Mind of a Serial Killer - SERIAL KILLER: "The Blood Countess" Pt. 1 with Dr. Harini Bhat from Hidden History

Episode Date: May 18, 2026

Vanessa and Dr. Engels are joined by Dr. Harini Bhat from PAVE Studio's newest show "Hidden History" as they discuss the "Blood Countess" Elizabeth Bathory, a 16th and 17th-century noblewoman who used her vast wealth, noble status, and unchecked power to torture and murder hundreds of young girls within the walls of her castle. Raised amid war, public executions, and a family that weaponized cruelty, Bathory built an inner circle of accomplices who helped her kill with near-total impunity. When whispers of her crimes finally reached the clergy, she devised increasingly bold schemes to hide the evidence... until her methods grew too monstrous to ignore. Follow Hidden History with Dr. Harini Bhat wherever you listen to podcasts: https://play.megaphone.fm/v_g_ncqyrc2e6tssscolqw If you’re new here, don’t forget to follow Serial Killers & Murderous Minds to never miss a case! For ad-free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crime House+ on Apple Podcasts. Serial Killers & Murderous Minds is a Crime House Original Podcast, powered by PAVE Studios 🎧 Need More to Binge?  Listen to other Crime House Originals Clues, Crimes Of…, Murder True Crime Stories, Crime House 24/7, and more wherever you get your podcasts! Follow me on Social Instagram: @Crimehouse TikTok: @Crimehouse Facebook: @crimehousestudios YouTube: @crimehousestudios To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi listeners, it's Vanessa. Before we get into today's episode, I want to tell you about another show I think you'll love. Hidden History with Dr. Harini Bot. Every Monday, Dr. Bot goes where history gets mysterious. Vanished civilizations, doomsday prophecies, paranormal phenomena, and events that science still can't fully explain. Dr. Bot treats these moments like open case files, not myths, not superstition, just incomplete explanations. waiting for a closer look. Hidden history drops every Monday. Follow now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen, so you never miss a mystery. This is Crime House.

What kinds of things would you do if you knew you'd never get caught? Would you rob a bank, steal precious gems from a museum, or maybe even sneak into a top-secret government building? For most people, our riskiest fantasies are all about many. making our own lives better, or doing something that's once in a lifetime. But for Elizabeth Bathory, she reportedly used her complete power and impunity to satiate her thirst for blood. Elizabeth had it all, power, wealth, and status. And if the stories are to be believed, she used it to do the one thing in the world she enjoyed most, massacring innocent young girls. The human mind is powerful. It shapes how we think, feel, love, and hate. But sometimes

it drives people to commit the unthinkable. This is serial killers and murderous minds, a crimehouse original. I'm Vanessa Richardson. And I'm forensic psychologist Dr. Tristan Engels. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest minds in history, analyzing what makes a killer. Crimehouse is made possible by you. Please rate review. and follow serial killers and murderous minds. To enhance your listening experience with ad-free early access to each two-part series and bonus content, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts. And today, Vanessa and I are thrilled to welcome Dr. Harini Bot, the host of Hidden History,

the debut show from Pave's new history studio, Rewind. Thanks, you too, so glad to be here. We are so happy you could join us. Every week on Hidden History, Harini takes a deep dive into some of history's most enduring mysteries that divide explanation back then and today. We're talking deadly dancing plagues, unsolved murders straight out of Game of Thrones, ghost ships drifting through the Atlantic Ocean, and so much more. You can check out new episodes every Monday on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and on YouTube at Hidden History Pod.

Follow and subscribe so you don't miss a moment. Yes, I cannot. recommend it enough and I am thrilled to welcome another doctor to the Pave family. For the next two episodes, Harini will introduce this week's topic. Then be sure to stick around at the end of part two for an extended sit down as I talk to her about all things hidden history along with a special preview. Thanks so much to both of you. I'm especially excited to join you too for these episodes because they feel like they'd be

right at home on Hidden History too. where the truth gets mixed in with a bit of the supernatural, leaving us to question the real story. Before we get started, be advised that this episode contains discussion of murder, torture, and violence to women and children. So please listen with care. Today, Vanessa and Dr. Engels begin their deep dive into the life of Countess Elizabeth Bathory, better known as the Blood Countess. In 16th and 17th century, Hungary, Elizabeth had everything, land, power, and riches.

