Background

On February 7, 1807, a strange couple arrived in Hildburghausen, a quiet town in Thuringia, Germany. The man called himself Count Vavel de Versay. However, the woman with him gave no clear identity at all. Instead, she remained hidden beneath layers of dark clothing, her face veiled, avoiding visitors and living almost completely cut off from the outside world.

Soon, locals gave the pair names that matched their strange behavior: the Dunkelgraf and Dunkelgräfin, the Dark Count and the Dark Countess. Their secretive and strange behavior may have remained nothing more than local gossip if not for one extraordinary rumor.

Some believed the veiled woman was none other than Marie-Thérèse Charlotte, the daughter of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, believed to have somehow survived the horrors of the French Revolution and returned to royal life.

A Mysterious Couple

The Dark Countess arrived in Hildburghausen on February 7, 1807. From the beginning, the couple drew attention because they seemed wealthy enough to live comfortably, but showed no interest in ordinary social life.

The man handled nearly all outside communication, while the woman remained almost invisible. She rarely appeared in public, and when she did, her face was covered. If she needed to travel, she usually did so in a closed carriage. This kind of secrecy was difficult to ignore in a small town. People knew the couple was there, but they did not know who they really were.

In 1810, the couple moved to the nearby secluded castle of Eishausen. The location offered them even more privacy, and they remained there for the rest of their lives. There, the Dark Countess continued her isolated existence, protected by the man who seemed determined to keep her identity hidden.

Years passed, but the mystery did not fade. If anything, the longer her identity remained hidden, the more people wondered what kind of secret required such careful protection.

Count Vavel de Versay

The man who called himself Count Vavel de Versay was later identified as Leonardus Cornelius van der Valck, born in Amsterdam in 1769, and had once served as secretary in the Dutch embassy in Paris from 1798 to 1799.

This background only made the mystery more intriguing. In the years after the French Revolution, Paris was full of exiles, political secrets, and individuals connected to the fallen French monarchy.

Van der Valck’s role in the Dark Countess’s life was unusual. He wasn’t a lover, nor was he introduced as her husband. Instead, he seemed more like a guardian than a companion. He managed her affairs, protected her privacy, and controlled access to her with extreme care. Whatever bound them together was strong enough for him to dedicate decades of his life to preserving her secrecy.

If the woman had been hiding alone, people might have assumed she was simply eccentric, ill, or troubled. But she was not alone. She had a protector with diplomatic experience who treated her identity as something that had to be guarded.

The Woman Behind the Veil

The mysterious woman known only as the Dark Countess was eventually identified as Sophie Botta, a single woman from Westphalia. Her earlier life remained difficult to trace, and the name did not answer the most obvious question: why had she lived for so long behind a veil?

She may have suffered from illness, disfigurement, emotional trauma, social disgrace, or some private scandal. She may simply have wanted to disappear from public life. Not every hidden person is hiding a royal secret. Still, her behavior was extreme. She avoided visitors, hid her face, and lived under the protection of a man who refused to reveal much about her.

Her secrecy was not casual. It was disciplined and carefully maintained. The mystery was not only that she had a hidden past. It was that every part of her life seemed arranged to prevent anyone from discovering it.

The Princess at the Center of the Legend

One of the most enduring theories about the Dark Countess was that she was actually Marie-Thérèse Charlotte, the surviving daughter of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

Marie-Thérèse Charlotte was born at Versailles in 1778, into one of the most powerful royal families in Europe. But her life was marked by the brutal tragedies of the French Revolution. Her father was executed in January 1793. Her mother was executed later the same year, and her younger brother died in captivity in 1795.

By the time Marie-Thérèse was released from prison, she had lost nearly her entire family. According to accepted history, she left France, later married Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême, and remained a known figure in Bourbon royal circles until her death in 1851.

The royal identity theory challenged that version of events. Supporters of the theory believed the real Marie-Thérèse never returned to public life. Instead, they claimed she was secretly replaced by another woman, often named as Ernestine de Lambriquet, while the true princess was hidden away.

According to this theory, the woman who later appeared as the Duchess of Angoulême was not the real Marie-Thérèse. The real one, broken by trauma or protected for unknown reasons, became the veiled woman of Hildburghausen.

The theory survived because it connected two mysteries that seemed to fit together. On one side, there was the tragic history of Marie-Thérèse, a royal survivor who lost everything. On the other side, there was the Dark Countess, whose identity remained guarded by a man with diplomatic ties to post-revolutionary Paris.

For those who believed this theory, all of the pieces seemed to fit. From the release of Marie-Thérèse from prison, followed by the sudden, unexplained appearance of the strange and enigmatic Countess and the overly protective Van der Valck. The French Revolution had created enough chaos that almost anything seemed possible.

Some also pointed to claims that Marie-Thérèse seemed different after her release from prison. They argued that her personality, behavior, or appearance had changed. However, a young woman who survived imprisonment, the execution of both parents, and the death of her brother would obviously not emerge unchanged.

A Death Without Answers

On November 28, 1837, the mysterious Dark Countess died. Her burial was unusually quick, and some accounts suggest it may have taken place without a religious service. Van der Valck gave her name as Sophie Botta, and a doctor reportedly estimated that she appeared to be about 60 years old. She was buried on Schulersberg hill, in a garden she had purchased years earlier.

However, even in death, the mystery did not end. After decades of secrecy, a simple name felt inadequate to capture the life she had lived. It did not explain the veil, the isolation, or the intense devotion of the man who guarded her.

Her protector and guardian, Van der Valck, died at Eishausen on April 8, 1845, and was buried in the churchyard. Whatever secrets he had about the Countess’s identity or past went with him to the grave.

The castle where the couple had lived was later demolished in 1873, removing the physical center of the story. What remained were records, rumors, graves, and a mystery that continued to attract attention long after both figures were dead.

