Show Mobile Navigation

Another 10 Evil Women

Jamie Frater . . . Comments

As promised, we finally present our sequel to the Top 10 Most Evil Women list. The women on this list are all infamous for the horrors they caused. It is a very difficult topic to rank, so I have done my best to do so in an objective manner. If you think anyone is missing from either of these two lists, be sure to tell us in the comments.

10. Williamina “Minnie” Dean 1844 – 1895


Death Toll: 3+

Minnie Dean was the first, and only, woman to be executed in the history of New Zealand. She was executed by hanging. Under the guise of helping poor young girls, this evil woman murdered their children and took what little money they had to improve her own lifestyle. At the time, a young woman becoming pregnant without a father was severely stigmatized by society. This gave rise to a phenomenon called “baby farming”, in which people would offer to take the children and raise them for a moderate regular fee. Dean was one such farmer, but rather than raising the children, she murdered them at the soonest opportunity and kept the money. This was made possible because “adopting” parents were not required to be registered by law. In many cases the children simply vanished in to the homes of these “farmers” never to be seen again. Dean murdered at least 3 children, but it is likely that there were many more whose bodies were not recovered. In my youth I was given a tour of the New Zealand Police private museum, and I saw the bones of the 3 recovered children – it was something I will never forget.

9. Dorothea Puente 1929


Death Toll: 9

Dorothy Puente was an elderly woman who ran a boarding house for down and outs. During her years in the house she slowly murdered the people who lived with her, and forged their signatures on social security checks, in order to live the high life. She refused to allow her tenants to touch the phone or mail. She would take any money that was sent to them and keep most of it for herself. Among her victims were drunks, and schizophrenics. One of the bodies found in the back yard had had its head, arms and legs removed. The money she stole helped pay for luxury clothing and perfume, as well as a face lift shortly before she was caught. Puente showed no remorse for her crimes and is currently serving time in jail where she will die.

8. Karla Homolka 1970

Karla Homolka 5

Death Toll: 3 (at least 5 others suspected)

Karla Homolka is a Canadian serial killer who attracted worldwide media attention when she was convicted of helping her husband, Paul Bernardo, rape and murder teenage girls. Her victims included her sister, Tammy Homolka. Karla videotaped her husband brutalizing and murdering young women – these videotapes were used against them in court, and parts have leaked on to the internet despite the fact that the Canadian government ordered the videos destroyed. Shockingly, Homolka was released from jail in 2005 after just 12 years, and is now living in the sunny paradise that is the West Indies. Justice, commonwealth style.

7. Elena Ceau?escu 1916 – 1989


Death Toll: Genocidal

Elena Ceau?escu was a Romanian self-proclaimed scientist, wife of Romania’s Communist leader, Nicolae Ceau?escu, and Vice Prime Minister of Romania. Romanians hold Elena Ceau?escu responsible for the elimination of birth control, which created crisis conditions during the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in a flood of unwanted infants, babies and children, that were housed in substandard state operated orphanages throughout the country. She also headed the State health commission, which denied the existence of AIDS in Romania, leading to one of the largest outbreaks (including pediatric cases) in the western world. She was also responsible for the destruction of churches and the food rationing that took place in Romania in the 1980s. She was eventually executed for her crimes against humanity, and died screaming “go to hell” to her executor. I wonder how she is finding it there.

6. Elizabeth I of England 1533 – 1603


Death Toll: Thousands (at least)

Elizabeth I, in order to suppress Catholicism, had thousands of Catholics in England and Ireland murdered. While she did good things with regards to parliament, she was an evil tyrant who is, unfortunately, portrayed as “Good Queen Bess” these days (as we know, the victors write history). Additionally, Elizabeth gave Mary, Queen of Scots refuge, then immediately betrayed her and kept her prisoner for nearly 19 years, before murdering her (with no intervening freedom!). She encouraged piracy against Spanish ships and allowed the slave trade to thrive.

5. Marybeth Tinning 1942


Death Toll: 9

Between 1972 and 1985, Tinning had 8 children and adopted another one, all of whom she murdered. Throughout the period of the deaths, no one had any suspicion that she was murdering them, and genetics was blamed. This happened despite the fact that her adopted child was the seventh child murdered. She confessed to smothering her children, but later retracted the confession. She was eventually sentenced to 20 years in prison – since then, both attempts at parole have been denied.

4. Rosemary West 1953

 983842 Rose.300

Death Toll: 12+

Together with her husband Fred, Rosemary West is believed to have tortured and murdered at least 12 young women. In August, 1992, Fred West was arrested after being accused of raping his 13-year-old daughter three times, and Rosemary West was arrested for child cruelty. The Wests developed a habit of picking up girls from bus stops in and around Gloucester, England, and imprisoning them in their home for several days before killing them. West had a voracious sexual appetite and enjoyed extreme bondage and sadomasochistic sex. She was bisexual, and many of their victims were picked up for her and her husband’s sexual pleasure. West also worked as a prostitute. Two of her children were fathered by these clients. West is one of only two women ever to be condemned to die in prison in the United Kingdom (the other was Myra Hindley, who has since died in prison).

3. Phoolan Devi 1963 – 2001

 97766 Phoolan Devi Bandit Queen Elvis300

Death Toll: 22+

Phoolan Devi was an Indian Dacoit (armed robber), who had a brief career as a politician later in her life. In the 1970s she was kidnapped by a gang of dacoits, and she eventually joined them in their crimes. At one point she was raped by a group of men in Behmai, a village they attacked. She managed to escape and continued her life of crime, stealing from the wealthy. She eventually returned to Behmai, where she ordered all of the men in the village lined up and shot. At least 22 men were murdered at her command. She was finally arrested, and spent 11 years in jail. She went in to politics but her short lived career ended due to abuse of her power. Shockingly, in 1998, Phoolan Devi was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by some members of the British Parliament. In 2001, she was assassinated by a man in revenge for the murders she caused in Behmai.

2. Delphine LaLaurie 1775 – 1842(?)


Death Toll: 10+

LaLaurie was a sadistic socialite who lived in New Orleans. Her home was a chamber of horrors. On April 10, 1834, a fire broke out in the mansion’s kitchen, and firefighters found two slaves chained to the stove. They appeared to have started the fire themselves, in order to attract attention. The firefighters were lead by other slaves to the attic, where the real surprise was. Over a dozen disfigured and maimed slaves were manacled to the walls or floors. Several had been the subjects of gruesome medical experiments. One man appeared to be part of some bizarre sex change, a woman was trapped in a small cage with her limbs broken and reset to look like a crab, and another woman with arms and legs removed, and patches of her flesh sliced off in a circular motion to resemble a caterpillar. Some had had their mouths sewn shut and had subsequently starved to death, whilst others had their hands sewn to different parts of their bodies. Most were found dead, but some were alive and begging to be killed, to release them from the pain. LaLaurie fled before she could be bought to justice – she was never caught. You can read a more indepth article on Delphine LaLaurie here.

1. Jiang Qing 1914 – 1991


Death Toll: 500,000+

Jiang Qing was the wife of Mao Tse-tung, the Communist dictator of China. Through clever maneuvering she managed to reach the highest position of power within the communist party (short of being President). It is believed that she was the main driving force behind China’s Cultural Revolution (of which she was the deputy director). During the Cultural Revolution, much economic activity was halted, and countless ancient buildings, artifacts, antiques, books and paintings were destroyed by Red Guards. The 10 years of the Cultural Revolution also brought the education system to a virtual halt, and many intellectuals were sent to prison camps. Millions of people in China reportedly had their human rights annulled during the Cultural Revolution. Millions more were also forcibly displaced. Estimates of the death toll – civilians and Red Guards – from various Western and Eastern sources are about 500,000 in the true years of chaos of 1966—1969, but some estimates are as high as 3 million deaths, with 36 million being persecuted.


We have now shown 20 evil women and I am sorry to say that I have found enough to do a third list in the future. Women, and mothers in particular, are trusted by society to raise future generations – what a tragedy when things go so wrong that we end up with murderous mothers. It strikes me that there must be some warning sign of impending evil with these people – is there any way we can detect it, and if so, can anything be done to prevent the evil from blossoming? Do we have a moral right to dispose of these people before they can do any damage?

This article uses some material from Wikipedia

Jamie Frater

Jamie is the owner and chief-editor of Listverse. He spends his time working on the site, doing research for new lists, and collecting oddities. He is fascinated with all things historic, creepy, and bizarre.

Read More: Twitter Facebook Instagram Email

  • Twinkle

    @3… if I was raped by a group of men, hell, i'd murder them too, OR I'd cut their dicks. Rape is a serious crime.

    • Damn straight. Phoolan is a hero, though merciless to rapists. Interesting I’ve never come across an mention of this nebulous “abuse of power” you claim here in anything else I’ve read about her, but there a many more details of her life you’ve omitted here anyway.

  • Johnny T

    To all you people defending number 3. She killed every man in the village. It didn't specify how many raped her. It just says a "gang." That could be as few as three men and she killed 22 or more. That's not vigalante style revenge, that's just cold blooded murder.

    • Research it. Multiple men in the village gang raped her, and the rest were complicit as she was held hostage by the village for three weeks, without clothing and maltreated, used as a slave. She escaped when a traveler passing through saw what was going on and snuck her out one night in his cart, it was then that she reconvened with the dacoit gang. A village of people who condone rapists to that degree aren’t really worth more than a rapist itself.

      • B

        So because other men in the village didn’t want to free an armed bandit that attacked their village they deserve to die? Ugh, you extremists find a way to justify anything, don’t you?

  • jake ryder

    Wow, I really look forward to a day we can stop talking about Paul and Karla. My bias I guess as a resident of Niagara.

    • ashleysweet

      agreed!!!!! i really dont think she belongs on here at all. there are much, much worse people. like gertrude banizweski

      • Claire

        Or Erszebét (Elizabeth) Báthory.

  • InconsistentAngelThings

    Some of these are just plain scary. I guess you might as well bring on list number three, and get it over with.