But she also hid a dark secret. Her thirst for blood left hundreds dead, making Elizabeth one of the most prolific serial killers ever. As Vanessa goes through the story, Dr. Engels will be talking about things like how growing up with extreme privilege and wealth can influence a killer's bloodlust, how living among the violence of war can desensitize them to violence,

and how some killers love of dark magic fuels their sense of murder as a means to an end. end. And as always, they'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? From the day she was born, Elizabeth Bathory was unlike anyone else in the world. While much of what we know about her is up for debate today, the most widely accepted details of her life paint a picture of wealth, intrigue, and bloodshed. And it all started with the life she inherited. Elizabeth was born into nobility on August 7, 1560 in the Kingdom of Her family was one of the oldest and most established in the country, full of princes and cardinals.

Her uncle, Stephen Bathory, later went on to become the king of Poland. Needless to say, the Bathories were steeped in power and influence, and with that came a lot of privilege for Elizabeth. She had wealth, grand estates, and access to education, which was rare for girls at the time. Her governesses taught her multiple languages, and everything else she'd need to know in order to run a castle of her own one day. And even though her governesses educated her, they were also at her beck and call.

There was nothing she couldn't have. Whatever Elizabeth wanted, she got. Growing up with that level of wealth and status can shape a child's development, especially in 16th century Hungary, where class differences are so visible. If a child is consistently given what they want, and the people around them exist primarily,

to meet their needs, that can foster entitlement. Everyone and everything is organizing around her and for her rather than teaching her how to function on her own within her environment. And from a behavioral standpoint, if every time she wants or demands something, she gets it, that's rewarding her behavior. That's rewarding the demand. And that's operant conditioning. So for Elizabeth, that reinforcement is also built into her entire social structure. The people around her are expected to comply with her demands. But also, there's a social hierarchy that she's operating in. Everyone has to defer, obey, or serve her because of her nobility, and that alone can impact how she understands relationships. This can cause her to eventually dehumanize anyone

who is not at or above her social class. That doesn't mean this outcome is inevitable for anyone in her position. But in an environment like that, with few boundaries or accountability, there is a greater risk of developing that entitlement or superiority or grandiosity in a more functional rather than emotional way of relating to other people. In general, nowadays, are there any known psychological differences between people who are extremely wealthy and those who are not? And is wealth associated with a lesser capacity for empathy? There actually has been a lot of research on this, but I want to preface by saying that there are a lot of variables to consider. So for example, the extent of someone's wealth is one variable,

and whether they were born into that wealth or if they acquired it later in life. And I say that because I don't want to oversimplify this answer by any means. And that said, some studies have found that on average, people with more wealth or higher social status can be less attuned to others' emotions. But this is less about the person and more about the environment. When you don't have to depend on others for emotional support

or practical help or even information because many of those needs can be met independently or through paid services, for example, you don't have to attend to people in the same way as those who have less means than you. So even when those needs that you have are being met through other people like service workers, those relationships are transactional. There isn't the same need to consistently check on someone else's emotions or their perspectives even or their well-being for that relationship to function. It's a paid service. So in that sense, you can see how that applies to Elizabeth, especially in her environment. Elizabeth may have had it all, but there was also a dark side to her charmed life. In the 1560s, Hungary was steeped in chaos. The country was ravaged by war,

torn between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg dynasty. Famine and plague were rampant, and so was extreme violence. As a result of all the conflict, public torture and executions became commonplace. In fact, a lot of the time, they were used as entertainment, and the Bathory family had a long line of fierce warriors who solved violence as a means to an end. By the time Elizabeth was born, the Batharies had been ruling over the local peasantry for centuries.