DNA Testing

On October 15, 2013, the remains believed to belong to the Dark Countess were exhumed so researchers could finally test the most famous claim about her identity. If she truly was Marie-Thérèse Charlotte, her mitochondrial DNA should match the maternal line connected to Marie Antoinette.

Researchers compared DNA from the Dark Countess’s remains with maternal-line reference samples connected to Marie Antoinette’s family, including DNA linked to Louis XVII’s heart and a living maternal descendant.

After samples were taken, her remains were reburied in Hildburghausen on November 7, 2013. The tests concluded that the Dark Countess was not Marie-Thérèse Charlotte.

A reconstruction of her facial features was also studied and compared with known portraits and facial records of Marie-Thérèse. The reconstructed proportions did not match, further weakening the theory that the veiled woman was the daughter of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

The Dark Countess was almost certainly not Marie-Thérèse Charlotte. The accepted life of Marie-Thérèse is far better supported, and the DNA evidence works against the substitution theory. The idea of a royal switch may be fascinating, but it relies on too many assumptions with little evidence.

The Mystery Remains

Though the DNA testing helped prove who the Dark Countess was not, it unfortunately could not shed light on who she actually was. Even if she was likely not French royalty, she was still a real woman who lived an unusually hidden life. She still had a past that remains unclear, and a protector whose fierce loyalty has never been fully explained.

In the end, the Dunkelgrafen mystery is not about a princess lost to history. It is about a woman who became unforgettable because no one could truly identify her.

Sources:

“Molecular genetic analysis on the remains of the Dark Countess: Revisiting the French Royal family.” National Library of Medicine, 24 August 2015, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26344900/

“Molecular genetic analysis on the remains of the Dark Countess: Revisiting the French Royal family.” Science Direct, November 2015, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497315300612

“Madame Royale: Daughter of France.” Château de Versailles, https://en.chateauversailles.fr/discover/history/great-characters/madame-royale

“Scientists resolve myth about the identity of the Dark Countess.” Strange Remains, 13 March 2016, https://strangeremains.com/2016/03/13/scientists-resolve-myth-about-the-identity-of-the-dark-countess/

During this meeting, the devil gifted Peter with a magical girdle or belt that allowed him to transform into “the likeness of a greedy, devouring wolf, strong and mighty, with eyes great and large, which in the night sparkled like fire, a mouth great and wide, with most sharp and cruel teeth, a huge body, and mighty paws.” Whenever Peter removed the belt, he would return to his human form.

Background

The sordid events of Peter’s life and his cruel and brutal death are quite lurid. Although records from this time period are scarce, it is widely believed that Peter Stumpp was born around 1535 in the village of Epprath, near Bedburg in the Electorate of Cologne. At some point, he lost his left hand, leaving him with only a stump. It is assumed by many that his last name was a reference to his disability and was not his actual last name.

This is further backed up by the fact that his last name had several variations, including Stube, Stub, Stubbe, and Stumpf. Additionally, he used several aliases during his life, including Abal Griswold, Abil Griswold, and Ubel Griswold.

Monster in Disguise

Stumpp was a wealthy farmer and widower with two adolescent children. He was generally well-regarded in the community; however, no one knew the perverse wickedness that lurked beneath his pleasant exterior. This dual nature allowed him to get away with his crimes for 25 years.

He would eventually be charged with murdering and devouring 14 children, one of whom was his own son, as well as two pregnant women and their fetuses, which were brutally torn out from their mothers.

While supposedly in wolf form, Stumpp also attacked and mutilated wild animals such as sheep, lambs, and goats, devouring their flesh raw. He would also be charged with sorcery, Black Magick, consorting with the devil, cannibalism, incest, and carrying on a continuing relationship with a “she-devil.”

After the death of his wife, Stumpp carried on relationships with several women, including his mistress, Katherine Trompin. During this period, he also began an incestuous relationship with his daughter, Sybil. By his own confession, it was during the 1580s when Peter used his magical belt to become a wolf in order to satisfy his bloodlust.

He would stalk his unsuspecting victims, often young maidens, and when the opportunity presented itself, would strike. Stumpp would often sexually assault the young women before he murdered them. Many of these victims disappeared, never to be seen again.

He would sometimes attack a group of children playing in a field, causing them to scatter. He would then focus his attack on one of them and overpower them while the others fled.

According to one of the surviving records from the time, a 16-page pamphlet from 1590 translated from German and published in London:

This was the situation that one young girl found herself in when attacked by Stumpp. He tried to bite her throat, but her stiff high collar prevented him from being able to do so, and her screams startled a group of cattle grazing nearby, who then charged at Stumpp, causing him to flee.

Unthinkable Cruelty

Sadly, Stumpp’s son would not be as fortunate. Though it is said that Stumpp loved and treasured his son, by this time, his bloodlust had overwhelmed him, and one day, he enticed his son to come with him into the forest, where, according to records, he put on his belt and took the form of a wolf, mercilessly devouring the boy, after which

“he presently ate the brains out of his head as a most savory and dainty delicious mean to staunch his greedy appetite: the most monstrous act that ever man heard of, for never was known a wretch from nature so far degenerate.”

Peter Stumpp reveled in his cruelty and received enjoyment from saluting and greeting friends and family of people he had murdered when he passed them in the street. The people of Bedburg believed they were dealing with a bloodthirsty wolf and were rightfully frightened to travel and move about for fear of being attacked.

Residents would find severed arms and legs scattered about nearby fields. The men of the town knew that they had to stop the wolf, or it would continue to terrorize them.

Capture

A group of them formed, determined to hunt and kill the wolf. Accompanied by large Mastiffs and other hunting dogs, they searched for days until they came upon the beast, who was stalking yet another maiden. They sicced their dogs on him, and he fled.

Finally, the dogs had him cornered, and there was no escape. It was then that Stumpp apparently removed his belt and returned to his human form. When the hunters came to the spot where the dogs were barking, they were quite confused, as there was no wolf there, but rather a man whom they all knew. After determining that it was, in fact, Peter Stumpp and not the devil in disguise as some had supposed, they brought him before the magistrates to answer for his crimes.

