Afternoon drinks turned into a chicken dinner at a nearby fast food chain. Over dinner, Dorothea startled Charles by suggesting they should live together. She said she was an excellent cook and as they were two lonesome people on their own, they would be pleasant company for each other.
Charles said he thought they might need a bit more time to get to know each other and quickly changed the subject. After they had finished eating, they bade each other “goodnight,” after arranging to meet and go shopping on the following day to replace essential items for Dorothea the taxi driver had stolen.
As Charles wandered back to his downtown apartment, he wondered about the woman he had met. Why did she feel so familiar to him? As he wondered this he walked past a newsstand and there staring at him on the front-page of a newspaper was the face of the woman he had just spent the last few hours with. A sudden chill ran down his spine. Back at his apartment, he phoned a local television station and told them his story. The TV station phoned the police.
Later that same night at around 10.45 p.m. the LA police descended on the cheap downtown motel where Dorothea was holed up and placed her under arrest. The Local TV station filmed it all. On the flight returning to Sacramento, Dorothea told a reporter that she had never killed anyone, but she did cash their checks.
TRIAL
Dorothy Puente’s trial for the murder of nine people did not begin until February of 1993, four years after her arrest. Dorothea had pleaded not guilty to nine counts of murder on March 31st, 1989. The court case was continually dogged by delays and changes of the prosecuting team and the defense’s desire for a change in venue from Sacramento. In Sacramento, due to the extreme publicity the case had aroused, they thought it would be difficult to get a fair trial. The trial venue was moved to Monterey County two hundred miles south. Here, the media converged in February of 1993 on the courthouse en masse.
One would think that the prosecution having dug up the remains of seven corpses in Dorothea’s garden would have a straightforward murder case, but the decomposed remains of the bodies were a formidable problem for the forensic team. They could not prove a cause of death except in the case of Ruth Munroe. Ruth Monroe had died from a codeine overdose and had been prescribed codeine by her own doctor even though she was allergic to it.
The other significant problem for the prosecution was that with over 150 witnesses, not one could testify that they had seen Dorothea kill anyone or bury anyone. The only consistency was that all the bodies buried in the garden were found to have traces of Dalmane, a prescription strength sleeping pill that can be deadly when taken with the wrong combination of medication. Everson Gillmouth’s body, the one found in the box by the Sacramento River, in the toxicology examination showed no signs of Dalmane or any other drug.
Without a cause of death, could the prosecution prove murder?
The Defense argued that if you can’t show how the victims died, it’s impossible to determine unlawful killing. The defense was intent on proving death by natural causes, and the prosecution was intent on proving murder.
The Prosecutor, Mr. John O'Mara, opened the case with a blunt and simple accusation: Dorothea Puente killed her tenants and Everson Gilmouth with Dalmane to steal and cash their checks from the government and that she murdered her friend and business partner Ruth Munroe for financial gain. He went on to allege that over the course of time, she had stolen more than $58,000 from her victims.
Dorothea sat in the courtroom between her attorneys, looking much older than her sixty-four years: a frail little old lady, with skin paler than ivory, white hair neatly lacquered, and a shawl wrapped around her shoulders covering a flowered print dress.
Dorothea’s attorney´s opening statement described her as a compassionate woman who generously cared for society´s cast offs who had nowhere else to go. He claimed that the money from her boarders barely covered Dorothea and her operating costs. She may have stolen funds to cover costs, he suggested, but that did not make her a murderer. The defense argued that her tenants had died of natural causes and that Dorothea did not call the authorities because she did not want to be sent to prison for violating her parole conditions by associating with elderly individuals.
The trial lasted for five months, one hundred and fifty-three witnesses were called, one hundred pieces of evidence were submitted, and a scaled size replica of Dorothea’s house and garden sat on a table in the middle of the courtroom resembling a doll’s house that had been misplaced.
Probably one of the most damaging pieces of evidence provided by the prosecution was a video-tape the police had made of an interview with Dorothea. The video showed her blatantly lying to police. It also showed her claiming to have a bad heart, was unable to lift anything heavy, and, therefore, “couldn’t drag a body anyplace.” However, an ex-tenant, Robert French, testified that he had seen Dorothea lifting 95-pound sacks of concrete in the front yard to move them to the shelter. The concrete, the prosecution alleged, was later used to cover some of the gravesites.
Another boarder testified that he had complained to Dorothea about a stench “like death” pervading the house just days after Fink’s disappeared; Dorothea had told him that it was a problem with the sewer.
By the time the jury was sent out on July 15, 1993 to decide on Dorothea’s fate, the trial had lasted five months. The jury essentially had to decide whether Dorothea was a benevolent, unbalanced woman or a scheming, conning, murderous, old witch. On August 2nd, the jury informed the judge that they were deadlocked on all counts. The Judge sent them out again with some advice on how to break the deadlock. The jury returned on August the 25th with the news that they had reached a verdict on three counts but still remained deadlocked on six counts. It had become the longest murder trial deliberation in Californian history.
The jury had found Dorothea Puente guilty of first-degree murder of Dorothy Miller and Benjamin Fink and second-degree murder of Leona Carpenter. The judge ruled a mistrial on the other six counts. Dorothea, whiter than ever, displayed no emotion whatsoever when the verdict was read out to the court.