They kept their power by instilling fear, even if that meant enacting gruesome violence. According to some records, Elizabeth's uncle once captured a... rebel peasant burned him alive and forced his men to eat his flesh. As a noble girl, Elizabeth didn't have to witness these brutal acts of war, but her family made sure that she did, because they brought the violence to their own doorstep. Elizabeth grew up in a castle known as Eschade. It was part of a palatial estate, completely walled off and staffed by a legion of servants, butlers and handmaidens. For those who lived inside the walls, it was a lavish fortress, but on the outside, commoners

referred to a shade as a house of horrors. Rumors abounded as to the atrocities that occurred there, and from the time she was just five years old, Elizabeth allegedly witnessed decapitations, hangings, and public floggings. When the same people who are meant to protect you are also causing harm, it can blur the line between care and violence or loyalty and fear. This is where we start to see the cycle of violence, which is something I routinely taught in a group setting to incarcerated adults. Childhood exposure to violence, even if it's just witnessed or talked about by trusted adults, can cause them to internalize violence as a way of relating to others. Children aren't inherently violent, but they can become that way when it's been modeled,

reinforced and normalized. They can become desensitized to it as well. And importantly, it can impact empathy because they're learning in an environment where survival may require them as children to suppress their empathy or to align with the adults who hold the power when they have very little power of their own. What is the risk of a child becoming more prone to violence themselves if they witnessed so much of it, especially such gruesome and torturous violence. There is an increased risk, and one of the clearest ways we understand this is through Albert Bandura's work on social learning theory. Bandura discovered that children learn by observing others, especially authority figures. In his Bobo doll experiment, children watch an adult behave aggressively

toward the doll. They watched them hit it, kick it, and even use objects to attack. When the children were later given access to the same doll, many of them didn't just imitate the same aggression. They replicated it in very similar ways, even repeating the same exact actions and phrases that they just watched the adults do. So the established research has shown that violence that is observed, modeled, and reinforced can lead to the desensitization I talked about and the normalization of violence, which ultimately increases their risk. of aggression. That is not a causation, though. There's many children that have been exposed to violence, even repeatedly in their own environments, whether it's their micro or macro environments, but they do

not go on to commit acts of violence themselves. And that's because there are protective factors in their lives that include at least one stable and supportive relationship, emotional regulation skills that were introduced, or coping strategies that help them build resiliency and perspective. Elizabeth learned early on that other people, especially those with less status, could and should be used as playthings. And even when extreme violence wasn't involved, her family took pleasure in others' pain. Apparently Elizabeth's own brother was a sex fiend who would run around town naked and drunk, finding women to harass and abuse. And then there was Elizabeth's aunt, Clara, who proved to be quite the influence on her. Clara was bisexual, and as Elizabeth got a little older, her aunt reportedly brought her to orgies

and showed her how to make love to women. Not only that, but Clara had a taste for violence herself. It's rumored that she killed two of her four husbands. If that's true, then Clara likely taught Elizabeth that taking someone's life was okay, not just for the sake of the kingdom, but for personal pleasure and gain. She was also heavily involved in occult practices and introduced Elizabeth to all sorts of people fluent in dark magic. Elizabeth learned all about the use of herbal remedies and alchemy whenever she needed a pick-me-up, as well as how to cast spells against enemies. So now Elizabeth is being taught to ritualize violence, and that gives it power and purpose, and that changes the meaning of it. because once behavior becomes part of a ritual or a belief system, it becomes easier to justify or rationalize. And we saw a version of that in our episodes on Adolfo Constanzo. His use of ritual and spirituality allowed him and his followers to view violence as necessary for power and protection.

And it also introduces secrecy and exclusivity in this case. These practices were often exclusive and not something that everyone had access to. And I can see how, that would be especially appealing to Elizabeth, because firstly, it's being introduced by a trusted adult, her aunt, but it also fits into a pattern she already knows. She's been growing up in a world where status and hierarchy matters, so exclusivity already carries value to her. This becomes another layer of that, and that likely legitimizes this practice even more to her. You mentioned our episodes on Adolfo Constanzo's cult and everything we talked about, the psychology behind witchcraft, And what else can you tell us that might be relevant to Elizabeth's story also?

So when people practice witchcraft, do they tend to believe that everything that happens is the will of a higher power? And if so, how does that affect the brain mechanisms behind personal accountability, shame and regret, etc.? It's important, you know, for me to be clear here because modern witchcraft and related practices are very diverse. But many emphasize intention or personal responsibility and certainly the common. consequences of their actions. And what we're talking about here is when a belief system is shaped in a way that justifies their harm, Adolfo may or may not have genuinely believed in a higher power. That's up for debate. But what's more important is that he needed the others to believe in that higher power because it gave him control over them. It was what kept them aligned with him. And without that, everything he had built, his entire identity would collapse. And he would not be able to justify killing and people, which was something that he secretly loved to do. Elizabeth doesn't need a supernatural force, though.