Confession and Execution

Fearing torture, Peter Stumpp confessed to all of the crimes that he was accused of. Beginning with his practice of occult magick starting at age 12, and all of his other ghastly deeds up until the time of his capture. Also tried were his mistress, Katherine Trompin, and his daughter, Sybil (also known as Belle because of her beauty). They were both found guilty of being complicit in Stumpp’s crimes and sentenced to be burned alive.

If Peter’s goal in confessing was to avoid being tortured, he severely miscalculated. On October 31, 1589, Peter Stumpp was tied to a wheel, where he had red-hot burning Pincers placed on ten parts of his body, which pulled the flesh off his bones. After this, his arms and legs were broken with a wooden ax, and finally, his head was cut off with a sword.

Afterward, according to the surviving pamphlet titled “Declaring the damnable life and death of one Stubbe Peeter.”

Thus ended the incredible and strange tale of Peter Stumpp, “The Werewolf of Bedburg.” Whether you choose to believe all, some, or none of the story, it is nevertheless a fascinating historical account and gives an insight into the lives and mindset of a group of people living in a particular place and time.

Regardless, it seems only fitting that a “Werewolf” would be executed on Halloween.

Sources:

Wagner, Stephen. “The Werewolf of Bedburg: The True Story of a Monster That Terrorized a German Village.” Liveabout dotcom, 15 July 2018, https://www.liveabout.com/the-werewolf-of-bedburg-2597445

“The Werewolf Trials - The Damnable Life of Peter Stubbe.” The Spirit Realm Network, 25 March 2021, https://www.spiritrealm.net/the-werewolf-trails-the-damnable-life-of-peter-stubbe/

Tietz, Tabea. “Peter Stumpp - The Werewolf of Bedburg.” SciHi Blog, 28 October 2021, http://scihi.org/peter-stumpp-werewolf/

Flight, Tim. “12 ‘Real’ Werewolf Cases Throughout History.” History Collection, 14 May 2018, https://historycollection.com/12-real-werewolf-cases-throughout-history/

Family Background

The Báthory family was a powerful and prominent force in Hungary, Transylvania, and Poland during the 16th century. Baron George VI Báthory, brother of the ruling Voivode of Transylvania, was married to Baroness Anna Báthory.

Anna was the daughter of the Palatine of Hungary and the niece of Stephen Báthory, the Prince of Transylvania who later became King of Poland.

The Báthory family were well-known nobles and members of the Protestant faith. George and Anna resided in Ecsed Castle in Hungary. The couple had several children, and in August of 1560, they welcomed a daughter, Elizabeth.

Born into nobility, young Elizabeth was afforded a luxurious early life. She was extremely well-educated during her childhood and was taught multiple languages.

Despite the family’s power and wealth, Elizabeth reportedly struggled with seizures, which were likely due to epilepsy. During Elizabeth’s lifetime, epilepsy was not understood, and the treatments offered were… strange, to say the least.

Rise to Power

Health issues aside, Elizabeth was an intelligent young lady who was also considered quite beautiful. During these times, it was very common for noble families to facilitate arranged marriages. These arrangements were viewed as mutually beneficial to both families, and they were typically used to strengthen alliances and for political gain.

In 1573, when Elizabeth was thirteen years old, she was engaged to Count Ferenc Nádasdy, whose family was also Hungarian nobility. Through this union, the Nádasdy and Báthory families consolidated power, influence, and land in Transylvania and Hungary.

On May 8th, 1575, Elizabeth and Ferenc were wed at the Varannó palace in modern-day Slovakia.

As a wedding gift, the Nádasdy family gifted Castle Čachtice to the young couple. The castle formerly belonged to King Maximilian II. Ferenc and Elizabeth became the ruling nobles over the estate and nearby villages.

Three years after their wedding, Hungary was mounting opposition to fight the growing Ottoman threat, and Ferenc was called to serve as their chief commander.

While the war raged, Elizabeth was left to handle affairs at home. In addition to the regular responsibilities of nobility, Elizabeth also needed to defend their multiple estates from Ottoman attacks, which had previously laid siege to their castle.

Ten years after their marriage, Ferenc and Elizabeth had their first child, Anna Nádasdy, in 1585. The couple had at least five children, though some sources believe they had more, including some who died in infancy.

In 1603, Ferenc spent far less time on the battlefield due to the Long War winding down and his medical issues. It is not known what illness or injury afflicted Ferenc, but he suffered from severe leg pain that led to him becoming debilitated.

Then, on January 4th, 1604, Ferenc died, having lived 48 years, spending 29 of them as Elizabeth’s husband. Shortly before his death, Ferenc gave nobleman and cousin of his wife, György Thurzó, the responsibility of looking after Elizabeth and their children.

Dark Rumors

By the time Ferenc died, dark rumors had spread throughout the countryside. These rumors painted Elizabeth as a cruel monster. There were some reports that Elizabeth had been responsible for the deaths of numerous female peasants, but these accounts were never investigated.

Then, in 1609, Elizabeth reportedly was involved in the murder of women from noble families; these claims were not ignored.

Lutheran minister István Magyari spoke out against Elizabeth. He raised allegations before a public audience and even brought his claims before the court in Vienna, which attracted the attention of the ruling class.

Matthias II, King of Hungary, ordered György Thurzó, the same man Ferenc had entrusted to look after Elizabeth, to investigate these claims. By late 1610, György Thurzó and his assistants had taken statements from over fifty witnesses. By the following year, that number had increased to more than 300.

Just before New Year’s Eve in 1610, György Thurzó and his accomplices infiltrated Castle Čachtice. They did not warn the Countess that they were coming and allegedly arrived to find one young girl deceased and another who had been tortured but was still alive. Elizabeth and four of her servants were arrested.