On Oct 7th, 1993, the judge once again sent the jury out to determine if Dorothea should receive the death sentence or life in prison with no parole. The defense paraded numerous witnesses through the court pleading with the jury to spare Dorothea’s life, saying how she had helped them. The jury was deadlocked, and Dorothy was given life in prison with no parole.
On Dec. 10, 1993, Dorothea Puente, at the age of sixty-four, was sent to Central California Women's Facility near Chowchilla for life with no possibility of parole.
Dorothea Puente died at the age of eighty-two from natural causes in prison on March 27th, 2011.
ELFRIEDE BLAUENSTEINER
The Insatiable Gambler
Elfriede Blauensteiner was born to impoverished parents in Vienna, Austria on January 22nd of 1931. Her ambition, since her poverty-ridden childhood, was to become rich. This she did not achieve until 1986, when she was in her fifties.
Elfriede’s stepfather, Otto Reinl, in 1986 was a 78-year-old diabetic. Elfriede offered to care for him and invited Otto to move into her home. Otto happily moved into Elfriede’s and her husband Rudolf’s home, grateful to be looked after. Elfriede made sure he took his diabetic medicine, Euglucon, every day. This was medicine prescribed to Otto to bring down the sugar level in his blood. Elfriede soon began to experiment with the medicine by increasing his dosage slowly day by day and noting the effects on Otto. Otto would frequently lose consciousness due to low blood sugar levels caused by the increased medication. Then one day Otto died, leaving all his possessions to Elfriede. An autopsy was performed, but nobody tested the amounts of Euglucon or insulin in his body. Elfriede learned two things from this experience: 1.) that excessive amounts of Euglucon administered over a long period could be fatal and 2.) that Euglucon amounts are not tested during an autopsy.
At Otto’s funeral, Elfriede played the distraught grieving stepdaughter and for the first time in her life, Elfri
ede had a little money.
Elfriede then took a long hard look at her husband Rudolf and decided it was time to be free of him. Not to arouse suspicion, she carefully began spiking his drinks with tiny amounts of Euglucon. Eventually, he was admitted to the hospital with low sugar levels. Once Rudolf was discharged from the hospital and back home, the procedure was repeated. Neighbors and friends soon accepted that Rudolf was a sick man. Over the course of a few years, Rudolf slipped into comas thirteen times. When he died, at the age of fifty-two in August of 1992, nobody was surprised by his premature death. Elfriede had his body cremated and buried his ashes next to her stepfather’s. His life, of course, Elfriede had well insured.
Elfriede, as a new widow, discovered a passion for gambling and began to be seen regularly at the roulette tables of Baden and the Esterhazy Palace in Vienna. She began dressing in furs and sporting expensive jewelry and enjoying life as a wealthy Grande Dame. Elfriede also realized that her newly acquired lifestyle would require more funds.
A wealthy, lonely, 84-year-old neighbor, Mrs. Fransizka Köberl, attracted Elfriede’s attention. Elfriede befriended Fransizka and before long invited her to live with her so she could care for her. Fransizka was so grateful that she made a new will in Elfriede’s favor. Elfriede then began administering Euglucon in the old woman’s coffee. In 1992, Franziska Koeberl died leaving Elfriede the equivalent of €170,000 ($221,080).
Spurred on by her successes, Elfriede, in 1994, began placing ads in the lonely hearts column of newspapers. Through one of her advertisements, Elfriede met Friedrich Döcker. Friedrich was a wealthy retired man of sixty-four and within three days of meeting, they were married. Barely a year after the wedding, on July 11th of 1995, Friedrich died. Elfriede inherited a house worth €300,000 ($390,142). Four days before Friedrich died, Elfriede had placed another ad in the newspaper saying: “A widow, faithful spouse, and a nurse looking for a peaceful aging with a well-off widower.”
Alois Pichler, a retired former post office director, was a lonely widower and wealthy man at the age of seventy-seven when he answered Elfriede’s advertisement in 1995. Alois Pichler, although elderly, had no serious health problems; that is, until he answered the advertisement and employed Elfriede Blauensteiner as his caregiver. In October of 1995, Elfriede moved in to Alois’s house and within days, she became not only his nurse but also his lover. Two weeks later, there was an ambulance at the door. Alois was diagnosed in the hospital as having a low blood sugar level problem. Elfriede promised Alois that she would care for him and help make him better with her nursing skills. She also attempted to persuade him to make out his will in her favor.
One of the reasons Elfriede had selected Alois, out of the eighty men who had answered her advertisement, was that he was well-off and appeared to have no relatives except his 91-year-old nun sister. When Alois would not co-operate with changing his will in her favor, she solicited the help of a bent lawyer, Harold Schmidt, to draw up a false will.
When Alois was discharged from the hospital back to her care, Elfriede returned to her “medicinal treatment of him” and to speed proceedings along added Anafranil, an antidepressant. In November of 1995, when Alois was exhausted and drained, Elfriede and Harold Schmidt made Alois sign the false will. They then left him in a cold bath with all the windows open even though it was snowing outside. Elfriede and Harold then went to the Casino, and Alois died from a heart attack while Elfriede and Harold were drinking champagne and gambling.