She doesn't need that to get people to believe in her or align with her. She has inherited authority, and people are obligated to that already. So for her, I think the interest is purely in the fact that the practices that she was being introduced to by her aunt were something that justified and normalized violence, but it also exposed her to other ideas that made her feel more in control and more powerful. Elizabeth learns through observing other people, as we all do. But at some point, critical thinking kicks in, and we use our own rational thought, judgment, and reasoning to question, challenge, and form independent opinions about what we've been taught to believe. I have yet to see an example

of her doing any of those things. So I think for her at the core, or at least at the core for both of them, these beliefs legitimized and supported what they wanted to do. And we will see a lot more of this with Elizabeth in episode two. Through a modern lens, many reports say Elizabeth loved the darkness that surrounded her. According to one story, she witnessed an accused criminal be sewn into the stomach of a dying horse and left there to die. She watched the entire gruesome process without batting an eye. And when it was done, she,

laughed. At the same time, Elizabeth was often unhappy. She struggled a lot with her physical and mental health. Not only was she prone to serious migraines and seizures, but she was known to fly into fits of rage. In the 16th century, there weren't treatments for these things the way there are today, so Elizabeth simply lived with them. If anything, she drew from her inexplicable rage. Because once Elizabeth was old enough to gain some power of her own, she was able to turn to turn her most nightmarish fantasies into reality. Instacart makes grocery shopping easier. And just because you're not doing the shopping yourself

doesn't mean you don't care how it's done. With Instacart shopper notes, you can get particular about what you want right in the app, like rotissory chicken that's extra crispy, cheddar that's sharp as your skates, and lettuce you to actually pick yourself. Just leave a note for your shopper so they can get it right for you without having to ask.

That way, you can get groceries just how you like. Download the Instacart app and shop today. Staples Preferred Business Membership, built for busy business owners, because you've got bigger things to think about. With Staples Preferred, get free delivery, no minimums. Staples Preferred unlocks up to 3% back, plus 10% savings on print and exclusive wireless offers. One less thing on your plate.

Actually, a lot less. Visit staples.ca.ca. Preferred. That was easy. In 16th century Hungary, Elizabeth Bathory was a noblewoman with a unique reputation. Her family was known for being some of the most violent rulers in the war-torn country, and they didn't just kill in battle. They did it for fun.

Elizabeth learned from the warriors in her family all about torturous methods of punishment. And when she wasn't watching someone being flogged or decapitated, her Aunt Clara taught her how to inject a little violence into her everyday life. life. Clara had taught Elizabeth a lot of things, everything from having sex with other women, to how to enlist the help of a forest witch for casting spells. And as Elizabeth approached marrying age, Clara was said to have taught her a key aspect of running her own castle, how to torture her own servants. The details of the methods Clara passed down aren't clear, but in 1575, when Elizabeth was just 14 years old, she started putting them to you.

use. That year, Elizabeth was married off to 19-year-old Count Ference Nadozdi and moved into his castle. By all accounts, Elizabeth was a dutiful wife, and soon she became a devoted mother. She and Florence had five children, although only three of them survived past childhood. For years, the family lived peacefully at the Nadojdi Castle, at least so it seemed. When Elizabeth was about 24 years old in 1585, some strange things started happening. She'd already learned from her aunt Clara how to torture her servants. But apparently, Ference started taking things to the next level. As a nobleman himself, the count was used to all the same violence as Elizabeth. In fact, as an accomplished soldier, he likely enacted his fair share. So once he realized just how harsh Elizabeth

could be toward her servants, and how much she enjoyed it, Varence seemingly wanted to help make her happy. He gifted her a pair of gloves with spikes on them so she could mercilessly batter anyone who made a mistake. And once in a while, Ference would reportedly select a servant girl to strip naked, lather in honey, and send outside to be attacked by insects. Nadoghdi Castle was surrounded by Swampland.