  • Hector

    “Puente showed no remorse for her crimes and is currently serving time in jail where she will die”
    This old lady is still alive ?
    She’s 103 or something ?

    • dr. retarded

      Well if she was born in 1929 then she would be about 81 now, not 103. It was in Sacramento and she was caught in 1988.

    • Roni

      She just recently died in prison.

  • Cyn

    i’m not sure i’d put together serial killers and people responsible for genocide. results are the same. vastly different scale. vastly different routes to get there. more like list serial killers, spree killers and then a different list for genocide.
    or not. LOL
    still a compelling read. as for your personal closing comments…
    seems like every year science produces more ways of scanning the brain for various defects. so there may come a day when its possible to screen a fetus for a brain defect that would allow for antisocial behavior or indicate murderous tendencies. its probably gonna be one of those things society will not address before it becomes a reality…like someone being scanned and the fetus not aborted. the person then grows to maturity and conducts a bloody rampage. then some victim’s family will sue for wrongful life. and it’ll be the theme of all the crime shows on TV for a week. *sigh*
    i don’t know what the answer is …practice eugenics? not. enforce sterilization. abortion. er..not.
    the good news…it probably will not be in my lifetime. :)
    course it could be in my daughter’s lifetime.
    thanks J. now something else to worry about in her future.

  • InconsistentAngelThings

    And i agree with twinkie, #3 wasnt really all that bad. just a vigilante, and though thats usually against the law, hell, I would definitely have done the same thing. I dont think rape is an appropriate punishment for anything, even though she was robbing them

  • Cyn

    Hector…9. Dorothea Puente 1929

    she was born in 1929
    if i got the math right..she’s 79

  • Andie_Girl9

    Rosemary West scares me…that creepy smile…and the ugly hair…scary!

    -Andrea Carlena Beauman

  • Angelina

    I watched a documentary on the Wests. Very evil couple! Fred committed suicide, Rose still professes her innocence to this day. Disturbing!

    Great List! Wow, 3 in one day . . . Jamie, you are spoiling us! :)

    • Schweinhund

      Any idea what the name of the documentary was? I saw it years ago and would really like to track down a copy. Im surprised they aren't very well known, as they were 2 of the most disturbing serial killers in recent history, probably moreso than the Hillside Stranglers. The fact that they raised four children in that queer semblance of a family lifestyle is very fascinating. The relationship between Rosemary and Fred West itself was an extremely perverse one, and he apparently felt ashamed and inferior to her in every way and would often observe other men having sex with her. One thing I hate is how in the case of a couple, women are always given soft treatment, and the blame is placed squarely on the man. But it's clear that the dominant one in their wrongdoings was Rosemary West, & I doubt Fred West Could have done it on his own given how he is portrayed in the film.

  • kunle

    the weaker sex indeed!

  • FelixMG

    Karla Homolka was relocated to the neighborhood i live in, a south shore suburb of Montreal. She actually lives three blocks away, and has been seen by many people here.

  • nelson

    women=all liars weaker sex only in this stupid world

  • andrew

    i remember in an other list you said that snuff films didn’t exist in actuality. #8 clearly states that such a thing exist and has leaked on the internet.

  • Alycia

    I was wondering when Delphine LaLaurie was going to be put on a list like this.

    Good job.

  • puddingpuppet

    Yes, women are the weaker sex because they kill. Men certainly don’t do that. Nope, not at all. I hope somebody can pick up on my sarcasm. And as for “women=all liars”, do you live in the fucking ’50s? Should they be kept only in the kitchen? Sounds like one broke your heart and you can’t let it go.

  • Fallenangel

    I liked the last one, I like this one, I can’t wait to see the next one. I knew about Lalaurie some years ago, but I didn’t know the extent of her attrocities. Love the enlightening, thanks.

  • Captain Reynolds

    I’m pretty sure the Homolka case was made into a Ripped From The Headlines “Law & Order” episode – except in that episode, the murdering bitch got the same sentence her husband got. If only fiction were reality…

  • Happy

    Holy shit so I guess the entire human race sucks ass and its not just one group of people.

  • Keith

    andrew: i remember in an other list you said that snuff films didn’t exist in actuality. #8 clearly states that such a thing exist and has leaked on the internet.

    “Although these tapes have been described as snuff films, this description is not strictly accurate. The videotapes do not show any deaths; they show violent crimes and the infliction of injuries that ultimately caused one death but no moment of death was pictured.” – Wikipedia

  • Joni

    It frustrates me how terrible the Canadian justice system is. You can murder 50 people but only be sent to jail for 25 years, then given anonymity. Great list.

  • Mom424

    karla holmoka was given the deal of 12 years in exchange for her “full and truthful” testimony before the extent of her participation was fully appreciated. She lied,,,they found tapes showing her in all her evil glory and still the crown did not revoke her plea deal. And now she’s living anonymously in the warm sunshine; she raped, tortured, murdered,,,and she got off on it..
    where in the west indies? don’t let your teenage duaghters go on holiday there….

  • Mom424

    jfrater; great list, I know about letters of marque -basically legal and encouraged piracy- but I thought it a tactic of war. Harry the enemy through economics and bloodshed. I didn’t know she was a back-stabbing catholic murderin’ tyrant. Britain had the inquisition in reverse?

  • nahi

    Karla graduated from my high school. Sir Winston Churchill…pretty scary. the glass on her graduating photo where her face is is always scratched out. They’ll replace the glass, but it always ends up getting scratched up again.

  • Mom424

    also…in regards to your closing comments…
    yes evil can often be prevented from blossoming; Most sociopaths do not end up serial killers or full blown psychopaths, they become talent agents or sales reps…geez almost as bad. Stability, parental training, and a hefty dose of self-interest keep them within societal boundaries.
    Take away the training and stability and substitute child abuse and foster homes, or take away normal boundaries (like Dachau)……sigh
    That said, I do believe there are some people born evil. No amount of training will fix them. Some of the ladies on this list are only on this list because their position in government/society allowed their evil to be of grand scale. I guarantee you those same women would be doing evil, albeit smaller evil if they were peasants. The best we can hope to do is catch them before they do too much harm…

  • Yikkity

    That damn Delphine LaLaurie was the damn devil. Gave me goosebumps.

    • Jeff

      Since reading that delphine story a few days ago i wish i had not read that. Its really disturbing. I was not ready to read something so horrible. I think there should be a warning. Although at this point its too late for me. I hate that story. :(

  • Woah…number 2, totally and darkly fascinated by that. Creepy!! And I think we have agreed to disagree about Elizabeth, so I won’t say much about THAT…

    Some of these women don’t really look like women, haha. Just ironic considering the list. Did you purposely choose unflattering photos?

  • malena992

    on LaLaurie, from wikipedia
    “969 to 2007 — Eventually, the house was was purchased by a retired New Orleans physician and renovated into apartments. Much of the house was in serious disrepair. When floorboards were replaced in the third floor slave quarters, the bodies of 75 people were found who had been buried alive.”
    so the death toll could use a boost

  • I think it’s called the “Bandit Queen” and it’s about Phoolan Devi, you can’t help but feel sorry for her. Just like in Irreversible, there’s a sense of justice in Alex’s boyfriend and exboyfriend’s actions.

    I hate how people condemn women like Devi then glorify characters (or the movies about them) like Beatrix Kiddo/Kill Bill. In my mind she’s worse.

  • riley

    Just so you all know, Karla Homolka was given that sentence in return for testimony against her much more evil husband. She was the only witness to what he instigated, and committed. It was a plea bargain to get him sent to jail for life (which does exist in Canada, with no chance of parole for 25 years) He will die in there because she was willing to talk. To me, its a fair trade, cuz I think as evil as their actions were, I don’t think she would have ever done it alone. Not that I’m saying it was ok… just that he was the worse half of the two.

    • Angela

      YOU are wrong. They found tapes that PROVED she not only knew and saw what her husband did, but she participated as well. The fact they let her go and live her life anonymously….I have no words for…

      England does this too.

  • I mean the movie about Devi is called Bandit Queen.


  • corinthian0430

    WTF?…. where’s Imelda Marcos?

  • Gretch

    corinthian0430 : Imelda Marcos didnt kill anyone though…

  • sue

    It scares me to think that such evil women actually walk the earth,and to be set free!!(no.8)its shocked me the most though,I wish she’d been caught so that the victims and their families could have gotten some closure.

  • no elizabeth bathory? shenanegans. downright shenanegans. unless she was on another list and I didn’t notice, in which case carry on.

  • lynss

    Susan Atkins?

  • Logick Bomb: she is on the list mentioned in the opening paragraph – top 10 evil women. She ranks in position 1 no less! :)

    andrew (14): a snuff film is a film produced with the specific intention of distribution to people who enjoy the thought of watching people die – the Wests film was for their own viewing “pleasure” so to speak so it doesn’t count as snuff. Wikipedia sums it up well in fact:

    A snuff film, or snuff movie, depicts the actual killing of a human being – a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetrated for the medium of film for the purpose of entertainment and distribution.

  • jrjb

    and the rest of the Manson women.

    killers like Susan Smith, Aileen Wuornos may or may not belong on this but are evil nonetheless.

    #9 and #2 are scary, nightmare crazies

  • Stacy

    Elizabeth I was not evil in any sense. She was victim of her time and her role as ruler and she certainly wasn't the only woman ruler to kill. Her older sister had murdered countless numbers of Protestants and even historians will agree that "poor" Mary Queen of Scots probably had a hand in the murder of her own husband to be with her lover and was no way innocent as she really had plans to overthrow Elizabeth I and take the thrown herself.
    Plus I can't help but wonder if Elizabeth I is considered by you to be evil simply because she is a woman. She did no worse than any of her European brethern (rulers) of her time. Spain was torturing Jews and Protestants for their faith and she had Catholics killed because they tried to overthrow her. Which at that time was treason. We're talking before democracy here people.

    • Ayeiza

      I totaly agree with you Stacy

    • Anon

      I agree. Also there was a reason Mary died with the nickname Bloody Mary and Elizabeth died as the Virgin Queen, and a fairly respected woman.

