Mind of a Serial Killer - SERIAL KILLER: "The Vampire of Dusseldorf" Peter Kurten Pt. 1

Episode Date: October 12, 2026

In 1920s Germany, Peter Kürten terrorized Düsseldorf in a killing spree that would earn him the name the Vampire of Düsseldorf. But his path to murder began decades earlier, rooted in a childhood of relentless abuse and cruelty. From his first alleged killings at age nine to a string of escalating attacks on women and children, this episode traces how Kürten's compulsion evolved into something unstoppable.If you’re new here, don’t forget to follow Serial Killers & Murderous Minds to never miss a case! Want all 2 parts of every case all at once? Join Crime House+ and get both parts of each case dropped together on Monday ad-free. Join at crimehouseplus.com or if you’re listening on Apple Podcasts, tap “Try Free” at the top of this show’s page. 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 Reddit, Murder True Crime Stories, Crime House 24/7, and more wherever you get your podcasts!Follow me on SocialInstagram: @CrimehouseTikTok: @CrimehouseFacebook: @crimehousestudiosYouTube: @crimehousestudios

Hi, everyone. Before today's episode, there's another show I want to tell you about. It's called What the Fact with Connor Tomlinson from Netflix's Love on the Spectrum and Carter Roy. Every week, they take three unbelievable true facts from history and tell you the full story behind them. Plus, Conner's infectious energy that'll make you realize history is the most fascinating thing on earth. Follow What The Fact wherever you listen or subscribe on YouTube at What The Fact Pod. Everyone has desires, especially when it comes to our love lives. Most of us know what we like and want, whether we're in a long-term committed relationship or just having a quick, fun fling. And these desires aren't anything we should hide or be ashamed of, most of the time. From a young age, Peter Curtin learned that his sexual desire was firmly tied to violence. And once he realized violence was what he needed to feel satisfied, he'd do any. to get it, no matter who he had to kill.

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 exists because of listeners like you.

Want even more? Join Crime House Plus and get both parts of every story dropped on the same Monday, completely ad-free. No waiting three days for part two, plus Crimehouse bonus episodes every month. To join, go to CrimehousePlus.com. Or if you listen on Apple Podcasts, tap Try Free at the top of the serial killers and murderous minds page. Before we get started, be advised that this episode contains discussion of rape, bestiality, murder, mutilation, and dismemberment. So please listen with care.

Today, we begin our deep dive into Peter Curtin, the man known as the Vampire of Dusseldorf. In the early 20th century, he terrorized Germany, targeting mostly women and children so he could see, hear, and eventually drink their blood. And as Vanessa goes to the story, I'll be talking about things like what contributes to the mental link between sex and violence, why killers attend the funerals of their victims, and what a killer's changing MO reveals about his escalating desperation. And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? From the very beginning, Peter Curtin only ever knew violence.

He was born on May 26, 1883, in Koln, Muleheim, Germany, to Peter and Sibylla Curtin. He was the eldest of 13 children. It wasn't a happy home. Peter's father was a violent alcoholic. He regularly beat Sibylla, along with Peter and his siblings. Young Peter would try to hide from his father's rage, but there was no getting away from him. The family was poor, and they all lived in one room,

so not only did Peter have nowhere to go, but he often had no choice but to watch his father beat and rape his mother. Peter spent most of his early childhood watching his father hurt the people around him, and it wasn't long before Peter wanted to try it himself. The exact details of what happened next are hard to confirm. Every source tells it a little differently, but here's how it unfolded, according to The Monster Within by Ryan Green, and a June 1950 article in the World News, Sydney.

One day when Peter was nine years old, he and two friends were playing on some logs that were bound together as red, rafts along the banks of the Rhine River. All three boys got onto one raft. Peter grabbed an oar and pushed off from the shore. As the boys sailed down the river, Peter had an idea. He wondered what would happen if he just pushed one of the boys into the water. So he did.

The boy flailed and tried to stay afloat, but he was having trouble. The other boy jumped in to try to save him, and Peter cracked both boys in the head with his oar. The first boy slipped under the water and drowned. The second boy fought to stay afloat, but using his oar, Peter forced him underneath the raft, not letting him up for breath. Peter could feel the boy desperately clawing the underside of the raft, and he liked it. The second boy drowned as well.