And again, this was the Middle Ages, so these girls didn't just suffer a few mosquito bites. They could die. And Elizabeth watched in pleasure. Both Elizabeth and Forens are coming from environments where violence is already familiar and normalized for them. We've already talked about desensitization and how that can happen with repeated exposure to violence. But what stands out here is how that violence becomes relational between them. Elizabeth appears to get gratification from control and dominance tied to harming others.

And Forens seems to recognize that. So instead of inhibiting it, he's leaning into it. And that's where the creativity is coming from. There's a concept called habituation where someone's response to a repeated stimulus decreases over time. So applied here, repeated violence can lose its intensity. So more extreme or novel acts are introduced to achieve the same reaction. And when those reactions are positive, meaning they're working, they're effective,

that reinforces the violence even more. And because Forens is the one helping to escalate it, it also takes on that relational function. It becomes a form of very disturbing bonding between them. He's aligning with her through shared behavior and shared values, even though those behaviors are very harmful. And while that's disturbing, it's not entirely unheard of in dynamics where both individuals are reinforcing each other. And underlying all of this is power. They're operating in a sense. system where there are very few, if any, consequences. The people they're harming are socially beneath them. What do you make of the shift in the nobles torturing peasants and war enemies

to them torturing their own household staff? Well, violence against war enemies can be framed as duty or necessity, and peasants at that time are viewed as lower status and more expendable, which is unfortunate, but it was accurate for that time. They're also not part of the immediate at household, like you said. But now there's that shift, and that's where that cycle of violence comes in. Because remember, Elizabeth wasn't just exposed to violence throughout her childhood. She was actually guided into it. She was taught. Her aunt modeled to her that harming household staff in particular was acceptable and that it could happen without consequence. That fits directly with what we discussed earlier about that learned behavior and social learning theory. She's being shown who is acceptable to target and how to do it.

She's guided into it. And once that boundaries crossed, it becomes much easier for that behavior to continue and escalate within the space where she has the most access and the most control, especially now when her own husband is also guiding and reinforcing it as well. It's likely that Elizabeth and Forens used their ruthlessness to keep their household members in check. Not only were their servants walking on pins and needles, deathly afraid to make the smallest mistakes. But while the couple toyed with their victims, the other staff members had no choice but to watch, and say nothing, because if anyone tried to help one of their fellow workers, they'd be tortured next. And they weren't just scared into silence. Some of them were even coerced into helping Elizabeth and Florence brutalize others. Mainly a local woman named Anna Darvulia, but it seems like she was. was happy to be part of it. Anna had worked for the Nadojdi family for some time. After Elizabeth

married Ference, Anna moved into the castle permanently. That might have been because of how much the two women had in common. Elizabeth's Aunt Clara had already taught her the ins and outs of dark magic, and Anna possessed those same skills and interests. Others referred to her as a, quote, wild beast in female form. Anna was known to beat and even strangle other servants who displeased her. Eventually, things took a dark but inevitable turn. Anna set up her own torture chamber within the castle, where she showed Elizabeth how to viciously beat someone until they died. Beatings were Anna's preferred method of killing.

She often delivered up to 500 blows before the victim's body finally succumbed. As a close confidant to the countess, Anna was allowed, and even encouraged, to torture and kill with Elizabeth, and on her own as well. So Anna is now being positioned like a tutor, except what she's teaching is brutality, and that connects directly to how Elizabeth has been raised.

She's grown up in an environment where everything is organized around her. People exist to serve a function in her life rather than her learning how to function alongside others. She hasn't had to figure things out on her own. Since she was a child, she has been systematically influenced, educated, and guided by those around her,

from staff to family to her husband. It's as if she's become dependent on others to shape her understanding of the world, and that's no excuse for her behavior by any means. It's just an explanation. And Anna fits that pattern. The difference now is that Elizabeth has more control over who she allows into that role. She can be selective about who teaches her and what they teach her. And that's where the risk comes in, because the people who might challenge her or set limits

or introduce accountability are not the ones she's going to let in. The individuals she's choosing and keeping are the ones who reinforce and escalate the behavior she wants. She's creating a very closed system of her own. The details of the first murder to take place in the castle are unclear, but once it started, the killings spiraled out of control. And that may have been because certain staff members knew what they had to do to survive. Soon, Elizabeth had more than just Anna helping her. She formed a tight inner circle who helped her.