    • Alexandra

      Totally agree I’ve done a lot of research on Elizabeth she was a very good queen who bought peace and stability to England. She did not betray Mary queen of scots she did not want to execute her which is why she kept her as a prisoner (in a castle) for so many years but was pressured to do so by her advisers as Mary continuously plotted against her. She felt so bad about killing her she named Mary’s son James king of England when she died.

  • stacy: the Queen made it law to be Anglican – would you mind if President Bush made it law to be a Southern Baptist and executed anyone who refused? And for the record, the Pope who excommunicated her is a Saint. Finally, she would be rolling in her filthy grave if she knew that there are now more Catholics in England than Anglicans again.

    • Callum

      You really dont know much about Queen Elizabeth at all.
      I still can barely believe that ppl like you regard as evil.

    • Elizabethsrevenge

      What drugs are you on? 20.9% of the UK are C of E and only 9% are Catholic!

    • Ayeiza

      please, dont compare early modern age with 2010… makes no sense

  • Ruairi

    shouldnt the first list be in the “related lists” section?

  • Rick B

    I find it nerve racking to see pictures of these beasts SMILING at me. Not the fact that these pictures are posted, but that these hideous beings can smile at any time in their life knowing what they have done or what they would like to do. Heck if I saw #8 in a bar I would try and pick her up! She’s attractive!

  • Excellent list. Fairer sex my ass.

    Marybeth Tinning looks like a man…

    LaLaurie really disturbed me. Disgusting example of a human being.

  • Rick B.: so true! It is astonishing that they can smile when you know what is behind those eyes!

    dangorironhide: LaLaurie is probably one of the most evil people I have heard of – I should really have included her on the first list.

    Ruairi: yes- though it is an automated list so I can’t control what it picks.

  • mitchsn

    Saw a documentary on Karla Homolka and I belive the reason she was let off so easy was because prosecuters didn’t realize the extent to which she participated in the actions of her husband and offered her a plea deal to testify against her him.
    When they realized that she was a willing participant, it was too late, they couldn’t renig on the deal.

  • cparker

    Notice on both evil women lists no:

  • SocialButterfly

    Twinkle: I do not see how rape is worse than murder. I am female and allthough rape is devastating I don’t see how this justifies killing people.

    Vigilante justice does not solve anything it just continues the vicious cycle.

    I was 13 years old when Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo were captured and sentenced. Even though I lived 3 provinces away this story terrified my mother. I was not allowed to go anywhere on my own for fear I would be abducted and murdered. At the time this was almost unheard of in Canada.

  • DiscHuker

    this is scary stuff. it’s when i read things like this that make me shudder at some people’s belief that we are basically good people. who knows what the factors were that convinced these ladies to do what they did? who among us can say that we don’t have the ability to do the same thing if we were given the power and the platform?

    i am reminded of the john bradford quote, “there, but for the grace of God, go i”.

  • Stacy: just because other people murdered doesn’t mean Elizabeth I is not evil for doing it – it means they were all evil. As it happens Mary of England is on the original top 10 list (link is in the first paragraph). People have been fooled by movies popularizing Elizabeth I – but the fact remains, she was a tyrant.

    Also, I do take issue at you suggesting I would put anyone on my lists because I am anti-women – that is incredibly far from the truth and if you were to read my other lists you would see that I am not sexist. I think it is a shame that your instinctive reaction is to accuse me of being sexist just because you like Elizabeth I.

  • DiscHuker

    you are right stacy. elizabeth I shouldn’t be included in a list of most evil WOMEN because there were evil men running around doing the same thing.

    (please detect the sarchasm)

  • oh – and incidentally Stacy – she didn’t kill the Catholics because they wanted to overthrow her – she murdered them because they would not deny their beliefs and accept the religion her father invented.

    • Callum

      Elizabeth religous beliefs were mainly erastian (In the interest of the state), she aimed for religious continiuty between protestantism and catholicsm, she may of etched away to becoming more protestant but she never truly deviated from her vision of acting on behalf of England.

      The catholics saw Mary queen of scot, as there symbolised figure head, because of this she was involved in more than 4 uprisings and rebellions. The queen was under so much pressure to kill her, she even rejected multiple death warrants for Marys execution. But utimately she had to be executed when they found letters indicating her involvement in an assassination plot on Queen Elizabeth. This did indeed torn the queen apart, she had to sign the warrants regardless.

    • Annette Memicella

      While it is true that Queen Elizabeth I was indeed Protestant, the Protestant religion was not created by King Henry VIII (I think you may have mistaken "Protestant" for The Church of England, a.k.a Anglican, which he created). And I would very much so like to see what proof you have to support you claim that she ruthlessly murdered Catholics when in fact, she actually only killed them when she had sufficient proof that they had committed treason. I think that you may need to read up more on your history more since Elizabeth I was the victim, herself, of religious persecution when her own half-sister (Queen Mary I, a.k.a. "Bloody Mary") locked her up in the Tower of London for more than two years due to her religious beliefs. She is considered to be one of the best female rulers in history as well as one of England's best monarchs. She should be praised and respected and I, personally, find it extremely offensive that you are portraying her in such an inaccurate light. If you are going to make such accusations, at least have the decency to provide the proof to back your claims up.

  • Stacy

    Excuse me! You’re certainly entitled to your opinions but I am just saying that doesn’t make her evil. As for kiling them because they wouldn’t deny their faith that is partly untrue. “Elizabeth was in no doubt that most of her subjects wished her to repudiate the pope and Spanish influence. This chimed with her own conscience and the policies of Sir William Cecil, her Secretary of State, and her chief advisors. She also knew that the papacy would never recognise her as the legitimate child of Henry VIII and the rightful ruler of England.[53] She therefore determined to establish a Protestant church suited to the needs of the English people.[54] As a result, the parliament of 1559 legislated for a church based on the settlement of Edward VI, with the monarch as its head.[55] The House of Commons backed the proposals strongly, but the bill of supremacy met opposition in the House of Lords, particularly from the bishops. Elizabeth was fortunate, however, that many bishoprics were vacant at the time, including the Archbishop of Canterbury[56][57] This enabled the Protestant peers to outvote the bishops and conservative peers.

    After various negotiations and changes to the wording, the new Act of Supremacy became law on 8 May 1559. Elizabeth’s title was to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, rather than the more contentious Supreme Head. All public officials would have to swear an oath of loyalty to the monarch or risk being barred from office. On the other hand, the heresy laws were repealed, to prevent a repeat of the persecution of dissenters practised by Mary. A new Act of Uniformity was passed at the same time. This made attendance at church and the use of an adapted version of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer compulsory, though the penalties for disobedience were not extreme.[58]

    Many Catholics, particularly on the continent, regarded Elizabeth as a heretic. In 1570, Pope Pius V excommunicated her, calling her the “pretended queen of England”. This sanction, which in theory released English Catholics from allegiance to Elizabeth, served only to identify the English church more closely with the crown. It also placed English Catholics in greater danger. By encouraging them to rebel, it raised doubts about their loyalty to the queen”

    Now you tell me what you would do in her position? You’re now queen but the stupid pope won’t recognize you because you’re considered a bastard and heretic so the “holy one” (and please note MY sarcasm) says go ahead and rebel which they do. I think I’d have the same reaction she did. Also “Elizabeth established an English church that helped shape a national identity and remains in place today.[173][174][175] Those who praised her later as a Protestant heroine overlooked her refusal to drop all Catholic practices.[176][177] Historians note that in her day, strict Protestants regarded the Acts of Settlement and Uniformity of 1559 as a compromise.[178][179][180] In fact, Elizabeth believed that faith was personal and did not wish, as Francis Bacon put it, to “make windows into men’s hearts and secret thoughts”.[181][182]

    Hardly an evil stance on the religon of others!

  • Stacy

    Disc- No what I am saying is she had been a man she’d probably not stand as much.

  • Mom424

    riley, michsn; I disagree, yes the deal was made before they knew the extent of her participation BUT as I said earlier, it was for full and truthful testimony. She Lied!, it was proven by the tapes, they could have revoked the deal legally on those grounds….they “Chose” not to. and Less evil? what because she didn’t rape women on her own? C’mon, she served up her own sister. Thats evil.

  • MzFly

    I am appalled that #8 is actually walking around free. I don’t think that kind of evil, sick, twistedness can ever be reformed.

  • kaylensmommy2006

    It depresses me how many children are abused/killed at the hands of the women who are supposed to love and protect them. (and in some cases, gave birth to them!)

    I have a beautiful 19 month old daughter, and another baby on the way – and I hope that there is a special place reserved in Hell for these monsters.

  • kaylensmommy2006: I have no doubt that there is – I agree with you completely.

    MzFly: I agree with you as well – death penalty for all I say!

  • Mom424

    jfrater; woah, Really don’t like good queen bess?
    Personally I agree with you; she coulda chose the high road, didn’t, and revelled in the carnage, but I can see Stacy’s point…
    Stacy; by your justification the evil perpetrated by concentration camp guards or the japanese at nankin was acceptable behavior,,,cuz’ everyone was doing it…also lucky the bishops were vacant? or personally I think more likely, arranged vacancy?
    manipulation is a tool of statehood.

  • macabresoren

    I think LaLaurie should’ve been #1… I think people of high status, like Jiang Qing, can’t be considered AS evil by nature because they have the cushy reassurance of their position to hide behind. Dictators and mass murderers are evil, bu doubt, but those who do these horrible things out of their own homes, not being protected by any social standing, are the truly evil ones, in my opinion. I think things like that should be taken into account for these lists…

  • SubliminalDeath666

    Damn… a lot of these were some ugly ass bitches!!!

  • SocialButterfly

    I am so tired of people who use wiki as their source for an argument… one or 2 quotes is fine but please do not copy and paste such a large amount and not site your source

  • SubliminalDeath666

    SocialButterfly: THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! Finally someone who’s not such an asshole to spam the comments with useless wikipedia info. Douchefags!! Again, thank you for understanding!!