When adults found nine-year-old Peter rafting alone in the river, they alerted the authorities. Peter sobbed, telling them his friends had fallen off the raft. and drowned. But inside, he was trying to figure out what to do with this new feeling he had. All he knew was that he wanted to experience it again. All right. So at age nine, most children have a good understanding about death. They understand that it's permanent and that all things living, including themselves and their loved ones and their friends, eventually die. Curiosity about death isn't unusual either. But Peter's environment and what happened here is not at all normal. Children learned by watching the adults around them and Peter was watching his father repeatedly use

violence, intimidation, and humiliation against his old family. And it's being modeled as a way to exercise power and control over people. And now we are seeing that Peter is already willing to emulate some of that abuse and violence only he's now caused the death of two boys and he did it without the kind of inhibition or empathy that we would normally expect to see which makes this extremely concerning i think that goes without saying because we can't claim that this was curiosity or that he did not fully understand what would happen to those boys or that he didn't understand the permanence of death he knew that said it's important to remember that millions of children experience horrific abuse like Peter and never

become violent offenders. He's the eldest of 13 children and the remainder of his siblings may be a testament to that fact because they did not for what we know go on to be anything like Peter. At most, what this does is it gives us part of the developmental picture in how Peter's own relationship with violence started to form. This is so disturbing, and especially from a nine-year-old, this is just the beginning. I mean, as you mentioned, Peter knew firsthand how terrifying his father's violence was. He saw violence all the time.

Why would he want to inflict that same terror on someone else and seemingly treat it like a game? Because I think what's happening here is that he might be identifying with his aggressor. Identification with the aggressor is a defense mechanism, where someone unconsciously adopts the behavior's traits or attitudes of someone who threatens or abuses them. It can become almost a psychological role reversal. Instead of being the frightened vulnerable one, now you're the one creating the fear. You're the one with the power and control. And Peter was reportedly the eldest, like we talked about, of 13 children. And he likely received a significant amount of his father's

physical abuse as well. And I wonder if his birth, order played a role here. A lot of times the eldest child has different experiences than the younger children do, or they feel pressure to be the strong one, the authority, or the one in charge of the younger ones, the one protecting the younger ones. So in that sense, he might have felt like he needed to emulate his father more so. I'd also be curious whether humiliation, intimidation, or taunting accompanied some of the violence toward him in the home. Just based on what we know about how children emulate what they're modeled. Well, after drowning the two boys, Peter knew on some level that what he'd done was wrong.

And when investigators questioned him, he knew enough to cry on cue to gain sympathy. He told them the boys had slipped and fallen and he hadn't known what to do. It's possible he learned impression management or to be deceptive in general as a survival tool and he's become somewhat skilled at it. And this isn't uncommon for children in abusive homes, especially when they are questioned about their injuries and they're trying to protect their caregivers. Well, the police took Peter at his word, but the experience only made him more curious about control, pain, and death. And there was someone who lived in the same building as his family who was only too happy to help him learn. Peter's neighbor was a local dog catcher.

And at the time, a dog catcher's job was to catch strays, then bring them to the slaughterhouse to be killed. sold for lard. That was bad enough, but somehow this dog catcher managed to be even worse. He liked to torture the dogs he caught himself, and he let Peter watch. Peter would watch, fascinated as the dog catcher stuck the dogs with needles or tried to break off their tails. Then he watched as the man sexually stimulated the dogs to the point of ejaculation. Most people would want no part in any of this, but Peter wasn't most people. and in watching the dog catcher, he learned to connect pleasure with cruelty. Two years later, in 1895, Peter and his family moved to the city of Dusseldorf.

But the change didn't improve Peter's home life. His father was still abusive, and the family still lived in tight quarters. Peter tried to hide in the woods or at school, and would sometimes spend weeks on the street stealing money from women out shopping to get by. When he got caught committing these petty thefts, the only thing that kept him out of reform school was his parents stepping in and promising the authorities to keep him off the street. But being kept off the street felt like punishment, because back at home, Peter was still getting stuck in situations where he'd be forced to watch his father rape his mother. Only by now he was 13 and beginning to have sexual feelings of his own.