The “Blood Countess”

The testimony of the witnesses yielded incredulous tales of extreme cruelty. According to the depositions, Elizabeth had subjected numerous women to extensive torture. Allegedly, some victims were stripped of their clothing and forced to take ice baths during the coldest months of the year, while in warmer months, they would be covered in honey and left outside to be eaten by insects.

Elizabeth is said to have tortured her victims personally, shoving needles into their fingers, whipping them with stinging nettles, or cutting their faces. According to some accounts, Elizabeth often bit her victims and burned their skin, including their genitalia.

The four servants who were captured were made to testify, though the validity of their testimony is questionable at best, as they were tortured excessively. The servants each tried to deny their involvement or pass the blame to someone else, but they each admitted to assisting Elizabeth in burying her victims.

Three of the four servants were executed; one was beheaded, and two were tortured and burned alive. The fourth is said to have temporarily escaped but was later recaptured and befell an unknown fate.

Allegations and Imprisonment

Elizabeth herself never stood trial. Many of the witnesses admitted that they did not observe the crimes firsthand but instead heard about them from someone else. Additionally, no letters of complaint had been written about Elizabeth, which was the method used to initiate legal proceedings at the time.

The trial of the four servants brought forward sensational allegations of a staggering 650 victims. However, this figure came solely from the testimony of one of Báthory’s servants, who claimed to have seen the number in one of the Countess’s private books.

The four servant’s testimonies suggested a figure somewhere in the range of 20-51 victims. Still, György Thurzó was convinced that Elizabeth had tortured and murdered at least 600 women and girls. He notified King Matthias II in January of 1611 that they had held the trial and imprisoned Elizabeth.

As a noblewoman, Elizabeth would not have been sent to a commoner’s prison. Elizabeth’s family intended to minimize the impact of the allegations to save face and avoid the loss of her assets.

They resolved to send Elizabeth to a nunnery. However, the news of the Blood Countess’s alleged atrocities spread faster than they could contain it. Instead of their original plan, the family and court officials elected to imprison Elizabeth within her home at Castle Čachtice. Her estates were entrusted to her family.

György Thurzó said that Elizabeth was confined to a walled-off space within the castle interior, but visits from priests recount the disgraced Countess having free reign of the castle.

Regardless, Elizabeth was never again permitted to leave Castle Čachtice. Shortly after her initial imprisonment in 1610, even before the trial, Elizabeth penned her last will and testament, in which she left all her possessions to her children.

On August 20th, 1614, Elizabeth told a guard that her hands felt cold. The guard assured her that it was nothing to worry about and that she should rest. The next morning, Elizabeth was found dead in her chambers.

She was initially buried in the church of Csejte, but her body was later moved to the family crypt at her childhood home, Castle Ecsed, after public outcry.

Elizabeth Báthory’s final resting place is unknown, but many believe she was laid to rest at Castle Čachtice, though there is no indication of her being buried there.

Fact or Fiction?

Though the haunting tale of the Blood Countess has captivated generations, there is a possibility that it was entirely fabricated. Many scholars, such as Cambridge University’s Dr. Annouchka Bayley, believe that Elizabeth Báthory was framed.

Dr. Bayley asserts that Elizabeth was a bit of a radical, maintaining an extensive library and educating massive numbers of girls. There are also rumors that Elizabeth was not quite as devout as the Báthory family would have others believe and that she potentially illegally printed books and distributed them to young women.

In addition to this, Elizabeth reportedly was owed a sizable debt by King Matthias II, which was nullified after her arrest. Elizabeth also held a great deal of wealth and power, especially following her husband’s death.

Many close to Elizabeth, including her own family members, became exponentially more wealthy and powerful after she was imprisoned. Could Elizabeth have been framed to cancel out the King’s debts, or was this a coup to grab riches and power?

Irrespective of the other reasons that the story could have been fabricated, the evidence is overwhelmingly inadequate. Of all the testimonies heard, a vast majority were conjecture and hearsay.

Witnesses admitted that their stories were second or third-hand accounts, not true eyewitness testimony. The servants who testified against Elizabeth were subjected to extreme torture, with some having their fingers ripped off by scorching hot metal implements.

Though Thurzó and his men did find dead and wounded girls when they entered Castle Čachtice, they did not find direct evidence to suggest that Elizabeth was responsible.

The stories of Elizabeth Báthory have been greatly exaggerated since her death, including the folklore that she bathed in the blood of her victims to maintain a youthful appearance.

Whether fact or fiction or somewhere in between, the tale of Countess Elizabeth Báthory will continue to fascinate and horrify for generations to come.

Sources:

Cawley, Laurence. “Cambridge University Academic’s Quest to Clear Elizabeth Bathory’s Name.” BBC News, BBC, 28 May 2024, www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-69057709.

“Elizabeth Bathory: Biography, Hungarian Countess, Serial Killer.” Biography, www.biography.com/crime/elizabeth-bathory. Accessed 3 Oct. 2024.

“Elizabeth Báthory.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 17 Aug. 2024, www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-Bathory.

“Elizabeth Báthory.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Sept. 2024, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Báthory.

Who Was Gilles de Rais?

Born around 1405 in Champtocé-sur-Loire, France, Gilles de Rais came from a prominent family with links to the House of Craon through his mother’s family and the powerful Laval family through his father.

However, both of de Rais’s parents died while he was a child, with his father dying in a hunting accident around 1415 and his mother passing away a few years after that.

Rais was then raised by his maternal grandfather, Jean de Craon. The young de Rais was said to be an intelligent child who was fluent in several languages, including Latin.

With an eye toward continuing to grow his family’s wealth and influence, Jean de Craon attempted to arrange for his grandson to be married to a woman from a noble family. After several failed attempts, de Rais became engaged to Catherine de Thouars, his third cousin.