her find, torture, kill, and dispose of her victims. This included a young man named John and three women, Helena, Catarina, and Dorothea. All of these people had other normal duties around the house. Helena was actually the wet nurse to Elizabeth's children, but when it came to other children, she wasn't as kind. Together with the help of Anna, the group began torturing and killing young girls, some as young as 10 years old. They often did this while Elizabeth, Elizabeth watched for her entertainment. Other times, they would just provide victims to Elizabeth, who would then beat, stab, or otherwise brutalize these children in whatever way she pleased.

Many of these girls were from the peasant class and more or less sold to Elizabeth as workers, and were completely under her care. These children were expected to be polite, submissive, and unquestioning in their loyalty to the countess and anyone who held a higher station, which meant if someone like, like Helena, the wet nurse, demanded that a young girl come with her to a strange inner room of the castle. That girl had no choice but to obey. This is truly horrible. I mean, what stands out here is obviously not just the violence.

It's the selectivity. Elizabeth isn't just targeting randomly, and she never has. Except now she's targeting a group that is structurally powerless, extremely vulnerable, and they're socially conditioned. to obey her and unlikely to be protected or even believed. And when someone has access to absolute power with little risk of consequence like Elizabeth, behavior will follow the path of least resistance. These girls are accessible, compliant, and unable to challenge her authority. That makes them the safest targets from her perspective. There also seems to be an element of control that's amplified by this

dynamic. The more powerless her victims are, the more control she feels. Serial killers tend to choose victims that are accessible, vulnerable, and desirable. And this is no different. I'm horrified not only by her behavior, but by the fact that she was a mom. What can you tell us about the psychology involved when someone who has children of their own targets children as victims? I know that seems like something that's really hard for anybody who is very pro-social to reconcile, but having children doesn't necessarily protect someone from harming other children. But what we often see in cases like that is selective empathy. That's care and protection toward their own children, but that doesn't extend to other children,

especially if those children are viewed through a different lens like status or role. Also, we don't know how Elizabeth has been treating her own children. either. That said, in Elizabeth's eyes, these children are seen as servants, not children with their own parents who love them, and that makes it easier for her to override their vulnerability. So with that said, that's compartmentalization, where she can exist as a mother in one context and someone who harms children in another without those roles fully like confronting each other. And she also lost two of her own children. Remember, she's somebody who has never not had everything she wanted. So her tolerance for losing something or not getting what she wants is likely very low, if not nonexistent. And loss for her

can feel like something that should never have happened or something that violates her order, the order that she's come to expect. So if she had any kind of grief over that, it's not the way most people would experience it. It's more like a threat to her sense of entitlement and control. So that said, her interest in violence alone, like I think predates those losses of her children. So it's not the origin, but it could have amplified it. Because if loss can happen to her, a noble woman, who gets everything, then the idea of controlling or taking from others, especially those with less power or social status, can feel more permissible to her or even inevitable. So I think it also gives her permission.

Elizabeth was correct to assume that her power and class status would allow her to get away with things, especially because at the time, members of the peasant class were legally considered resources for the upper classes, not human beings in their own right. So if peasant children entered Nadogdi and never came out again, their families just had to accept it. Elizabeth knew she had everyone under her thumb, or at least she thought she did, but it wouldn't be long before she got overconfident, and her cruelty was exposed. Hi, I'm Jessica Porter, and I'm a hypnotherapist, as well as a total relaxation nerd. If you're struggling with sleep, I'm here to help.

Sleep Magic is my new podcast of relaxing hypnosis created to be listened to as you drift off tonight. With episodes every Wednesday, I'll make suggestions that help you relax really deeply as you fall into a deep restorative sleep. I'm here to help you make friends with sleep again so you can get the rest you deserve. So search sleep magic and find out why I've already helped over 4 million people fall asleep. I'll see you there. In the early 1600s, Elizabeth Bathory was a countess in charge of her own castle, And within the walls of her fortress, Elizabeth dominated her own circle of hell. She'd married Count Forence Nadojdi, and together with Elizabeth's close inner circle of household staff members,

they regularly tortured and killed young servant girls. The rest of Elizabeth's staff knew something terrible was going on. They could hear the sounds of muffled screams, and they would see the occasional bloodstain on the wall of her chambers. But they weren't in a position to do anything about it. If they tried to say something, they knew they'd be next. But even though the other servants couldn't save each other, some of them still found the courage to say something on the outside. Not every servant was confined to the castle.