Peter decided he wanted to try what he'd watched his parents do so many times, so he tried to try. convincing a classmate to have sex with him. They both took off their clothes, then the girl changed her mind and made him stop. But Peter was still determined to satisfy his desires. He remembered the dog catcher and the strange pleasure he felt watching what the man did to those animals. At the time, Peter's family lived next to some stables, so he snuck in and had sexual contact with the goats, sheep, and a few dogs. It didn't satisfy him the way he thought it would, but he kept doing it anyway. Then one day, Peter was trying to force himself on a sheep that wouldn't hold still. Frustrated, he took out a pocket knife and stabbed it. When Peter saw the blood

gush from the wound, he finally felt the rush he'd been chasing. He ejaculated, and he realized that the thing that sexually excited him most wasn't animals or even sexual contact itself. It was the sight and sound of blood. is associative learning and psychological conditioning. He had repeated early experiences in which sexuality, violence, domination, and suffering happened together. And it sounds like that association may have been developing even before his time with the dog catcher. Because as you described, he'd observed his father and his violence against his mother, including sexually assaulting her. And this combination of violence and sex may have been happening longer than that.

this, and now they're potentially compounding. But those exposures are happening during a period when his own sexual interests are also developing and may have created associations between things that, for most people, remain completely separate. And then this experience seemed to reinforce that connection. He discovers that blood itself produces this intense response for him. Why blood specifically? What in Peter's background might explain? why that became the thing that excited him most. I don't think there was necessarily one specific thing in his background. I wouldn't know for sure.

We don't know every single thing that he witnessed in his home growing up. On the surface, though, from what we do know, I think it's more likely that it became a visual representation of violence. It's tangible evidence that you caused harm to a living being. Like in this example with the sheep, it's like the results. of his power and control that he can see. Well, now that Peter knew hurting animals could gratify him, he did it constantly.

He stabbed pigs and birds and broke squirrel's necks, all for sexual release. While Peter kept hurting animals in secret, his father decided it was time he got a job. He got Peter a spot as an apprentice at the factory where he worked, but Peter didn't last there long. For one thing, he was miserable, always in trouble for one infraction or another. Once he was even thrown into a hole and covered in sand

so that only his nose stuck out. And then there was the money. The way Peter saw it, why work when he could just take it whenever he wanted, whether it was his or not? So when he was 16, Peter stole money from his job and ran away from home again. Only this time, nothing his parents said or did could save him from the consequences. Peter was caught stealing and sent to jail. for two days, and when he got out, he decided he was never going home again. He was determined to stay on the street and survive how he wanted to. Peter stole money and food and slept wherever he could find a place, but he couldn't stop thinking about blood.

In November of 1890, 16-year-old Peter started chatting up an 18-year-old girl he met along a wide, tree-lined street. After talking and flirting a bit, Peter suggested they take a walk. They strolled for a while. Then, once Peter got the girl somewhere no one was around, he grabbed her. He put his hands around her throat and squeezed. The girl struggled, and Peter could feel her fight to breathe beneath his hands. He watched the redness spread across her face and eyes.

Little blood vessels about to burst. A drop of blood appeared at the corner of her mouth. It was nothing like the amount of blood a stabbing would bring, but it excited him just the same. What you've described so far is pretty textbook in terms of broader pattern of behavioral dysregulation. We're talking theft, running away, disregard for rules, repeated risk taking, and this clear need for stimulation. And on top of that, you're describing this increasingly sadistic sexual component. With someone who is highly sensation seeking, habituation can happen, where the same behavior no longer produces the same level of excitement or gratification.

That can push them towards something more intense, novel, or risky. But this feels opportunistic because he didn't engage in an act that was likely to produce blood, even though it did show a small amount. That makes me think that this was more of a spur-of-the-moment decision and almost experimental. And of course, I could be wrong, but just given the circumstances of this, encounter. That's how it feels. That escalation is interesting to me. Like if all he really wanted was the sight or sound of blood, why do you think he would escalate from animals to humans at all? His sexual arousal is becoming increasingly connected, not just to blood, but to the causing

of suffering and feeling in control. And he could experience suffering with animals. He could feel in control over animals. They're helpless innocent beings, right? But I think he knew that a human human victim would mean experiencing a different level of fear, resistance, domination, and control that he could not get with animals. Watching human suffering was also associate of learning when you consider the abuse that he was forced to watch growing up as well. So he's emulating what he knows and the sexual abuse, you know, what he watched with his mother as well. So I think that explains why the escalation happened. Peter squeezed the young woman's neck for as long as it took to gratify himself.