  • SubliminalDeath666

    For all the people who copy and paste stupid crap from wikipedia who should die a slow and painful death this is for you guys,

    Please stop doing this:


    It says so here in wikipedia:

    *Random and Useless Wikipedia Info, Random and Useless Wikipedia Info,

  • SubliminalDeath666

    jfrater: Please put a fucking limit on the amount of words one can type in a comment PLEASE! Like a 100 or 150 words at most.

  • Cyn

    personally i love Wikipedia! (have you seen the Veropedia…Google it and check it out) if someone feels outside justification or verification of an opinion or statement is needed, why not use an outside reference or resource like Wikipedia? i find it hard to believe that by now people don’t understand the concept behind Wikis, that they are user created. so it is very much ‘buyer beware’ as to validity. it is simply one resource. if you want to CYA then state it is a Wikipedia reference and therefore subject to critique or edit. back it up w/ additional sources if you like. but…listverse commentary is not like justifying your Master’s thesis..its a comment regarding your personal assessment of the list.

    so i’d like to see folks chill out a bit on the attacking of other commenters re: personal opinions. which is my own opinion not as an listverse admin.

    as to comment length..i’ve no issue w/ lengthy responses. i do take issue w/ repetition of words, symbols or whatnot to fill the comment box. that is not only unsightly in the flow of the page and in the discourse of commenting, its juvenile. own opinion.

  • SocialButterfly

    Cyn: I agree with you completely, I have no problem with people using Wikipedia, my main issue is regarding people that take such a large quote and do not source it.

  • Mom424

    Cyn; i like wikipedia too, but it is not always correct. Is that why sd666 and others complain about it? or just cuz it takes up space? ps; i am too wordy…sorry subliminaldeath666

  • Cyn

    oh yeah not sourcing non original info…not good. although..these days, kinda hard sometimes to actually find the original ‘original’ as much as things can attributed..backdated..etc.
    i would prefer if someone is using something else to bolster their own opinion that they do cite their source…but again…i think its incumbent upon the reader (viewer, consumer..etc) to engage in some critical thinking. stuff like..does this sound familiar? is this is in that person’s ‘voice’? do i smell a dead fish? LOL that kinda thing.
    and the nifty thing about commenting here at listverse…you doubt the commenter? politely ask ’em to clarify or cite their source. cool, huh? wish that it were so in real life.
    imagine being able to call ‘bullshit’ on people w/out getting sued or shot or something. heh..
    here ya just got take some criticism.

  • Cyn

    i’m pretty sure even Wikipedians would agree they’d not like to be considered the absolute final answer to any question posed. Wiki is one source among many. it is subject to human error cuz its generated by humans. and yeah, in this sabotage anything kinda world..subject to being spammed. i would hope people would be more accepting that some things are just not ever gonna be eternal, irrefutable truths. LOL but then i’m an atheist so i do think EVERYTHING is subject to inspection and debate.
    if you are in a position that your comment/answer is vitally important…like your continuing education or career is riding on it…then i would look beyond anything w/ ‘wiki’ in the name.

    “ps; i am too wordy…sorry subliminaldeath666” quoting Mom424.
    made me laugh. not sure if you intended the sarcasm and/or irony or not. but ‘wordy’ and an unusually long username ..just stuck me as funny. :)

  • Scar..

    Lalaurie was definately the most evil, I don’t see how anyone got placed before her.. I mean yeah the politicians had alot of people killed, I think torture is worse than murder.

  • Matt

    The lady in number 2 game me chills. She needs a movie loosely based off of what they found… I should call up my director buddy…

  • Wait, why is Queen Elizabeth I in this list? The Catholics saw her as a heretic, so why kill them? And she had no control over her own naval fleet when THEY pirated Spanish ships. Ans wasn’t Queen Mary of Scots attempting to steal the English throne from Elizabeth? Elizabeth is far from evil.


    I kind of have a problem with the woman in power as being on this list. I feel they did their deeds without getting their hands dirty. The others did the killing themselves. Yes the others ordered the killing, but did any of them actually pull a trigger, hold a knife, strangle with their own bare hands, or even pull a switch?

  • teacherman

    #9 was alluded to in the movie “No COuntry for Old Men” which takes places in 1980.

  • rich

    i remember reading of a biker-type woman who, along with her lover, murdered some people, and they even took photos with the decapitated heads. Ring a bell? any chance of including her in a future list? Or is she here and i missed it? Her name escapes me, but i think it happened in the 70’s or 80’s.

  • sarahenity

    7. Elena Ceau?escu

    … that’s a woman?

  • Rich: I am not sure who you are talking about – if you can remember the name let me know so I can consider her for a future list. BTW, it wouldn’t be Aileen Wuornos would it?

  • kunle

    the evil that women do…

  • zubair kaka

    jrafter…here are some suggestions for your 3rd or 4th list:

    Manto Tsabalalah-msimang the minister of health in south africa who denied the existence of AIDS and to this day argues aids can be beaten by eating garlic and african potatos. death toll- millions and counting

    Madeline Albright- after sanctions had killed over 500 000+ new borns in IRAQ she said in an inteview “On 12 May 1996, Lesley Stahl on CBS’s 60 Minutes asked Madeleine Albright, then the US Ambassador to the UN, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”

  • zubair: thanks for those suggestions – I will definitely keep them in mind for the next one :)

  • a

    These are all pretty disturbing but I have to say #2 is down-right insane.

  • a: I really was torn with that one – she was number 1 throughout the whole research period – but then I thought for the sheer number of deaths from Mao’s wife she should be number 1.

  • Hannah

    I remember reading a Reader’s Digest article about Marybeth Tining years ago. I couldn’t remember her name, but I wondered if her story would show up on the list. It was so appalling to me that she got away with killing that many of her children, and to never be suspected of anything!

  • Society has placed such a stereotype on woman being “the weaker sex”. Not so much in today’s time, but in past years. So it doesn’t surprise me when people are shocked to read about the atrocities some women do.

    #2 was just downright scary. I wonder if she continued her perversions after she ran away and was never found?

  • albert0

    #6 IS WRONG!!!!! It was mixed up with queen Mary(Bloody Mary) The sister of Elizabeth. She killed housands of Protestants (Mary) in order to supress catholicism. In regard to the “piracy” Against the Spanish fleet or “Armada”, this was entireley justified as this fleet was being assembled to attack Great Britain. All she did was defend her country, which was a perfectley fair thing to do.

  • albert0: it is not wrong – Elizabeth was evil – she murdered Catholics in order to promote protestantism. Queen Mary is on the first list of 10 for doing the same to protestants.

    • Callum

      Again where you are getting your evidence for this shit, look up the northern rebellion and the huegnots

  • albert0

    That was only after she was punished by the catholic church for going “the middle way”. And the piracy is also a wrong.

  • albert0: she was justly punished by the Church for what she did – and regardless, there is no excuse for murdering people because of their religious views or trying to force conversions. She did both of those things.

  • ed9362

    Idiots! How can you not include Elizabeth Bathory The Countess Of Blood. Easily the most insane female killer of all time renouned for brutaly slaughtering hundreds of young women.

  • ed9362
  • JwJwBean

    Ed: She was number 1 on It was the first list of evil women.

  • jocsboss

    #2, Delphine LaLaurie, made my skin crawl, seriously. Eww.

    Queen Elizabeth was certainly heartless, but, people, please remember “time and place”.

    The behavior of people over our history has to be judged on the social mores that existed in the time and place that they lived in. I don’t think that it is right to hold people from centuries past to the standards of what we consider acceptable today.

  • DCD

    This Elizabeth this is getting silly. When she became Queen on the death of her sister, Mary, who nearly had her killed becausw she was not Catholic enough, the Pope issued a Bull for excomunication which in fact was nothing less than a death warrent.
    She was immediately attacked by the existing rulers of Europe, (read Catholic and male). She successfully fought off either by dipomacy or war direct attacks on her and her country.
    Certainly some Catholics were kill during her reign, but her sister, Mary, killer more Protestants during her short reign with much less reason.

    She tried as best she could to leave religion alone unless it involved her safety or that of the country. You will notice that after the defeat of the Spanish Armada and in the later more stable period of her reign there was much less persecution of any kind.

    By the lights of her own time, which is the only way anyone can be judged, she comes off pretty well.

  • DCD: excommunication is not the same as a death warrant – it simply excluded her from receiving the sacraments of the Catholic Church – something she had already refused anyway. Additionally, this is not a “who is worse, Mary or Elizabeth” – Mary is on the first list – Elizabeth murdered people for their religious views and forced them to convert to the religion that her father invented – that is evil regardless of quantity.

    • Callum


  • DCD

    Please, at the time, politically speaking, the point of the excommunication was to give the green light to whatever power existing to get rid of her. Much like the attempted excommunication of Henry the II who threatend to send his army to Rome.
    The point is that unlike poor Mary who had people martyred for real reason except she didn’t like there religion, Elizabeth was operating under the very real problem that people were trying to kill her. And the people for the most part trying to kill her were Catholic. Not all Catholics just a very few. You can read and see that while to us her responses were extreme they fit in with the politica of her time and in fact for her time they are pretty moderate. She did not make all Cahtolics leave the country and Ferindand and Isabella did with the Jews. In fact she probably has the first ‘don’t ask, don’t tell policy regarding religion in the time. While it was mandatory to attend Church of England services the penalties were mild.

    My point is that Elizabeth did not wake up one morning and decide to kill all the Catholics and keep there property. She was responding to real threat to her safety in the manner of the time.

    Also poor old Mary shouldn’t be on any list either. She was obviously not responsible for her actions.
    Given the history of their upbrining, it is remarkable that either did as well as they did.

  • Anderi

    One issue I have with this list is Phoolan Devi.

    I was led to believe that she took up her life as a bandit queen after being continuously brutalized and raped by men. For being a woman and a of a low caste.

    The gang rape in the town was just the final straw.

    The execution of the 20 men was her revenge.