Before any objections could be officially leveled, de Rais kidnapped Catherine and married her in a small chapel without official pronouncement. The marriage was declared incestuous by the Catholic Church and was not recognized.

However, the marriage was soon fully endorsed by the local bishop of Angers after penance, which likely included significant monetary compensation was paid to the Church.

As Jean de Craon had hoped, the marriage strengthened the prestige and influence of both families. The couple’s only child, Marie, was born in 1434.

Military Career

In 1420, a civil war broke out for control of the medieval feudal state known as the Duchy of Brittany. In February of that year, members of a rival House kidnapped Duke John V.

The Duke’s wife, Joan, then rallied her husband’s supporters to support the House of Montfort. These supporters included Jean de Craon and his sixteen-year-old grandson.

After the Duke’s release, Jean de Craon and Gilles de Rais were generously rewarded for their loyalty. This included substantial land grants, which were later converted into monetary gifts.

In 1425, Rais was sent to the court of Charles VII to study and master proper court manners.

In 1427, Rais fought against the English in the Hundred Years War. That year, he laid siege to an English-occupied fortress called the ‘Château of Lude.’ He successfully overtook the fortress and captured the English commander.

Gilles de Rais served as a military commander from 1427 to 1435, notably fighting alongside Joan of Arc at the Siege of Orleans. In 1429, Rais was given the title of Marshal, the nation’s highest military honor.

Lavish Lifestyle

In May 1431, Joan of Arc was famously burned at the stake, having been captured and turned over to the English the previous year.

The following year, in November 1432, Rais’s grandfather and benefactor, Jean de Craon, died. By the time his grandfather died, Rais had already developed a reputation for high living and lavish spending.

This point is illustrated by the fact that when he died, Jean left his sword and armor to Gilles’s younger brother, René de La Suze, rather than Gilles. This gesture very much went against custom and tradition and is seen by historians as a deliberate slight against Gilles because of his wanton and reckless spending.

By this time, Rais had mostly retired from military service and had become known for his flamboyant lifestyle and hard-partying ways.

By the early 1430s, Gilles de Rais had amassed a large fortune and was one of the wealthiest men in all of Europe. However, by mid-decade, his eccentric and lavish spending had whittled down his fortune.

Rais spent his fortune hosting extravagant parties with the finest foods, liquor, and entertainment. He also financed plays, literature, and other aspects of the arts. Rais also constructed a personal chapel called the ‘Chapel of the Holy Innocents.’

Some close to him said that he was worried about his eternal soul, which, in light of his crimes, is not that surprising.

Meanwhile, Rais’s family vehemently opposed his reckless spending, which was financed by selling off lands and property that should have remained in the family’s possession.

Eventually, his family petitioned the king, and in July 1435, they were successfully granted a royal edict, which declared Rais a “waster,” and prohibited those in his jurisdiction from purchasing property from Rais.

After selling off most of his remaining personal effects, Gilles de Rais left Orleans in late 1435.

Atrocities Revealed

Following his departure from Orleans, Rais reportedly became involved in the occult, specifically alchemy and demon summoning, in a vain attempt to restore his fortune. Later, testimony at his trial claimed that Rais summoned a demon named Barron and sacrificed a child to the entity in exchange for wealth.

However, Rais’s foray into Black Magic did not yield the desired results. Instead, he found himself in worse financial shape than ever.

During this time, there were also whispers and rumors about children going missing in and around Rais’s castles.

Yet it wasn’t until Rais and his servants abducted a religious cleric at a parish church during a dispute over land that Gilles de Rais was investigated.

The Church began an investigation into Rais and the dark rumors surrounding him. The investigation was headed by the Bishop of Nantes. At the same time, a secular investigation into Rais’s alleged crimes was also being conducted.

Rais was ordered to appear before the ecclesiastical court of Nantes to answer for charges, including more than one hundred counts of child murder, sodomy, heresy, and invoking demons. He was arrested in September 1440 and imprisoned in Nantes.

His secular prosecutors charged Rais with many of the same crimes. The extensive eyewitness testimony was damning, including witnesses who said they saw Rais’s servants burying the corpses of dozens of children near one of his castles.

The bodies of many of the victims were also recovered, lending further credibility to the witness testimony.

Confession and Execution

On October 21, 1440, Gilles de Rais confessed to many of the crimes of which he was accused. He claimed to have started sexually abusing and murdering children, primarily young boys, beginning in 1432.

He seemed to gain sexual excitement from the terror and cruelty he inflicted on his victims. Often sitting on their chest as they gasped their last breath.

Gilles de Rais and two of his bodyguards were found guilty and sentenced to be executed. All three men were sentenced to death by hanging and burning. The execution was set for October 26, 1440.

Rais asked to be allowed to be executed first, and his request was granted. He reportedly addressed the crowd before his death and expressed remorse for his actions.

Rais had also requested that he be allowed to be buried in the church of the monastary of Notre-Dame des Carmes in Nantes. This request was also granted.

Closing Thoughts

Much like the infamous Elizabeth Báthory, scholars, academics, and historians are somewhat divided over the extent and veracity of some of the claims leveled against Gilles de Rais.

However, in the case of Rais, the debate centers around the scale and number of victims rather than his guilt or innocence. Most agree that the evidence presented, coupled with Rais’s confession and seeming contrition, was proof that he was involved in at least several child murders.

Sources:

“Gilles de Rais: History’s First Serial Killer?” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/story/gilles-de-rais-historys-first-serial-killer

“Gilles de Rais.” Criminal Minds Wiki, https://criminalminds.fandom.com/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais

D., Seth. “Gilles de Rais Biography.” The Famous People, 8 September 2024, https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/gilles-de-rais-6780.php

Background

For nearly two centuries, the strange and murky circumstances surrounding the death of renowned British explorer Thomas Simpson and two of his traveling companions have fascinated and puzzled generations of historians.

On June 14, 1840, members of Simpson’s expedition team discovered his body along with the lifeless bodies of John Bird and Antoine Legros Sr.