At Alois’s funeral, Elfriede dressed elegantly, placed a red rose matching the color of her lipstick on the coffin, and cried profusely. However, what Elfriede had not realized was that Alois had written a real will and had a nephew to whom he had bequeathed everything he owned. The nephew reported his suspicions of the false will to the police, and an autopsy of Alois’s body was ordered. The autopsy showed up a fatal dose of "Anafranil" and traces of "Euglucon”., a medicine that had never been prescribed for Alois.
Elfriede Blauensteiner was arrested on suspicion of murdering Alois Pichler by administrating the drugs Euglucon and Anaframil. While under questioning, Elfriede confessed to the police that she had committed five murders. Later, she withdrew the confession. When questioned by journalists she said, "I confessed because the police questioned me for so long. I would have confessed to anything”.
On February 10th of 1997, in the town of Krems, thirty miles west of Vienna, Elfriede with her lawyer, Harold Schmidt, went on trial for the murder of Alois Pichler. For the trial, the matronly sixty-six-year-old, bespectacled Elfriede dressed in an elegant beige suit and carried a golden crucifix. On entering the courtroom, she raised the crucifix in the air and declared, "My hands are clean. I've nothing to hide," and smiled at the milling reporters. Throughout the trial, Elfriede reveled in the media attention, laughing and waving to the journalists as if she were a Hollywood superstar.
Elfreide and Harold Schmidt pleaded not guilty. The jury thought otherwise and found Elfriede Blauensteiner guilty of the first-degree murder of Alois Pichler. Harold Schmidt was found guilty of falsifying the will and aiding Elfriede. On March 7, 1997, the judge sentenced Elfreide to life in prison -- the maximum sentence possible. Harold Schmidt was sentenced to seven years.
According to a police officer leading the investigation, Elfreide had shown no remorse and indeed had even told an officer at the initial interrogation, when she had confessed to the five murders, that all her victims had deserved to die.
Meanwhile in Vienna, the police were investigating the other deaths surrounding Elfriede Blauensteiner. The body of Franziska Koeberl, the 84-year-old woman Elfriede had befriended, was exhumed. After forensic tests, it was confirmed that she had died from Euglucon poisoning. Friedrich Döcker’s body, Elfriede’s second husband, was also exhumed, and the results were the same.
In 2001, Elfriede Blauensteiner was tried for the murder of Franziska Koeberl and Friedrich Döcker. Again, Elfriede courted the press and gave interviews and dressed smartly and elegantly. When asked by journalists if she had killed, she answered, "I would never kill. I believe in my innocence”. Elfriede told journalists that she enjoyed nursing older men and that it was merely a coincidence some of those she cared for had died. In another interview, she proclaimed "Death is only the beginning of eternal life”.
Elfriede Blauensteiner reveling in media attention
When asked how she was coping with life in prison Elfriede said, “Life is worth living everywhere, even in prison. In prison, you get everything you desire”. She said that she got up early every day at seven then took a shower and had breakfast of coffee, bread, butter, jam, and a boiled egg. Later, she said, she would play table tennis or exercise in the fitness center and then spend her time writing her memoirs and romantic novels.
During the second trial, the prosecution alleged that Elfriede killed for greed and to finance her gambling addiction. They said that she had visited the Esterhazy Palace in Vienna one thousand six hundred times in the span of three years and spent an estimated $1,600,000.
Esterhazy Palace
The jury took just over an hour to find Elfriede Blauensteiner guilty of killing Friedrich Döcker and Franziska Koeberl.
Senior Austrian detectives believed she was responsible for far more deaths than she was ever tried for. They said, "She's as cold as ice. She has played with the lives of at least six people and possibly up to a dozen”.
After the trial, Elfriede was returned to Schwarzau prison where she spent the rest of her life. She died on the 18th of November in 2003 from a brain tumor. Her memoirs or romance novels, if she even wrote them, were never published.
AILEEN WUORNUS-
DAMSEL FOR SALE
Introduction
Aileen Carol Wuornos was born on February 29th, 1956 and is probably one of the most notorious women serial killers of our time. Much has been written about Aileen; some of what has been written is true, and some of it is wrong.
What makes her stand out from most other wo
men serial killers is that Aileen killed with a gun, and her victims were strangers. The majority of women serial killers normally use poison and their victims are usually (but not always) acquaintances or family members.
Early Days
Aileen was born to Diane Pittman, nee Wuornos, and Leo Dale Pittman in Rochester, Michigan. Diane Wuornos had eloped and married Leo Pittman when she was fifteen-years-old on June 3rd, 1954. Her parents had not approved of Leo. In February of 1955, Diane had a son named Keith. In June of 1955, Diane became pregnant for the second time with Aileen. By this time, Dianne was deathly afraid of her husband Leo. Just months before Aileen was born, he was arrested and imprisoned for raping and attempting to murder a young girl of seven. Diane divorced him shortly before Aileen was born.
Women Serial Killers of the 20th Century Page 12