    Violence begets violence.

  • Anderi

    Also, this list shouldn’t have been rated by body count, but by motivation and crimes committed.

    All those serial killers partnered or otherwise should’ve been top of the list.

    I would’ve put that freako that tried to make mutants of her slaves and got away with it, number 1!

    There’s a hollywood script right there!

  • Icecycle

    Scary people.

    I know this sweet old lady that probably offed a few former husbands.
    So, she is old now, not a good marriage prospect; nothing can be proven, and what the hell; I can be wrong.
    Besides, she is a sweet old lady; just, you know, stay the hell away from her brownies.
    (know what I mean?)

    Case two.
    I also know of one other version of the human ‘black widow spider’ this ‘bitch’ kills with ongoing pain and suffering.
    (but, this cannot be proven at present; but I am kinda keeping watch.)

  • Satori

    Ok, first of all please please please stop making disparaging remarks about women as a whole being evil the lesser sex etc. Be jaded by yourself, don’t slander and spread your obvious ignorant opinions. HUMAN BEINGS have the capability of great evil and great beauty-it is not mutually exclusive to one sex or another. I hope that there is a “most evil men” list. If not, I’ve got a few suggestions. Also, as sick as this sounds, what about a list of the worst cases of child abuse-there are some pretty sick foster parents/parents out there-the story of Sibyl, made into a movie with Sally Fields-OMG-at one point her doctor found broken glass inserted into her vagina-he said nothing-the dad knew, and said nothing. Also, there’s a book called “A child called it”, it’s pretty bad too. And of course, Eunice Spry (that’s fucking evil) and the death of Victoria Climbie-The reason I mention it is because I feel that child abusers are EASILY as evil as murderers and dictators etc.
    Suggestion: Top 10 most evil children. Saddly, there are quite a few.

  • Satori

    Also, Phoolan Devi (#3)-what was the reason for her Nobel Peace Prize nomination? That’s pretty messed up.

  • Satori: we have a top 10 evil children already:

  • Johnny

    HEY! Ann Coulter is missing.

  • Kellence

    Thanks jfrater,still looking for information on women that kill if you have any web sites. I’m writing a paper for my law class. (other than lawlibrary),i’ve used that one already. Thanks folks!!

  • JwJwBean Is that the one you have used already?

  • I am surprised that I am not on your list- there is not a single one of you who knows who I am, obviously, and yet I have been labelled the most evil female in Canada (yes, considered more so even than ms. Homolka) and locked up since I was sixteen.(I am twenty nine now)
    At sixteen years of age, I made the mistake of actually having sympathy for Paul Bernardo, because I was such a sweet girl that I could not stand to see the world against someone who did not seem to have even one friend, so I (stupidly) called the mother of one of the victims and left a nasty message on her answering machine.
    Not the nicest thing I’ve ever done, but by far and away the worst; I have, however, NEVER raped, killed, or physically hurt a human being in the entire of my life, and yet I have been locked away ever since.
    Why? Because apparently, the authorities took one look at me, in all of my long blond hair and blue eyed glory, and thought they were looking at another Homolka- they then proceeded to lock me away, and ruin my life.
    The only harm I have ever physically inflicted on anyone has been upon myself; before the system murdered me, I was a real beauty.
    Not anymore.
    While trying to escape the nightmare, I tried to kill myself more times than I can count, and I have horrendous, thick lacerations on my neck and arms to prove it- and yet, never once did anyone feel any need to lessen up on the torment… it persists to this day.
    As I type this up, I am currently situated in a halfway house, where I have been imprisoned for the past four years, and I can assure you as God is my witness that I committed absolutely no crime to be put here.

    Although this all must undoubtedly sound like nonsensical drivel to you, since the government has made sure to keep my name out of the media lest someone be horrified at what has and is being done to me, I can assure you that you will hear all about it someday.

    My name is Michelle Lyne Lisson- remember it, and stay tuned.

  • Every dog shall have their day.

  • Kellence

    Mickilyne,How did they build a case against you if you haven’t done anything? If your story is true and you haven’t hurt anyone,why would you be on THIS list then? Maybe you were being sarcastic but something brought you to look at the list to begin with. I’m puzzled. If your story is true i’m very sorry for the injustice done to you.Don’t you have family or friends that know your situation that could help you? Tell us more………..

  • Aww,well thank you for your sympathies… although I am not a pitiful person, (or so I like to believe) I DO appreciate the decency and compassion of your tone.
    Unfortunately, It is ALL true.
    No, I do not have family, and as such, no proper supports(i.e money for a proper lawyer)- you are a VERY sharp person, because I have been repeatedly told over the past few years that my lack of supports is WHY the government is getting away with this.
    Unfortunately, I grew up in foster care, and was adopted when I was eight, by a woman who gave me away when I was fourteen.
    Unloaded me back on to the system, because she married a man who had two daughters…. a ready made family, no need to keep me anymore.
    Oh well, it happens…. boo hoo for me.

    Now, as to why I searched on to this topic: I was looking for myself, because everything I have told you is 100% true… so wouldn’t you think that the world would know my name?
    Everytime a so-called ‘high risk male’ is released into a halfway house or back into society,the police make sure people know it- but not so with me.
    Why? Two reasons.
    1. They do not want people like yourself to raise a public outcry once the details of my situation are unravelled.
    2. They do not want ‘evil men’ to catch a glimpse of me and come flocking to me.

    You have my guarantee that when all is said and done, my name will be on your list.


    (Regardless of how terrible one’s life may get, may we find solace in the knowledge that it is ALL a means to an end!)

  • Kellence

    All of this for a phone call?? Something isn’t right, haven’t you come across a kind person who would listen to you in all this time? Havent you been exposed to a lawyer at all? Are you still in Canada? Lots of questions I know, but this whole thing is twisted. Why hasn’t anyone rescued you yet?? How can you be expected to live your whole life in a cage for a phone call? What are you planning to do now? I really wish you the best!!!

  • LinkiDink

    I used to live in New Orleans, and I specifically had Lalaurie in mind when I saw the subject of this and the the first list. She and her husband were disgusting people, and it really is a shame that they escaped without any real consequence. I can only hope they didn’t find the opportunity to harm anyone else.

  • prianca

    I dont really think phoolan devi belongs on this list.yes, she was a dacoit and yes,she killed 22 men.but she was not evil.and she certainly doesnt deserve the third spot.
    she was married when she was 11 to a man thrice her age.after facing discrimination all her life and being abused and abandoned by her husband she was raped by policemen and then a gang of dacoits abducted her….you cant really blame her for turning into a dacoit,can you?
    soon, she was captured during a bad robbery and then gang-raped.after an escape ,it is these men she killed.

  • Mei

    I really agree with Priana. She said what I wanted to comment here after reading the list.

  • Mei

    Delphine LaLaurie should definitely be the most heartless, evil, cruel, all the superlatives of badness.

  • Funny what a Government can do to destroy an innocent person sometimes: what happened to Phoolan Devi……… when your Government labels you a villian, that is IT for you- and then it becomes all about survival after that, and anything you do to protect yourself will be turned against you and made to look bad- the only solace that I am able to find when hearing of or actually experiencing situations like that, is in GOD…. at the end of it all, he WILL sort us out.
    All we can do now is pray…


  • Kellence

    At least we do have that! If I can be of help,say so. I’m still working on my paper on women who kill. The information on this site will help a lot. xoxoxox

  • prianca

    hey ,how abt adding Waneta Hoyt.
    she actually killed 5 of her own babies.she confessed to smothering all of them with a pillow to still their crying.

  • Denzell

    I’m just wondering why Roerva Pelzer doesn’t qualify in the list. She abused her own sons, and a known case of this is the abuse of Dave Pelzer, and later, Dave’s brother Ronald.

  • Since you mention it, I was in prison with a (so-called) woman named Marcia Dooley… she and her husband tortured their seven year old child Randall to death… I know that the majority of women on this list have killed several people each, but if you google Marcia and read what you did; my God, that woman is a GHASTLY being.
    I met her, and I can assure you that she is DEFINATELY capable of all that she is said to have done.
    I feel dirty just MENTIONING her….yuck!!!!!!

  • prianca

    god! she is EVIL!.

  • JwJwBean

    I was reading some more about #2. Delphine LaLaurie. There were 75 bodies located under floor boards when the house was remodeled. They had been buried alive. People heard moans and screams coming from the house after the night of finding the people in the attic, but thought they were ghosts. No one would go in to invstigate the screams. :(

  • Veronica

    Number 2 was extremely evil! What a cold woman. And for those of you feminazis bitching about Number 8, you are crazy! She killed random men not the ones that raped her, and even if she did kill the ones that raped her, that still doesn’t make it right.

  • Veronica

    I’m sorry, I meant number 3 had no right to kill those men.

  • prianca

    no,she killed the men who raped her but yes some other were killed accidently but these were the same men who watched while she was raped.
    and we might be ‘feminazis’ but if i was in her position i wud do the same thing…..and atleast i am being honest abt it..

  • mickilyne

    I just want to post to say that since I first posted on here, this site/page has probably attracted more attention than ever before……………….the webmaster or site-proprieter MUST have noticed this.

    I am posting on here, for the final time, to thank those of you who take such an avid interest in me…. it is your constant attentions that have helped me to get through all of this, because even though your attentions are ill-intended, I am sure, you make me feel very close with certain celebrities…………you may talk badly about me, but at least you talk.
    If I were not just a bit more fascinating than the average person, would all eyes be on me?

    I love my fans.
    Thank you SO much. (Hugs n kisses to all!)

    P.s those that this message is directed at know who they are.

    P.p.s And to the men who have recently tried to contact me… wait until next year, guys, and we shall see.


  • Mickilyne

    Guess what, everyone?
    I had planned to not write even one more entry on here, but I feel that I MUST, because I am putting pieces of the puzzle together, finally.
    I know WHY the Government has done this to me.

    I am a scapegoat.
    A political one.