Many of them only went there to work their shifts before going home for the night. And once they were back on the outskirts of society and outside of earshot, they whispered about the true horrors of Nadojdi Castle. The more people talked, the more word spread. And soon other nobles and members of the clergy heard all the gruesome tales. But no one did anything, either because they were just as powerful and bloodthirsty as Elizabeth was, or they simply didn't care enough about what was happening to lower-class girls. I wish this lack of reaction was surprising, but unfortunately it's something that still happens today.

When victims are socioeconomically disadvantaged, their cases often carry less urgent. They're often seen as less credible, even shamed or blamed for being in, quote, risky environments. And that reduces the pressure to act, and without that, it becomes easier to delay, dismiss, or avoid getting involved. And you also have power dynamics at play. Elizabeth holds significant status. Because of that, there can be fear of retaliation, fear of being wrong, or fear of challenging someone who has that kind of influence. That's what creates the hesitation. And in the meantime, gossip like this happens, and gossip is often dismissed.

But in marginalized communities, it can be its own informal warning system. It can allow community members to share information or compare experiences and signal risk to each other. We saw something similar in our episodes on the Jeff Davis 8 murders. If you haven't listened to those yet, you definitely should. Information about those murders were circulating within the community long before there was any kind of meaningful response. And unfortunately, gossip doesn't carry authority, and it certainly doesn't carry legitimacy when it comes from marginalized communities. So in the meantime, what you end up with is a gap where people know something is wrong in the community. They're talking about it. They're trying to get some

kind of help, and they're trying to protect each other in the meantime. But when you don't have the institutional power behind it, then you don't have anything to really facilitate the action. It's unclear whether Elizabeth was simply a product of her time or conscientiously taking advantage of her position of power, but she realized she needed to conceal her actions better. For years, whenever a servant died, Elizabeth had members of her inner circle bury them somewhere off the castle grounds. Sometimes it was near the side of the road, other times bodies were disposed of in village grain stores. Elizabeth seemed to want the bodies brought far away, but she also seemed to be able to. realize that if she kept doing that people would catch on and they might even revolt so eventually

she tried hiding the evidence of her crimes in plain sight one day after one of her servants was killed elizabeth decided to pretend that the girl had died from sickness so she contacted a priest claimed the girl had died of cholera and he came to the castle to perform the customary burial rights typically the deceased's body would be laid out on a bed for the priest to bless them But when the priest arrived, the girl's coffin was already sealed shut. Elizabeth said she'd done this to prevent the spread of cholera. In reality, the victim had been so badly brutalized, she just couldn't allow the priest to see the true state of the body.

And it worked. The priest believed Elizabeth. After he performed the blessing, the coffin was carried off to be buried in a church cemetery. Elizabeth is attempting to manage exposure. She understands how the system works. She knows the role of the priest, and she's confident that she can control that interaction without anticipating any kind of pushback or exposure.

And by involving him, she's not just hiding the truth. She's shaping the narrative. A priest carries assumed trust and authority in the same way that she does. So his involvement adds legitimacy to her version of the events, which can help quiet the rumors that have been circulating, because one word from him, That will spread very quickly. And I believe Elizabeth is relying on both of their statuses to protect her because that has worked for her all of her life.

And she's become so accustomed to that protection that she expects it to continue to work in this case. Elizabeth's plan had gone off without a hitch. She not only found a way to dispose of the body without arousing suspicion, but she'd begun to put the rumors to rest because clearly she wasn't afraid to allow clergy members into the castle. She was so happy with how well her plan had worked, she wasted no time before doing it again. The next time a servant died, Elizabeth called upon the clergy again. Just like before, the coffin was nailed shut, but the priest noticed something else that was strange. Elizabeth had said that another young girl had died, but the casket was too big for a child.