Once he had what he wanted, he let her drop and ran away. Peter didn't know if he had actually killed the young woman or not, and he didn't care. All he knew was that he'd gotten a taste of inflicting pain on a human being with his bare hands. And now that he'd crossed that line, there was no turning back. I want to tell you about another true crime show. I think you'll enjoy. It's called American Nightmares. The new season, Canal Murders, takes you to Phoenix, Arizona, where a series of women were found murdered in and around the city's canals. What initially appeared to be separate crimes soon raised a terrifying question,

were these murders connected, and was a killer using the canals to hide his crimes? American Nightmares retraces the investigations, the victim's stories and the clues that could connect these cases. Follow American Nightmares Now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. In November of 1890, 16-year-old Peter Curtin strangled a young woman in Dusseldorf and left her for dead. It was the first time he'd used his bare hands to try to kill someone, and after feeling the rush it gave him, he knew it wouldn't be the last. But In 1900, before he had a chance to find his next victim, Peter was finally arrested for his many thefts. He was sent to prison for the next four years.

While he was locked up, Peter fantasized about what he was going to do when he got out. He got excited thinking about all the ways he could terrorize people and the sexual satisfaction he knew he'd get from it. After his release from prison, Peter was called up for military duty. He reported as ordered, but he hated the regiment. lifestyle, so he deserted. He hit the street again, determined to do only the things that pleased him. And one of those things was to light fires. He torched barns and haylofts, getting a thrill from watching the destruction he caused. Peter had an arson routine, set the fire, then watch it burn from a distance. He never knew for sure if anyone was inside, but homeless people often slept in barns and

haylofts and the thought of them trapped in the flames excited him. But his freedom was short-lived, because at the end of 1904, only months after getting out of prison, Peter was arrested again for deserting the military. He spent the next eight years in prison where he often suffered brutal punishments, like being chained to a wall. But Peter didn't like the violence when he was on the receiving end. He only liked pain when he was the one inflicting it, even on himself. At one point he cut one of his own arms deep enough to reach an artery. Well, that makes sense. Because when Peter is the one inflicting the violence, he's in control and he has the power. If he's the one being harmed, he loses all of that. And psychologically, that may have put him right back into feeling like the vulnerable boy in his abusive and unpredictable childhood home, where he had no control over what happened to him.

but he also seemed to enjoy harming himself. So there may be a sadomasochistic component here as well, which is a combination of sadism and masochism. Sadism involves deriving gratification from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on someone else, and we've been seeing that unfold, whereas masochism involves deriving gratification from experiencing pain or humiliation on yourself. And Peter appears capable of both of those things. But again, his masochistic behavior still seems to need that element of control. He can inflict significant pain on himself and he seems to enjoy it, but he doesn't seem to enjoy another person having the power to do it to him. To escape the brutality of prison, Peter retreated into fantasy. He imagined killing on a massive

scale when he got out, along with the sexual satisfaction it would bring him. And once he was finally released from prison in 1913, he couldn't wait to do everything he'd spent years only dreaming about. In May of 1913, 30-year-old Peter went back to his hometown of Kern Muleheim and broke into an inn owned by a family called the Klein's. While bar patrons drank and made noise downstairs, Peter easily slipped in and out of the rooms upstairs looking for things to steal. But in one room, he found the innkeeper's nine-year-old daughter Christine asleep in her bed. Suddenly, Peter had no more interest in stealing. While Christine slept, Peter grabbed her neck and choked her with his bare hands.