    I am horrified to have discovered that an NDP representitive, a Ms Cheri DiNovo, sat on the Parole Board two years ago…. and before that.
    She helped to make the decision to keep me in the state that I am in, and I know WHY; if you Wikipedia Cheri DiNovo, you’ll see that she was chastised several years back for making comments about Karla Homolka that apparently seemed kind. This was around the time that they let Karla out.
    I now understand that is is highly likely that because Karla was getting out, (due to the shoddy deal given to her) all efforts have been made to dehumanize me and make me appear as a monster so that everyone could shift their attentions to tormenting me, and keeping me locked up…………
    I have become a convenient scapegoat, and if you all only knew how terrible and disgusting this is, you would be HORRIFIED.

    I was born to a drug addict/alcoholic prostitute, and was likely raped repeatedly by men who visited my mother’s apartment from the age of two to the age of five- to be honest, I remember most of it, although I have never mentioned this to a single soul.
    My mother bought drugs and starved me, so for the first four years of my life, I was starved and raped damn near every night.
    I was finally taken by ambulance to a hospital at the age of five, where a rape test was performed on me, and I was removed from my mothers care immediately and placed in foster care for two years, were was again assaulted.(In at least two seperate homes)
    Unfortunately, I had the misfortune of being an exceptionally pretty little girl, as any remaining pictures of me at that time will attest to. It would seem, in hindsight, that the CAS had trouble getting pedophiles to keep their hands off of me anywhere I went.( In one of my Foster homes, I even had my foster parents drag me kicking and screaming out of a toy box in my room, where I was trying to hide from a sexual assault underneath a pile of stuffed animals, and I remember this as if it happened yesterday)

    Anyway, that was the first seven years of my life.
    At eight, I was adopted by a wealthy young couple in Dundas Ontario, who, it turned out, were unable to have children of their own- this was placing a strain on the marriage, so I was to be the saving grace.
    It did not work.
    When I was ten, they divorced, and I remained in the home with my adoptive mother, who turned the balance of her wrath upon me.
    I could not handle this, and began to run away from the abuse, by running out of the home at all times of the day and night.
    Finally, I was placed in a group home, and visited on my fourteenth birthday with papers to sign by my adoptive mother, saying that she had unadopted me.
    In the group homes, I lived with very troubled and volatile adolescents- When Paul Bernardo was arrested, I, like everyone else, paid very close attention to the case, and soon discovered that expressing sympathy for him ( by saying ‘ How can you guys say all of that mean stuff when he hasn’t even been convicted?) was a way to get people around me incensed, and because I had issues of being bullied due to my small size, I soon learned that if I acted REALLY interested in him, it caused people to think that I was a little strange, and leave me alone.

    That is the balance of and the explanation behind my purported evil.
    At sixteen years of age, in a desperate desire to actually be sent to prison in order to escape negative living conditions in a group home, I called Ms mahaffy, and said a couple of nasty things.
    If I remember correctly, I felt justified, because I was a little upset at her having locked Leslie out of the house and all, having had my own adopted mother do the same thing to me.
    By this time, as I said before, I was not very hard on the eyes (I could hardly say the same now, though! LOL!) Long blond hair, bleached several shades lighter than my natural gold, on account of being a Beverly Hills 90210 fan like every other adolescent at the time.
    I will never understand why it is that not one single adult I ever encountered at that time ( social workers, child care workers, police officers) ever even once sat me down to explain to me that Paul Bernardo was a bad man, and that what I had done was a very cruel thing to do.
    They had difficulty seeing me as the naive child I was, I believe, because they were looking at me and seeing Karla Homolka, due to my appearence. ( I had more than a couple of photos taken around this period, and I am sure that most of them are still floating around out there somewhere!!!)
    Ms Homolka was twenty four at the time.

    Instead of trying to set me straight, all I got from people (in my naive, impressionable state) were evil looks, nasty comments, and cruel treatment.

    I wound up serving two years in a youth facility for a phone call.
    When I was released, now a CAS ward again, the CAS paid for me to get an apartment, then came to me in the second month, in 1999, and told me that they could no longer support me, and gave me my last check.

    I was left with nothing, and with noone.
    With no way to pay for my apartment and NOT EVEN ONE SUPPORT (familial or otherwise), I ended up having a psychiatric breakdown, and I set the carpet in my hallway on fire in a suicide bid.
    Since then, my life has been a nightmare.
    A woman wrote a book called ‘Paul’s case’ about a ‘fan’ of Mr Bernardo, and I strongly believe that people mistook the fictional book to be about me, which it ABSOLUTELY was NOT!!!
    As a result, when I went inside, I was treated horribly, every where I went.
    I, who never harmed anyone, never did a single thing to a single soul.

    I am the unknown Scapegoat, the whipping girl of the government- in order to not feel guilty about having to let Karla go, they have focussed every possible attention on tormenting me.
    I have been locked up FOR THAT SUICIDE ATTEMPT since 1999, and during that time, I have never been involved in even one physical altercation, NEVER, EVER harmed even one single soul,and yet everywhere I have gone, everything I have tried to do, it has been as if I were a scarlet woman- I even had the Toronto sun write a couple of articles about me calling me a ‘Bernardo fan’ and saying that I was ‘violent’, both of which are terrible untruths)

    I still have pedophiles follow me relentlessly, and this is my life- I have always harbored a desire to join the army and defend my country, and I have always had a passion for politics, possibly instilled by my adoptive mother, who used to take me out delivering campaign fliers for local NDP reps.

    It is highly ironic that I now discover that the very political party that I have helped in years past ( during the federal election, I made history inside of a federal prison by urging politically uninvolved women to come out and vote… ordinarily, in a women’s prison, during an election,the vote returners will be lucky if FIVE women show up, and I got over forty to pore in through the gym doors and sit down to vote) it is this political party that may hold some responsibility for what has been done to me.

    It will NEVER ever be said that I was not an intelligent woman with boundless potential, but, unfortunately, my Government would rather kill me.

    I just recently went on to a website to sign a petition for a woman named Brenda Martin, who is being held unlawfully (as most claim) in a Mexican prison, because I am familiar with prison conditions (including suicide watches) and I am familiar with being in Prison for nothing.
    I made the mistake of signing the petition with my real name, and it was deleted.
    There is nothing that I can do- other than continue to suffer repeatedly- that will satisfy my Government.

    For some strange reason, God has decided that it is my lot in life to live every single moment in persecution and suffering, for absolutely no crime at all.

    I am not allowed to do ANYTHING except be a constant effigy for all of the governments failures and shortcomings concerning Karla Homolka.
    And that is the truth.

    So, I hope that Karla is enjoying her freedom, because I am serving the sentence and receiving all of the treatment that should have been hers.

    Paul, Karla, and the Canadian Governments Body Count:

    1. Tammy Lyn Homolka
    2. Leslie Erin Mahaffy
    3. Kristen Dawn French
    4. Michelle Lynn Lisson

    The reason that I came back on this site to post this, is because during my initial post, I did not understand WHY any of it.
    Now I do.

    And with regards to my previous narcissistic sounding post- most of it was sarcasm, directed at certain folks in my life who ALL have me confused with Karla Homolka, and pore over and watch my every move avidly, up to the point of Internet stalking.

    I am not a bad person at all, or an evil person.

    THAT is why I am not on your list.

    P.S I had been considering penning an autobiography, but I think I just did it here!!!!!!!

    P.s To the list writer: No matter what should happen in the future, please do not EVER add me to your list, because I so far removed from these women that it is obscene.
    But, would you consider adding Cheri DiNovo? Just kidding.

    P.P.S To Karla Homolka, who undoubtedly glances at this page from time to time: Happy Easter. Hope you are enjoying it with your wonderful new family, something that Tammy, Leslie, Kristen and I will all NEVER be able to have.

    • inge

      you just sound like an attention seeking lunatic with a really vivid imagination

    • ashleysweet

      woaaaah…hold it. you are scary. slow down for us please. its hard to swallow. why are you saying you belong on this list? are you a psychopathic torturing murdering btch from hell???? oh god….have mercy on us all -_-

  • Allie

    i think the lists should be combined

  • Eric Gmeinder

    A third list? Good idea. Here are 5 more:

    Velma Barfield
    Gertrude Baniszewski
    Jane Toppan
    Tzu Hsi
    Catherine the Great

    • ashleysweet

      i have been pushin gertrude for….months now haha

  • Brianne

    I’m with the others that commented; as I place revenge (even misguided revenge) on a different level than sadistic killing of innocents, Phoolan Devi does not deserve to be #3 on this list, or possibly on the list at all.

  • AngieWangieMangie

    How about Magda Goebbels? She killed her 6 children and all because of the “führer”… yuck!!! I’d like to think she did it to protect them but… I just can’t… How can a mother do that? I think that’s pure evil (as everything else related to the Holocaust…)

  • Carmella

    Elizabeth Bathory should be on this list too.

  • Slammerworm

    Mickilyne; Just can’t get enough of yourself, eh? You’re not on the list because you are a self-obsessed weirdo. Ever try writing anything which didn’t have ‘I’ in every sentence? Oh, and ‘..I still have pedophiles follow me relentlessly’, eh? You’re an adult now, so why would pedophiles be interested in you at all? And what’s more, over the years you’ve done a far better job of killing yourself than the government has. Hope you get back to your own planet ok.

    • inge

      I so agree with you. She is deluded and attention seeking

  • Dede

    Have you heard of Gesche Gottfried? In 15 years she killed 15 people by rat poison (and tried it on another 20) and at the same time cared for them until they were dead (her 3 children, her parents, two husbands and friends were the victims). She lived around 1850 at Bremen, Germany and was beheaded in the end.

  • Margo

    The Lalaurie Photo above was stolen off a site that has the best info on Madame Lalarie to date.

  • BibaNova

    Phoolan Devi was, apparently, the ‘saviour of India’s working classes’. She was not evil, just a female version of Robin Hood!

