain the 'right' connections when ripe. Here was an opportunity.

In 1609, Elizabeth established an academy in the castle, offering to take 25 girls at a time from proper families, and to correctly finish their educations. Indeed, their educations were finished.

Assisted by Dorotta Szentes (known also by the graceful diminutive "Dorka") these poor students were consumed in exactly the same beastly fashion as the anguished peasant girls who preceded them. This was too easy, and Elizabeth became careless in her actions for the first time in her dreadful career. During a frenzy of lust, four drained bodies were thrown off the walls of the castle.

Word of this horror spread rapidly and soon reached the Hungarian Emperor, Matthias II, who immediately ordered that the Countess be placed on public trial. But, her aristocratic status did not allow that she be arrested. Parliament at once passed a new Act to reverse this privilege of station (lest she slip from their hands) and Elizabeth was brought before a formal hearing in 1610. Interestingly, no authority seemed inclined to offer any form of attention to these matters when merely peasant girls had been the subject of Elizabeth's blood-letting for five years previous.

By the final count, 600 girls had vanished; Elizabeth admitted nothing. Dorka and her witches were burned alive, but the Countess, by reason of her noble birth, could not be executed. Katarina was somehow seen as another victim, and was set free.

So, Elizabeth was damned to a death while alive. Sealed into a tiny closet of her castle -- and never let out -- she died four years later.

Elizabeth did not ever utter even a single word of regret, or remorse.

© Jerome C. Krause

zwoti 02-27-2005 01:32 AM

old thread

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...old_thread.jpg

urgeok 02-27-2005 04:34 AM

we can also rename the thread.

Who's Your Favorite Piece of Shit.

slasherman 02-27-2005 05:54 AM

RAMIREZ Richard
http://website.lineone.net/~tymaloney/picture4.jpg

aborted 02-27-2005 08:07 AM

the zodiac

X¤MurderDoll¤X 02-27-2005 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zwoti
old thread

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...old_thread.jpg

Some threads deserve to stay buried but I came across this one while using the "search" function and thought it deserved to be exhumed. :D


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:49 AM.