Then he pulled out his pocket knife and cut her throat. When he saw the blood, he ejaculated. Then Peter slipped out into the night. But by morning, he decided he wasn't quite done. He returned to the inn to watch the chaos. Peter relished all of it, the investigators combing the scene, Christine's family and tears,

the fear spreading among the inn's other patrons. He spent the rest of the day going from bar to bar, eavesdropping on the locals as they talked about the murder. He seemed addicted to hearing people describe his crime over and over, but it still wasn't enough for him. so a few days after the murder, Peter attended Christine's funeral. He blended in among the other attendees and watched as shovels full of dirt were dumped on the child-sized casket. Something stirred in him, and he planned to come back that night when no one was

around. Late that night, Peter returned to Christine's fresh grave. He stuck his hand in the soil. The details of the murder came flooding back, and he had an orgasm right there. Offenders who engage in this kind of post-defense behavior are often wanting to extend the experience. In Peter's case, he's able to watch the grief, the fear, shock, and distress that he created, but in real time, not just with her family, but within the community and law enforcement as well. And if you think about what we've been talking about so far, that's sadly exactly the kind of thing that he would enjoy. Although now he is realizing that suffering goes beyond physical pain because he gets to watch everyone's psychological suffering because of his actions. And I think that likely explains why he kept watching and why he kept extending the experience because he went from watching from afar to bar hopping to then attending her funeral. It was rewarding to him. And the risk itself may also have been adding to the excitement. He's standing among people who are grieving a murder that he committed and he's interacting

with that while knowing that they have no idea that he is the person responsible and he is right there amongst them. He's also in some ways reliving it and reconnecting with it emotionally by doing all of this too. And then that led him to her grave, which I think demonstrates behaviorally that Christine and the memory of what he did to her continued to function as a source of arousal even after her death. Why even take that risk? Why not just take a trophy instead? That's a great question. A lot of serial offenders do take trophies because they do allow them to remember the crime and in some cases relive it as well. So why didn't he do just that? I think it could have been partly circumstantial. She was in an inn. There wasn't a lot of time maybe or she didn't

have anything worth taking nearby because it wasn't her own bedroom. But ultimately, I think Peter wanted something more interactive than that. He wanted to participate. Taking an object of hers wouldn't have been enough to satisfy that. While Peter relived Christine's murder for his own pleasure, the investigation finally landed on a suspect, and it wasn't him. Christine's uncle, Otto Klein, was arrested for the murder because he was seen fighting with his brother, Christine's father, the day before. In the end, Otto was tried and acquitted due to lack of evidence, but that didn't mean investigators got any closer to finding Christine's real killer, which meant Peter was still free to chase his urges. But those urges

weren't only about killing. Many times it was enough just to feel another person's terror in his hands. In June of 1913, Peter took a girl named Marguerite Schaefer to a dance in Gerasheim, the historic district in eastern Dusseldorf. On the way home, he suggested they'd take a detour through the woods. Once they were completely alone, Peter seized Marguerite and tried to force himself on her. When she refused, he grabbed her by the throat and started choking her. Marguerite struggled and Peter squeezed harder, trying to draw even a hint of blood to her eyes or just under her skin. Her terror only excited him more. Then suddenly he changed tactics. He told Marguerite he wasn't going to kill her, that this was just what love was like.

Terrified, Marguerite nodded along. Peter let go of her neck, then dragged her to a bench and raped her. When he was finished, he made Marguerite promise not to tell anyone what he'd done. This is interesting. It once again feels experimental. And if that's the case, then I think that this was about seeing if he could exercise control over himself without killing Marguerite. he wanted to see how far he could go and if he could stop himself. And interestingly, he was able to

stop, but after he saw signs of blood form under her skin. I also think he was able to not kill her because he was able to experience fear, domination, compliance, and control through that act alone. But when he let her go, he still shifted into sexual violence and assaulted her. So it still wasn't enough to strangle her and release her. But it does show some behavioral flexibility, though. And what I mean by that is he's able to shift from one behavior to another, one violent mindset that likely involved thoughts of murder to one that did not. So even though blood and killing are clearly reinforcing for him in other situations, it may not always be required for him to feel gratified. Or at the very least, he did not set out to do that today and he was able to succeed. Peter told Marguerite that this was what love was like. What a

strange thing to say. How does that tie back to what he saw in his parents' relationship growing up? Yeah, he's essentially saying that this is normal. Violence and coercion is love and intimacy. It's absolutely something that ties back to what we were talking about earlier from his childhood. So as a recap, children learn about relationships, emotions, communication, and behavior through what's modeled by their caregivers. It's called social learning theory. And Peter's parents would have been one of his earliest models for what an intimate relationship looks like. But what he was seeing was intimacy that was repeatedly mixed with violence, rape, coercion, humiliation, and control. I think sadly this is a reflection of what he has taken from that.