  • matthewsej

    Daisy de Melker, she was on crazy South African women

  • harM

    most of these women are psychotic.. but 2 of these i do not think should be in here..

    putting the 2, elizabeth I and phoolan devi, is just sexist.

    elizabeth had to do what she did because public urged her too, because b4 her the anglican/protestants suffered a lot on hands of a catholic

    and as for phoolan devi

    she is kidnapped when she was just 7, and fucking raped.
    hell man i will hate all men if i was raped..

    cold blood, not really.

  • Michael

    One question? Why is my ex-wife not on this list? She’s the bitch to beat them all.

  • rushfan

    #2 gives me nightmares. wtf?

  • yaurt

    so… :) about Elena Ceausescu…like i told some months ago in another comment, they were pretty brave and looked up to the soldiers that lead their trial (it was a military trial, that took about 2 hours, and lead to their execution… :)) no 6 months trial like Saddam ) , but at the end when they ralized what’s really happening she says somethin’ like “oooh…common boys…i was good to you…don’t be rough” :) Here in Romania we can view every yeah on the 25 december (the day of the revolution) the whole trial and execution…it’s like a hollyday…
    here is one footages of the trial

  • NuNu

    thank you twinkle for acknowledging how serious rape is. However unlike you I would not cut off their dicks I would kill them. To rape someone is to not only rape their body but also to rape their soul. Can you blame a woman for killing a rapist?

  • lala

    Great website, I’ve really enjoyed reading the lists, but I have to question your concluding paragraph.

    Why are murderous mothers deemed for evil than rapist fathers? Why even feel you had to summarise the list with a personal opinion at the end?

    “Do we have a moral right to dispose of these people before they can do any damage?”

    Seen as most crimes are committed by men, I find it odd that you think society should be able to predict female murderers and take whatever steps necessary to prevent any possible deaths from occuring. Do we not need to stop the men before they murder?

    I suppose we could always just stop having baby boys – prison population down by 90%, violent crimes down, rape virtually irradicated etc, need I go on…..

  • Druthulhu

    She killed every man in town; unless all 22 of them raped her, she was wrong. Still, since she started as a victim I don’t think she should be on this list.

  • Considering the circumstances

    I think most of the women that agree with Phoolan Devi are overreacting. Also, Delphine is my favorite on this list.

  • KryptoTSD

    Karla Homolka can burn in hell for she matters in this life…

  • amac

    Just throwing this out to everyone. Perhaps the most evil women in the world are not those who kill.

  • Nina

    There are historians who maintain that Mme. Delphine Lalaurie was indeed innocent of the atrocities for which she is accused:

    [Stanley Arthur, president of the board of curators of the Louisiana State Museum, is staunch in his support of Madame Lalaurie.

    “I have always thought,” he said, “that Madame Lalaurie was the first victim of yellow journalism. There is nothing in the record to indicate that she was the type of a woman pictured by them. One must remember that there was much social jealousy in those days, and that Madame Lalaurie occupied an enviable position socially.”

    He revealed that he had found a record of Madame Lalaurie granting permission for the emancipation of a slave in the early 1830s, which contradicts the tales of her cruelty.]

    Since there is no documented, factual or tangible evidence of these cruelties for which Mme. Lalaurie is blamed, perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to label her as evil. Part of New Orleans’ draw is its reputation as ‘one of America’s most haunted cities’. Any story – true or not – that supports that image is obviously going to be kept alive to bolster tourism (on which New Orleans’ economy largely depends). Just pointing out…one cannot believe everything one reads.

  • Nina

    Oh, and in case the lack of verifiable evidence prompts the removal of Delphine Lalaurie (which is the responsible thing to do considering it’s libel otherwise), perhaps she can be replaced with Christine and Lea Papin. Their crime is well-documented and they were tried and convicted.

  • Yuri Vas

    Watch ‘Bandit Queen’. Its on the life of Phoolan Devi. Then you might have some idea why she is what she is. Life of a woman in the backwater of India is sheer misery. Watch the movie to have some idea what its like to live in a place where women have no say in anything and treated like chattels. Directed by Shekar Kapoor the guy who made Elizabeth.

  • leaf

    i don’t think phoolan devi should be on the list…

  • Jack

    Some suggestions
    Gertrude Baniszwecki, Catherine De’Medici, and Magda Goebbels

  • JunieJun

    Mao Tse-tung was not a dictator~! He was a great leader.
    But like all great leaders, he also had made some mistakes

    his wife was one of those mistakes

  • sidvee

    Elizabeth 1
    Mary queen of scots had gone round killing all the protestant priests and dont for get it was the pope behind the gunpowder plot
    Mary queen of scots had elizabeth imprisoned 1st
    The gold she had pirated from the spanish was stolen from the aztecs anyway

  • Elisabetta

    Ah, the madness continues. This has to be the most shallow description of Elizabeth I. I have ever read, I am sorry. If England’s greatest monarch should be criticized, let her opponent be worthy of her and, indeed, she had several such worthy opponents.

    Let me start out by stating that accusing brilliant historians of willfully distorting her biography and traits is ludicrous and could easily be uncovered by the wealth of documents that remain from her reign. You throw together some half truths, simplify them and present them as facts, each of them being terribly biased and untrue.

    Lets begin with this idea:

    “Elizabeth I, in order to suppress Catholicism, had thousands of Catholics in England and Ireland murdered.”

    Now there’s skewed logic for you. Elizabeth I. actually showed a religious tolerance beyond her times. Yes, she established the Protestant faith but even kept some Catholic symbols and traditions. Catholics were still permitted to read mass, all they had to do was what any Christian subject had to do in those times, accept her authority. As long as you did that, you had little to fear. Catholics who could not cope with that weren’t hunted down or stripped of their possessions, they had plenty of countries to choose from if their faith was the main reason of their lives. Elizabeth was forced to enforce laws against Catholics after being excommunicated by the Pope and a quick succession of Catholic plots to depose her. Unlike your idea, excommunication of a ruler in those times meant more than just not being allowed to take the sacrament. It cut all of her Catholic subjects off their duty to her as queen for one and it also meant that it “would not be a sin to murder her”, quite the contrary, whoever murdered her was guaranteed a place in paradise for the brave deed. Only a fool would have permitted these suggestions to take root and Elizabeth I. was anything but a fool. However, she took no delight in having to become stricter and more like her Catholic counterparts to ensure her survival and reign. She had Catholics on her Council. When the Catholic Armada attacked her Catholic subjects fought happily by her side rather than joining Philip II. or the Duke of Parma. As for Ireland, this had little to do with Catholicism but rather with the very normal state of war between two countries. As for the Jesuit Priests….You know what their mission was, right? To infiltrate England, convert Elizabeth’s subjects and support assassination plots as well as sedition. They were SCHOOLED in these things. You think Philip II. would have tolerated it if she had sent missionaries to Spain to convert them to Anglicanism, support assassination plots and causing sedition? THINK AGAIN!

    “While she did good things with regards to parliament, she was an evil tyrant who is, unfortunately, portrayed as “Good Queen Bess” these days (as we know, the victors write history).”

    How was she an evil tyrant? To which of her 44 years of reign are you referring? The woman who said that “she did not want to carve windows into men’s souls” and that there “was but one Jesus Christ, the rest is a dispute over trifles.” certainly doesn’t sound like a tyrant. A tyrant…Lets look at how easy or hard her succession to the crown had been. Imprisoned in the Tower twice she escaped by using her wits. When she succeeded her odds were not the best. She inherited an impoverished country, the most powerful monarchs regarded her to be a bastard, heretic and usurper. What kept her so safely on her throne? The love of her people, both Catholic and Protestant. She built strong relations to both Catholic and Protestant powers. The Pope praised her even. (Both as a ruler and a woman) In her reign the sea trade flourished, the arts blossomed, England was rid of Medieval heresy laws… I suggest you look up the meaning of tyrant. Try Caligula if you want a tyrant.

    “Additionally, Elizabeth gave Queen Mary of Scots refuge, then immediately betrayed her and kept her prisoner for nearly 19 years, then murdered her (with no intervening freedom!).”

    Once again simplified and utterly without historical backup. The Mary Stuart affair was VERY complex, I shall try to keep this short however and suggest several books on the matter. Have you studied Mary Stuart’s life at all? If you had you’d know that she was a granddaughter of Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII’s older sister and therefore had a claim to the English throne. Henry however struck Margaret’s line out of the succession in his will. Many believed that Mary was, by right, Queen of England, not Elizabeth. Being a spoiled, foolish girl she antagonized Elizabeth with a gesture rather than an outright challenge. She adopted the English crown into her Coat of Arms. The Peace of Chateau Cambresis however established Elizabeth as Queen. When Mary returned to Scotland she found the country she had left as a Catholic to be Protestant, way more Protestant than England ever became. (If you’re interested, study John Knox to see just how far the fanaticism went) Mary went on to marry a fool (Henry Darnley), got sick of him and there’s a lot to suggest that she had a hand in his murder for it was her new lover who killed him. She was an adulteress who married her husband’s murderer. The Scottish Lords forced her to abdicate in favor of her little son. But rather than having the intelligence to flee to France or Spain she fled to the country whose ruler she had antagonized, insulted and regarded to be a usurper. Elizabeth was put in the ungrateful position of housing a Queen whose country had wanted to burn as a harlot and murderess and her desire to protect a fellow anointed monarch. Also, Mary was not imprisoned by any means. She lived in beautiful castles, had a staff made of hundreds of those loyal to her, she could hunt, enjoy anything she wanted and had every luxury a queen could require. George Talbot, her “keeper”, treated her adoringly. Mary however could not aknowledge defeat, she wanted her crown back and she wanted Elizabeth’s to sweeten up the deed. She participated in countless plots to have Elizabeth killed (Without ever being held accountable, Elizabeth continually defended her) and it was only when it was clear that the foolish woman would never cease plotting that the Council decided to make her accountable. Elizabeth agonized over this sad duty for months and it was only under duress that she finally gave her consent. It tormented her for the rest of her life. Who is more to blame? The English queen who warned Mary countless times (When she was still in Scotland), who stomached assassination plots and the daily risk of her life…who was forced to act so she might survive…or the Scottish Queen whose life, though tragic, was marred by deceit, lust and ambition? Would she have had ANY qualms to condemn Elizabeth had the roles been reversed? Hell no. She sold her “right” to both the crowns of Scotland and England to Philip II, thus committing high treason and betraying her only son. Mary Stuart was no ignorant victim. That is a long disproved myth.