When he pointed this out, Elizabeth made a surprising admission. She said that there were actually two bodies inside the coffin. The priest was alarmed. This completely went against custom. He pulled Elizabeth to the side and quietly asked her why she would allow two bodies to be buried in the same coffin. Despite his calm, patient demeanor, Elizabeth lashed out. She quickly lost her temper and said that the two girls had died one right after the other. She was visibly agitated, and the priest knew better than to keep pressing. After all, Elizabeth not only had much more status than him,

but she had a reputation for her sudden fits of rage, and he knew better than to anger her further. In behavioral psychology, there is something called avoidance and escape conditioning. Both are forms of negative reinforcement where behavior in someone is shaped to reduce or prevent an unpleasant experience. It applies here, and actually in most relationships, Elizabeth has a well-known pattern of intense, unpredictable rage like you described. When anyone is repeatedly exposed to reactions like that, they begin to naturally adjust their

behavior around it. Most people subsequently learn either to escape the interaction once it starts, that kind of reaction, or to avoid triggering it altogether because it alleviates that unpleasant experience. So if the act of challenging Elizabeth leads to a volatile, response or unpredictable response, then behaviorally speaking, others who hear or see this will learn, I'm not going to question her if they want to remain safe and comfortable. So by the time the priest is in that room, he doesn't necessarily need to be explicitly threatened by her. The social cues are already there. He's seeing it. He knows what kind of response is possible, and he knows the safest option is to escape that interaction by not pressing further. And in that sense, Elizabeth is

shaping behavior psychologically, whether she's consciously aware of it or not. Individuals do use reactions like this intentionally to control others because it can be a tool for manipulation, especially in controlling or coercive relationships. Other times, it's less deliberate and it's more about port impulse control, shame, or emotional dysregulation. In Elizabeth's case, we know she suffers from migraines and seizures and that there are some mental health problems that you highlighted earlier on. So for her, I think it's likely a combination. of both. But regardless of her intent, the outcome is the same. It's impacting people. People have learned not to challenge her, and it's working for her. There was nothing the priest could do

except follow Elizabeth's orders. He blessed both girls, then had the coffin removed from the castle. As he made his way back to the church, he tried to calm his fears by telling himself, there must have been a cholera outbreak at the castle, but his nagging, suspicion, wouldn't go away. He decided he had to figure out the truth, so he formed a plan of his own. The next time Elizabeth called on the church to bless and bury a body, they told her no. They refused to do it unless they could see the body themselves. This angered Elizabeth, and she refused to do as they wished. Despite her fury, she knew she had to strategize. If anyone could threaten her unchecked power, it was the priests. And then, They were onto her.

But before Elizabeth could figure out her next move, a shocking and unexpected event changed the course of her entire life. And in order to save herself, Elizabeth Bathory would do something more monstrous than ever before. Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time as Dr. Harimi Bot joins Dr. Engels and me for the conclusion of our deep dive into the mind of Elizabeth Bather's. Talk to you all then. Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is a Crimehouse original powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crimehouse, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support.

If you like what you heard today, reach out on Instagram at Crimehouse. Don't forget to rate, review, and follow Serial Killers and Murderous Minds wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference. And to enhance your listening experience, subscribe to Crimehouse Plus on Apple Podcasts. get every episode of serial killers and murderous minds, ad-free, along with early access to each thrilling two-part series. Serial killers and murderous minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, forensic psychologist Dr. Tristan Engels, and today's special guest, Dr. Harini Bott, and is a crime house original powered by Pave Studios. This episode was brought to life by the serial killers and

murderous minds team. Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benadipi, Alex Lori Marinelli, Natalie Pritzowski, Alyssa Fox, Sarah Batchelor, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening. I'm Katie Ring, host of America's Most Infamous Crimes. Each week, I take on one of the most notorious criminal cases in American history. Listen to and follow America's Most Infamous Crimes, available now wherever you get your podcast. Looking for your next listen, check out Hidden History with Dr. Harini Bot. Monday, Dr. Bot goes where history gets mysterious, vanished civilizations, doomsday prophecies,

and events that science still can't fully explain. Follow Hidden History now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.