It doesn't necessarily mean he literally believed that all loving relationships were violent. He may have also been manipulating her at that moment. He may also just be resentful of relationships because he does in fact know that what he witnessed as a child was abnormal and wrong. But the fact that this is the language he uses to frame what he's doing is really interesting given what we know about. the model he grew up with. Peter may have let Marguerite live, but he was hungry to kill again, and he knew it would be easier if he could get to his next victim at home the way he had with nine-year-old Christine Klein. But that would involve breaking in. And while he'd been committing burglaries for a while now, they were a hassle without the right tools. So he asked around his

criminal circles. Eventually, he got his hands on what any thief would consider a golden ticket, a skeleton key that could open any door. In July of 1913, Peter headed for a working-class neighborhood in Dusseldorf and picked what looked like a quiet house. He slid his skeleton key into the lock, and the door opened easily. Peter crept up to the second floor and found 17-year-old Gertrude Franken, sleeping in one of the upstairs rooms. He climbed onto the bed, wrapped his hands around her throat, and squeezed. Gertrude couldn't scream, but she could struggle. As she fought to free herself from Peter's grasp,

she accidentally bit her own tongue. Blood poured from her mouth, and the sight of it brought Peter to orgasm. Once Peter collected himself, he saw that Gertrude was lying motionless underneath him. He didn't bother to check whether she was alive or dead. He'd gotten what he came for, so he left. But Gertrude wasn't dead.

After Peter was gone, she woke up gasping for air. Since her parents weren't home, she ran out into the street screaming and crying. Neighbors tried to calm her down and called the police when they heard what had happened. Gertrude hadn't gotten a good look at the man who attacked her, but after questioning her further, the police realized the attacker had unknowingly left a telling clue. There were no signs of forced entry, and Gertrude swore up and down the doors had been locked. Whoever did this probably had a skeleton key. Investigators hadn't yet connected this break-in to Christine's murder, but over the next few days, they publicized the skeleton key detail, warning people to take extra care securing their

homes. Normally, Peter would have loved reading about his crimes in print and basking in the memories, but this detail rattled him. He had to get rid of the skeleton key to avoid capture, so he hurried out of his apartment and down to the Rhine. He threw the key into the river, then returned home, but when he got there, the police were waiting for him at his door. Peter swallowed hard. There was no way they could know that he was the man responsible for the attack on Gertrude or on Christine two months earlier. His mind raced and he tried to remember any possible evidence he could have left behind.

Had he dropped something in Christine's room, or had Marguerite, the woman he let live, gone to the police after he'd threatened her not to. Peter didn't know, and he wasn't about to wait to find out. So he took off running. True Scary Story is a podcast where people share their own terrifying encounters. It was actually chosen as a podcast of the month on Apple Podcast's Darkside Collection, and also the top-ranking show on Spotify. Ghost stories, retelling of long-lost memories and nightmares that seem a little too real.

Come find us by searching for true, scary story on your podcast app or tell us your own encounter over on true scary story.com. I'll see you there. In July of 1913, police showed up at the house of 30-year-old Peter Curtin after he'd just strangled his latest victim, 17-year-old Gertrude Franken. Peter tried to make a run for it, but the officers caught up with him and brought him to the station. Peter had a plan, clam up, and don't answer any questions about his prior attacks.

But that's not what they wanted to talk to him about. The police weren't there to ask about the attacks. They were arresting him for the string of burglaries and arsons he'd committed since arriving in Dusseldorf. And once again, he was hit with a heavy prison sentence. Six years, with two more added along the way for his behavior behind bars. Peter spent nearly eight years in prison. And when he got out in April of 1921, the 37-year-old went to live with his sister in Altenberg. A month after his release, his sister introduced him to 41-year-old August Scharf.

Peter was instantly attracted to her and asked her out. The two went on several dates. Naturally, Peter kept the true details of his life to himself. He even claimed he'd spent the last seven years as a prisoner of war. But August was an open book. She told Peter she'd been in a long relationship, until 1911, when she shot the man for refusing to marry. her, and for that she'd spent five years in prison. August's honesty didn't scare Peter off. He kept

seeing her and never once tried to strangle her or draw her blood, but that didn't mean he treated her well. On one occasion, Peter tried to initiate sex, but August turned him down, so Peter threatened to stab her in the ribs. Auguste believed the threat was real, so she gave in. This is the first time that Peter has expressed interest in a woman where that interest doesn't initially appear to be organized around victimizing her in the way that he has the other women. And she's very different from those women that he's targeted. She's older. She's been to prison and she openly tells him that she's shot a previous partner. And it makes me wonder if he views her as someone who is more equal to him.