From the very start, the investigation into the men’s deaths was marred by controversy. The testimony from witnesses both at the scene and immediately after were often inconsistent or contradictory.

Then, as the investigation expanded, disturbing new possibilities began to emerge.

Who Was Thomas Simpson?

The man who would become the focal point of this perplexing mystery was born on July 2, 1808, in Dingwall, Scotland. Simpson’s mother, Mary, also helped raise Thomas’s cousin, George Simpson, who would play a significant role in Thomas’s life.

Interestingly, Thomas, the man who would later explore some of the roughest terrain in North America and routinely travel hundreds of miles by foot, was described as a weak and sickly youth who avoided “rough sport.”

At 17, Simpson attended King’s College, Aberdeen. His intention was to join the clergy.

Thomas excelled in his studies and was presented the Huttonian prize, the college’s highest award. While still at King’s College, Thomas’s cousin, George Simpson, now employed by Hudson’s Bay Company, offered Thomas a position with the company.

Thomas, however, declined the offer, as he was committed to finishing his education.

Upon graduation in 1828, Simpson took the next step in his pursuit of becoming a clergyman by enrolling in a divinity class. That year, Thomas’s cousin George once again offered him a position at Hudson’s Bay Company.

This time, Thomas accepted the offer.

Hudson’s Bay Company

With its royal charter in 1670, Hudson’s Bay Company is North America’s oldest corporation. Over the next two hundred years, HBC established a near monopoly on trade in the vast territory surrounding Hudson Bay in northeastern Canada.

By the time Thomas began serving as his cousin George’s secretary in 1829, what had started as a modest fur trading post had become one of the most successful companies on earth.

Already in control of large swaths of what would become Canada, Thomas was looking forward to helping HBC expand its territory. Simpson’s primary objective, however, was to finish mapping the Northwest Passage.

Arrival in North America

According to contemporaries, Thomas Simpson was ambitious and headstrong, qualities it could be argued are beneficial for an adventurer and explorer. However, he was also described as being quite arrogant, with a disdain and contempt for many of his colleagues, which he did not attempt to hide.

It was likely a combination of his youth, attitude, and inexperience which caused his cousin George to select another man to lead the expedition.

George Simpson, by then governor of Rupert’s Land, a large territory surrounding Hudson Bay in what was then British North America, decided to appoint Peter Dease, a more cautious and even tempered man with experience as an explorer and fur trader, to head the expedition.

It can be seen in Thomas Simpson’s personal letters that he was angered at being passed over to lead the expedition. He wrote of Dease: “Dease is an unworthy, indolent, illiterate soul.”

The expedition aimed to explore the Arctic coast of North America and fill in the gaps in the map between the Mackenzie River and Point Barrow and complete a map of the Nothern Passage.

1837 to 1840

Simpson’s first major success occurred in the summer of 1837, albeit with some unwanted assistance. The expedition party was making its way west along the Alaskan coast by boat when they were blocked by ice about 50 miles east of Point Barrow.

Though expedition leader Peter Dease suggested turning back, Simpson insisted on taking five of the party with him to explore the coastline on foot.

The party soon encountered a group of Inuit whose help allowed Simpson and the others to reach Point Barrow on August 4th. However, Simpson, never one for modesty, boasted, “I and I alone have the well-earned honour of uniting the Arctic to the Western (Pacific) Ocean.”

As it states in his entry on Arctic Profiles, “No one applauded himself more than himself.” Simpson would state, “Mine alone is the victory.” This does not come as much of a surprise given his well-known disdain and feelings of superiority towards the Indigenous Native Peoples in the area.

These feelings extended to the Métis, a mixed-race people of Indigenous and European ancestry, despite the fact that some Métis were members of the expedition. Simpson recorded his feelings towards the Métis in his writings. “To the extravagant and profligate habits of the half-breed families, I have an insuperable aversion.” And, by most accounts, the feeling was mutual.

The following summer, in 1838, the expedition once again ran into ice, which halted their progress. Once again, Simpson struck out on foot, making significant progress, even naming the land north of the ice-clogged sea Victoria Land.

The summer of 1839 proved even more successful. This time, ice did not impede their progress. Their expedition was bearing fruit, and they were close to finally mapping the Northwest Passage.

Although Peter Dease was the leader of the expedition in name, some historians concede that Simpson, for all intents and purposes, was the one running the show. However, many of the primary sources for drawing this conclusion come from Thomas Simpson’s own writings.

In late 1839, Dease took his European leave, which both men were entitled to. Simpson then sought to take full command and continue with the expedition. His cousin George, however, did not endorse this idea and refused to sign off on it.

Simpson then attempted to go over his cousin’s head and sent the request to George’s superiors in London. Thomas Simpson was very concerned about Dease getting credit for his work. As he stated in a previous letter, “Fame I will have, but it must be mine alone.”

Final Days

Unknown to Simpson, news of the expedition’s progress had reached England, exciting many at the prospect of the discovery.

In fact, his request to continue on without Dease had been approved by his cousin’s superiors. In addition, Simpson and Dease had been granted a £400 reward for their efforts and were in the process of being approved for a £ 100-a-year pension.

This would have made Simpson a very wealthy man. However, none of this news would ever reach him. In the spring of 1840, frustrated and with no answer, Simpson decided that he too would take his European leave and return to England.

In June 1840, Simpson and a small group of Métis traveled from Red River Colony (now Winnipeg) south to the Minnesota River through the northern United States, where he would continue east to the Atlantic and set sail for England.

According to eyewitness accounts, as the group crossed the plains in what is today North Dakota, Simpson’s mood and behavior became erratic.

As the days passed, he became increasingly anxious and paranoid, according to the Métis guides. They allege that Simpson believed they were plotting to murder him. They also said that despite claiming he was ill, Simpson declined to see a doctor when the offer was made.