She's demonstrated that she's capable of violence if necessary and that she may change the power dynamic for someone like him. So he doesn't see her necessarily as a potential victim. But he still cannot be made to feel vulnerable either. And we see that with the minute he feels rejected by her. He threatens her. He uses coercion to restore control and the ownership. So there is still evidence of intimate partner violence. And he still victimizes her.

She's still a victim, but in a different capacity. Despite the threat of violence hanging over her, August stayed with Peter, and two years later, in 1923, they got married. For the next two years, Peter didn't attack anyone. He tried to live a quiet, domestic life with his new wife in Altenberg. But then in 1925, Peter got a new job in a factory in Dusseldorf. and when he set foot in the city again, something in him woke up. The memories of his darkest acts came flooding back, and Peter felt powerless against the urge to make new ones.

In the summer of 1925, Peter met 36-year-old Maria Kiefer. They hit it off, and Maria invited Peter to come to her house the next night. That was music to his ears. He'd be in the privacy of a potential victim's home without having to break. the next night Peter arrived at Maria's around 10 p.m. She led Peter into the basement and they started to have sex, by all accounts willingly. But sex alone was never enough for Peter. He needed the charge that only came from hurting someone. So he put his hands around Maria's throat and squeezed. But Maria broke free of Peter's grip before she bled or lost consciousness.

Startled, Peter ran out of her house. Maria didn't report the attack to the police. She likely knew that once the authorities heard she'd invited the man over, they'd find a way to blame her. But Peter didn't seem worried about whether his victims would try to turn him in. He just kept hunting. But also, he knows where she lives. There's fear of retaliation, too. So true. Well, the following spring, Peter spotted a woman named Maria Wack sweeping her doorstep. He introduced himself as Fritz Kettler and started up a conversation. He made a date with her for the next evening, then took her out another four times over three weeks, all behind his wife August's back. On their last date, the two were walking in the woods at dusk when Peter suddenly grabbed Maria

and threw her onto a nearby bench. He reached under her skirt with one hand and grabbed her throat with the other, but Maria shoved him away so hard it threw him off balance. She got up and ran away screaming, and Peter slipped off as quietly as he could. But the two of the two, Maria's wouldn't be Peter's only failed attacks. In the summer of 1927, 44-year-old Peter met a girl named Annie on the street. He gave her his usual alias of Fritz Kettler and made a date with her for the following Saturday. That day, as they walked in the woods, Peter made a move, and Annie accepted. The two had sex on a bench, but after they finished, Peter grabbed her by the neck. Annie fought back. According to him, she freed her.

herself from Peter's grip and disappeared screaming into the woods. Peter was frustrated. Three attacks in a row had failed to give him the release he craved. He needed to do something soon, something drastic and destructive. Three in a row is going to likely be extremely frustrating for someone who desires power, control, and domination. His victims are escaping, they're resisting, or otherwise preventing him from completing what he intended to do. do. And given everything we've seen so far, I think that loss of control could be particularly significant for him, especially because he has to carefully plan these around August, so she is unaware. There may also be a frustration aggression component developing here. The theory behind

the frustration aggression hypothesis is that repeatedly being prevented from reaching an anticipated reward can increase frustration and in some people aggression, or just compound. pounding frustration can lead to aggression. And in Peter's case, he's repeatedly initiating this sequence of behavior and then being interrupted before obtaining the level of gratification he's seeking. So in response, I would not be surprised if we see him act with more urgency and desperation in riskier and more aggressive ways. Peter needed a release and soon, so he turned back to an old habit, arson. And over the following two years, he set fire to numerous barns, haystacks, sheds, farmyards, wagons, and even several houses. Only this time, it wasn't the thought of people

burning inside that excited him. It was watching the chaos unfold from his hiding place as the fire raged. He loved watching people struggle against the flames. And more than that, he loved knowing he was the one who'd caused it all, and that no one else had any idea. But even as he set fire after fire throughout 1927 and 1928, he knew it wasn't going to be enough. He needed another victim. And after the last couple of years, he knew he couldn't depend on strangling alone. He needed blood. And for that, he needed to try a new weapon.

On the evening of February 3rd, 1929, Peter told Auguste he was going out and would be back later. Then he slipped a pair of sharp scissors into his coat pocket. and headed into the night. He saw a woman coming toward him on the dark street. This time there was no flirting, no charm. He simply ordered her to stop and stay silent. Then he pulled out his scissors and stabbed her 24 times in the head, torso, and arms. The woman screamed for help and Peter hurried away before he could enjoy the sight of her blood. When the police arrived on the scene, the woman, Apollonia Coon, was still alive, but she couldn't tell them who'd attacked her. It was dark, and it all happened so fast that she never got a good look at the man.

Meanwhile, Peter slipped back into his house and went to the bathroom to clean off the scissors. He noticed that a small piece of the blade, just 8 to 10 millimeters, had broken off. He realized the wounds were probably shallow, and the woman would likely survive. As expected, we are seeing an escalation in Earth, or desperation following those failed attempts. And I think we're starting to see Peter enter what's called a criminal spin. That's when there's a sudden rapid or sometimes more gradual acceleration in criminal behavior. And there are acute and chronic criminal spins. And given that his arson spanned for several months to a year, this would be considered chronic. This all happened after

three failed attempts. And in addition to setting fire after fire, he suddenly changes his method and stabs at Bologna 24 times. And that suggests rage and it's overkill. There seems to be an increasing urgency to his behavior. The arson may have been giving him some of what he was looking for. He could create chaos. He was watching people respond to it and we know how much he enjoys that and he was watching it in secret, but there was urgency there too because it was one right after the other. And it wasn't enough to replace the gratification he associated with directly hands-on harming another person. And so that's what he does, which is why now I think his behavior becomes much more immediate. He goes almost immediately into stabbing epilonia.

He's becoming more active, the violence is becoming more direct again, and he's not delaying it. He's spinning. Peter could have easily gone back to a knife, but he switched to scissors without knowing how well they'd work when he stabbed someone. What does this kind of experimentation tell us about him? Again, yes, experimentation is a great word. It's really hard to say. There could be practical reasons. Like Auguste could have noticed if one of their kitchen knives were missing, especially because she was home when he left.

So he may have opted for scissors because it would be less likely. for her to question if she noticed they were gone, or less likely to assume that he'd taken them. Or if he were stopped and they found scissors on him, that's less suspicious than carrying a knife. They're an ordinary practical object. So this could have been a risk reduction decision, but I'm more inclined to think that he knew with the scissors open, he would create two puncture wounds at once. And if he is urgent and desperate and his goal was to produce blood immediately and quickly, then scissors certainly gave him a way to do that much more efficiently. Peter hadn't killed Apollonia, but after all these years, drawing human blood again was intoxicating.

He wanted to do it again and again to as many victims as it took. No one knew it yet, but 1929 would go down in Dusseldorf as the year of terror and no man, woman, or child would be safe from Peter Curtin and his endless thirst for blood. Thanks so much for listening. Come back next time for the conclusion of our deep dive on Peter Curtin. 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 all social media at Crime House. 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, join Crimehouse Plus and get both parts of every story dropped on the same Monday completely ad-free. No waiting three days for part two plus Crime House bonus episodes every month. To join, go to crimehouseplus.com. Or if you listen on Apple Podcasts, tap, try free at the top of the serial killers and murderous minds page. Serial killers and murderous minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, and a forensic psychologist, Dr. Tristan Engels, and is a crimehouse original powered by Pave Studios. This episode was brought to life by the serial killers and murderous minds team, Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benadar. Laurie Marinelli, Natalie Pritzowski, Sarah Camp, Alyssa Fox, Mara della Rosa, Claire Swartzlander,

Markey Lee, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening. If you're looking for your next podcast, check out What the Fact with Connor Tomlinson from Netflix's Love on the Spectrum and Carter Roy. Every week they take three unbelievable true facts from history and tell you the full story behind them. Follow What The Fact wherever you listen or subscribe on your. YouTube at What The Fact Pod.