Killings and Controversial Death

On June 14, 1840, as the group prepared to set up camp, two gunshots rang out. Simpson had shot two of his Métis companions. The remaining two Métis guides, according to their account, mounted their horses and raced to get help.

They claimed Simpson had shot the two men with his double-barreled gun and declared that he had done no wrong because the two men were plotting to murder him.

The two men who fled returned with others from the larger party. There, they found the bodies of Antoine Legros Sr. and John Bird.

Stretched out inside the tent was the body of Thomas Simpson, who was described as “having the top of his head blown off.”

With his gun by his side, it seemed like a case of murder-suicide. The case was investigated by the Iowa territory authorities, and due to the limited evidence and eyewitness accounts, the crime was ruled a murder-suicide.

Aftermath

The truth of the events of that day will likely never be known. Historians have looked into the available information and have not reached a consensus. There are, however, three prevailing theories about what likely happened.

The first is the official conclusion that Simpson became paranoid and shot two of his guides before killing himself. The second is that the Métis guides attacked Simpson, possibly to steal his papers and maps. The third is that something, perhaps an argument, led to a shootout where Simpson and the Métis men killed each other, and the “escaped” men made up a story out of fear of retribution.

Several historians have found the official story unconvincing and believe there is likely more to what happened on that June day.

Sources:

“Thomas Simpson.” Murderpedia, https://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/simpson-thomas.htm

“Thomas Simpson (1808- 1840)” Arctic Profiles, https://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic40-4-348.pdf

Pelly, David F. “THOMAS SIMPSON THE MAN WHO COULD HAVE CHANGED.” Above & Beyond, May/June 2003, https://www.davidpelly.com/resources/Thomas-Simpson.pdf

“Memorable Manitobans: Thomas Simpson (1808-1840)” Manitoba Historical Society Archives, Updated 2025, https://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/people/simpson_t.shtml

Early Years

Born in Paris around 1431, François Villon was orphaned as a young boy. Fortunately for him, a man named Guillaume de Villon took him in and provided him with an education.

This ultimately led to Villon earning a Master of Arts degree from the University of Paris. With the support of his benefactor, Villon appeared to be on a path towards a life filled with learning and security. However, his bright future was quickly eclipsed by a string of incidents that forever altered the course of his life.

In 1455, Villon got into a fight that led to the death of a priest named Philippe Sermoise. Though he argued that he acted in self-defense, he chose to leave Paris.

This incident forever altered his future and pushed him towards a criminal life, which would define his later years as a fugitive and outlaw.

Life As a Criminal and Fugitive

In 1456, Villon led a daring robbery at the Collège de Navarre in Paris with a gang of partners, stealing 500 gold crowns. This move marked his shift from a once-promising path in life to a more reckless one.

This robbery had repercussions, as Villon was eventually banished from Paris and disappeared yet again from the city that had played a key role in cultivating his intellectual and social circles.

While exiled from society, Villon roamed France like a vagabond without a place to call home. He kept his whereabouts secret during this time, prompting speculation and enhancing his persona.

It was believed that Villon penned some of his most renowned works, like Le Petit Testament and Le Grand Testament, during these years of uncertainty and wandering.

These poems delve into themes of mortality, wistfulness, and the fleeting essence of life, capturing the chaos and unease of his time in vivid detail.

Villon’s wry humor and sharp wit indicate a man who was keenly aware of the uncertainty of his circumstances but could still create poetry that has stood the test of time.

Throughout Villon’s years as a fugitive, there were times when he seemed to vanish without a trace. Eluding both the authorities and historical records alike.

Information regarding Villon’s whereabouts during this period remains sparse. In 1461, Villon found himself imprisoned at Meung-sur-Liore, likely due to theft. Luck was on his side, though, as shortly after his incarceration, King Louis XI granted general amnesty to prisoners later that year, resulting in Villon’s release.

Villon’s respite was brief. In 1462, he was sentenced to hang for participating in another theft. However, once again, Villon evaded the noose by appealing and having his punishment reduced to a decade of exile from Paris.

Disappearance

There is no record of Villon’s activities or fate after January 1463. Scholars and historians were left to ponder over what might have become of him. Some speculate that he carried on with his criminal ways and was perhaps executed under an assumed name. Or, perhaps, he had a quiet and uneventful demise.

Others entertain the idea that he might have passed away in poverty and obscurity, his body laid to rest in an unmarked grave. Whatever the truth, his fate remains just as mysterious as his life had been.

Villon’s vanishing has only added to his reputation among those he knew and inspired through his extraordinary poetry over the years.

Today, Villon is seen as a symbol of the unconventional artist who challenged societal norms and survived on the fringes of society. Villon’s life story, filled with drama and daring getaways, is mirrored in his writing, which frequently explores topics like the transience of life, fate, and mortality.

Legacy

Despite his history of crime, or maybe due to it, Villon’s literary heritage has stood the test of time for centuries. His writings, notably Le Petit Testament and Le Grand Testament, are seen as pivotal pieces of medieval French poetry. These verses, teeming with ideas about death, remorse, and the fleeting nature of existence, provide insight into Villon’s inner self, a self molded by a challenging life filled with wrongdoing and continual avoidance.

The connection between Villon’s life and his poetry is clear, both in the mood and substance of his poems. His lines are filled with humor and clever insight that mirrors the uncertainty of his life as a fugitive. Nonetheless, in the midst of his reality, Villon’s poetry also unveils a tenacious attitude that has captivated audiences for generations.

Sources:

Huot, Sylvia. “From Song to Book: The Poetics of Writing in Old French Lyric and Lyrical Narrative Poetry.” Cornell University Press, 1987. https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_book_monograph/10.7591/j.ctvn96fz1

“François Villon, swindler, criminal, and Parisian poet.” Un jour de plus à Paris, https://www.unjourdeplusaparis.com/en/paris-reportage/francois-villon-escroc-criminel-et-poete-parisien

Norris, Michael. “Francois Villon, Poete Maudit.” Literary Kicks, 27 March 2012, https://litkicks.com/francoisvillon/

“François Villon: 1431—1463.” Poetry Foundation, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/francois-villon

Background

The infamous West Port Murders occurred in Edinburgh, Scotland, between 1827 and 1828. They were particularly noteworthy for their brutality and shocking motive: the trade and sale of human corpses for anatomical dissection purposes. At the center of these ghoulish crimes were two men - William Burke and William Hare.

William Hare was born in Ireland and relocated to Scotland as a young man to pursue better job opportunities. Not much is known about his upbringing and background; however, by the mid-1820s, we know he settled in Edinburgh, where he ran a boarding house.

Though he was not a wealthy man, Hare was able to support himself financially through this business. During this time, he crossed paths with William Burke, an Irish laborer. It is thought that Burke and Hare probably first bonded over money matters since they were both looking for ways to make a living in the city’s growing economy.

However, their friendship would lead to one of Scotland’s most notorious murder sprees.

The West Port Murders

The motivation for the West Port murder spree started almost entirely by accident. In 1827, one of Hares’s tenants—an elderly man—passed away from natural causes while still owing rent payments.

Meanwhile, it was well known that renowned surgeon and anatomy lecturer Dr. Robert Knox paid generously for cadavers since the legal supply of bodies was usually limited to executed criminals.

In an effort to recoup the loss of rent, the duo contacted Dr. Knox, who paid for the corpse, which was to be used for dissection purposes. This transaction would trigger a series of killings, which served to put money in their pocket while supplying Dr. Knox with more bodies for dissection.

At first, Hare and Burke chose to target victims who were in a position of vulnerability, like drifters, and those with limited means since they were less likely to be reported as missing.

Their preferred way of causing death was through suffocation so as to keep the body in good condition for potential sale. This technique later became known as “Burking,” where the two men would restrain the victim and cover their mouth and nose to prevent them from breathing.

Over the course of a single year, Hare and Burke were responsible for at least 16 killings—all of which were motivated by financial gain.

Hare’s involvement in the killings was significant. Even though both men were culpable, it was Hare who supplied the place – the boarding house – where many of the murders were committed.

His wife, Margaret Laird, also played a part by attracting victims and concealing the crimes. Working closely with Burke, Hare was often engaged in subduing and killing their victims, though it’s not always clear how their “tasks” were divided between them.

Nevertheless, by taking part in the murders, Hare became just as guilty as Burke.

As the killings continued and the need to supply corpses for Dr. Knox increased, it motivated the duo to continue in their murderous ways. While Dr. Knox never inquired about where the bodies came from, his pivotal role as a customer undoubtedly fueled the rising number of corpses.

Discovery and Arrest

The killings finally came to an end in November 1828 after the death of Margaret Docherty. This time, Burke and Hare’s actions were discovered when two other tenants of Hare’s boarding house noticed suspicious activity from the duo and reported their findings to the police.

When the police arrived to investigate their claims, they found Docherty’s body hidden under a bed. Further investigation soon unraveled the series of murders that had taken place over the previous year.

Trial and Hare’s Betrayal

At trial, both Hare and Burke were accused of committing multiple murders; however, Hare made a choice that would have a lasting impact on the rest of his life.

Hare decided to cooperate with the authorities to save himself by offering evidence against Burke in exchange for legal protection from prosecution. Hare’s testimony played a key role in securing Burke’s conviction by providing intricate details about the crimes and the pair’s methods of operation.

By betraying Burke in court with his testimony, Hare ultimately sealed Burke’s fate, resulting in his conviction and subsequent execution by hanging on January 28, 1829.

Aftermath and Hare’s Disappearance

In exchange for cooperation with authorities, Hare received immunity, which greatly angered the public. Following Burke’s execution, Hare was freed from jail but was forced to flee Edinburgh due to the widespread animosity towards him.

Public sentiment was drastically against him, resulting in a mob-like frenzy whenever he was seen in public. After being rescued by constables from an irate mob, Hare was escorted by a militia guard and told to head for the English border.

This is the last known historical account of William Hare. Though he was still a young man, William Hare essentially disappeared from the history books. His fate or whereabouts after February 1829 are unknown.

Legacy

The public outcry following the West Port murders and the implications of medical practitioners illegally procuring corpses prompted the enactment of the Anatomy Act of 1832.

This legislation transformed the process through which medical institutions acquired cadavers for dissection by allowing the use of unclaimed bodies from institutions such as workhouses and prisons. This effectively eliminated the financial motivation for grave robbing or homicide.

Even though Dr. Knox was not accused of any wrongdoing for buying bodies without investigating their sources, his actions have been a subject of ethical debate. This case emphasized the urgency in the United States for defined regulations on acquiring bodies for scientific research, resulting in improved ethical standards and procedures within medicine.

The brutal killings left an impact not only on Edinburgh but also on the medical field and the evolution of legal regulations about anatomy throughout the world. Despite its nature and implications, Hare’s legacy, though grim, remains a significant chapter in the history of crime and medical science.

Sources:

Rosner, Lisa. “The Anatomy Murders: Being the True and Spectacular History of Edinburgh’s Notorious Burke and Hare and of the Man of Science Who Abetted Them in the Commission of Their Most Heinous Crimes.” University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Murders-Spectacular-Edinburghs-Commission/dp/0812221761

“Anatomy and crime - Burke and Hare: The body snatchers.” BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zvrsydm#zr8br2p

“The History of Burke and Hare and of the Resurrectionist Times (1884)” The Public Domain Review, https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/the-history-of-burke-and-hare-and-of-the-resurrectionist-times-1884/

“Who were Burke & Hare? Edinburgh’s Infamous “Body Snatchers” Escape the Past, https://www.escapethepast.co.uk/post/burke-hare-edinburgh-body-snatchers