    “She encouraged piracy against Spanish ships”

    Piracy was a common tool of war back then. How do you think the Spaniards got their gold? Bought it from the Native Americans? I think not. Hardly evil, resourceful rather.

    “and allowed the slave trade to thrive.”

    That’s a blame you should lay at Philip II’s door. While England had its share of slave traders (Hawkins, Drake) it wasn’t the main focus of English policy. Also, back then the principle of slavery was regarded much differently than today.

    Once again I can only recommend good biographies on both Elizabeth and Mary Stuart to shed light on this rather close minded assertion. Fraser, Starkey, Somerset and Dunn are good starters.

    • inge

      How wonderful, someone one here who has obviously studied English History and not relied on pathetic made for America soap operas which have no basis on fact at all. This is the first time I have ever studied one of the lists or forums and amazed at the ignorance that prevails on the fforums.

  • Elisabetta: I wonder what books you have been reading: “The love of her people, both Catholic and Protestant.” and “The Pope praised her even.” Really? In fact, this is EXACTLY what the Pope said of her (in his famous encyclical Regnans in Excelsis):

    But the number of the ungodly has so much grown in power that there is no place left in the world which they have not tried to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines; and among others, Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge. […] She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. […] All these matter and manifest and notorius among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defence or evasion.


    We, seeing impieties and crimes multiplied one upon another the persecution of the faithful and afflictions of religion daily growing more severe under the guidance and by the activity of the said Elizabeth, […] are compelled by necessity to take up against her the weapons of juctice, […] we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.


    And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever. And also (declare) the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who have in any way sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordship. — Pope Saint Pius V, 1570

    You can read the whole thing here. I have never once met an English Catholic, nor read any writing by an English Catholic that showed love towards her. If you can show me quotes from Catholics in her time, I will happily reconsider.

    • inge

      Sorry, but you are completely wrong. The Pope ruled the entire civilised world as a despot and hated the fact that in England the church under Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church. Whether this was right or wrong is debatable. Henry broke away to secure his marriage to Anne Boleyn and to plunder the riches of the monastries. Both Elizabeth and Mary were the product of their times and can not be judged under contempary morals. They did what they thought was right to maintain their thrones

  • Elisabetta

    “Elisabetta: I wonder what books you have been reading: “The love of her people, both Catholic and Protestant.” and “The Pope praised her even.” Really? In fact, this is EXACTLY what the Pope said of her (in his famous encyclical Regnans in Excelsis):”

    I have read each and every biography on her that the most brilliant scholars and Tudor historians regard to be essential. I have studied a wealth of documents (Letters, calendars etc.) from the era. I even studied the libels by the likes of Nicholas Sander. Do research. It’s not hard, really. What does a writer’s religion matter? Are historians measured by their faiths or their studies and knowledge? As for Catholic Princes admiring Elizabeth….Catherine de Medici, Queen of France. Philip II. All of them spoke positively of her out of justice, even her fierce opponents.

    I am familiar with said document, one does not make the other impossible. And if you are familiar with this document, why then the flimsy explanation about excommunication just meaning not being allowed to take the sacrament?

    “What a valiant woman! It is a pity that Elizabeth and I cannot marry. Our children would have ruled the world!” (Pope Sixtus V)

    Her people adored her till the end. Which is why no replacement ever had a chance, including Catholics like Mary Stuart and Philip II. Why did her Catholics follow her banner to fight the Spanish Armada? Just add 2+2. Elizabeth I. was no saint. But she was a brilliant ruler in an age of unrest, war and turmoil. The English, Catholics as well as Protestants value her to this day.

  • Elisabetta

    And an Addendum to the Mary Stuart affair. Only about the last 1 1/2 years of her life may be regarded as imprisonment. Talbot was replaced by Paulet, a very devout Protestant and there was no love lost between him and Mary. Mary had only herself to blame however. Had she enjoyed the luxuries offered to her under Elizabeth’s protection rather than plotting to kill her, she’d have lived. And why did no Catholic power raise a finger in Mary’s defense? Cowardly, yes, but hardly to be expected if Elizabeth had been an evil tyrant who abused her unjustly imprisoned sister queen.^^

  • Elisabetta: what is most interesting about the quote you provide from Sixtus V is that there is no verifiable source for it – and it appears to only be quoted in questionable locations (including the movie about Elizabeth – is this where you are getting your history?). On the other hand, Sixtus V confirmed the excommunication of Elizabeth and provided funding for her opponents.

  • Oh – and I have to question this: “And if you are familiar with this document, why then the flimsy explanation about excommunication just meaning not being allowed to take the sacrament?”

    That is a very odd phrase – “the sacrament” – it appears you don’t understand what excommunication is – this phrase is exclusively used by people with almost no understanding of Catholicism. There is no such thing as “the sacrament” – there are seven sacraments and all are forbidden to the excommunicant except extreme unction (as there may be a death-bed repentance) and possibly confession (in the case of an excommunicable sin which a priest can absolve).

    Holy communion (the host at a Catholic Mass) is NEVER referred to as “the sacrament” except in b-movies and very badly researched protestant literature.

    And finally – again I say, having lived in England – amongst Catholics, I have never met a one who had anything but bad words to say of Elizabeth. From your writing I presume you know no Catholics and have read no Catholic literature, so I cannot give any credence to such comments as “The English, Catholics as well as Protestants value her to this day.”

  • Elisabetta: ” I even studied the libels by the likes of Nicholas Sander. Do research. It’s not hard, really. What does a writer’s religion matter?

    Apparently a great deal, as you consider Sanders writings to be libelous – yet they reflect the status quo of Catholic thinking from the time to now – and the only difference between him and the historians you prefer, are that he was Catholic. So – to the merit of Sanders’ writing:

    [His] statements earned Sanders the nickname of Dr Slanders in England; but a considerable number of his assertions have been confirmed by corroborative evidence, while those that were false, e.g. his story that Ann Boleyn was Henry VIII’s own daughter, were simply borrowed by him from earlier writers.

  • Elisabetta

    I have provided where “I get my history” from (Most certainly not movies, I do not take kindly to that ludicrous claim) and mentioned several historians you may find interesting. So far you have commented on NONE of these books.

    As for calling it “the sacrament”, I am a Catholic myself, a devout one at that. My mother died a Catholic, I go to mass every Sunday, my patron saint is Catherine of Siena (Catharina is my first name) and another field I have studied a lot are Catholic mystics from the middle ages to this day. I’m not a native, I’m Austrian. My first language is German. We see no offense in calling it that as it merely translates into “das Sakrament”. Excommunication means a lot of things and thankfully I have never been on the receiving end of it. This is how YOU explained Elizabeth’s excommunication: “DCD: excommunication is not the same as a death warrant – it simply excluded her from receiving the sacraments of the Catholic Church – something she had already refused anyway.” Now who omitted more essentials? Mine was a mistranslation from a phrase used in my mother tongue, not an attempt to simplify something to suit my case.

    I’m surrounded by Catholics every day, I am one myself. I read Catholic literature every day. You won’t get out of this debate on Elizabeth I. by turning it into an argument about the nature of my personal faith or a theological debate. I have offered you countless arguments, you have countered little to none except the old “No Catholic I ever knew liked her.” I don’t give a damn what people unknown to me think. What matters to me how historians (No matter the creed) who have studied her reign for a long time conclude. I don’t care whether you give credence to what I have to say or not. I merely urge you to study the works of the most prominent and revered Tudor historians. Which you obviously haven’t done. I gave you several names to start out on. Now it’s up to you.

    And a last question: Why is a Catholic opinion more valuable than a Protestant one? What does it matter as long as the HISTORIAN in question did his damn job with as little bias as possible?

  • Elisabetta

    “Apparently a great deal, as you consider Sanders writings to be libelous – yet they reflect the status quo of Catholic thinking from the time to now – and the only difference between him and the historians you prefer, are that he was Catholic. So – to the merit of Sanders’ writing:”

    His writing is libelous. Just read what he wrote on Anne Boleyn. Stop quoting Wikipedia and read real books. I don’t care if a historian is Catholic or Protestant. My grandfather is a historian and a devout Catholic. What I care for is research, knowledge and as little bias as possible. No historian takes Sanders (Oh, pardon the typo, I do know his name) seriously. And even the lousiest libel writer gets some facts right. (Pere Duchesne about Marie Antoinette) There are Catholic as well as Protestant historians who wrote brilliant things on this time period. Atheists too. Creeds don’t matter to me. Knowledge does.

  • Elisabetta: first of all, I am not saying that a Catholic historian has more credence than a protestant one – I simply said that Sanders’ anti-Elizabeth views have been corroborated by evidence. You can’t say I am ignoring the historians you mention as I specifically dealt with one. As for the confusion over “the sacrament” – I will forget it as it is clearly a linguistic difference.

    As for my comment on excommunication – what is simplified in it? It literally means exclusion from the sacraments – that is exactly what I said – it means nothing more.

    I am certainly not trying to turn this in to an argument about your faith – clearly there was some confusion due to language but were you a native speaker of English – and were this clear (which it was not because you have excellent English) I would still be right. So let us put aside the excommunication issue as we obviously agree.

    What does remain is the fact that Elizabeth executed those who did not “convert” to her father’s religion. That alone is sufficient grounds for her to be on this list. Her achievements as a statesman are not relevant to the debate. To murder people who don’t agree with your religion is evil. Queen Mary is on the original list for the very same reason, though she be Catholic.

  • Elisabetta: “Stop quoting Wikipedia and read real books.”

    Actually, I was quoting the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica – not Wikipedia. And as I said in my previous comment, the statements Sanders made about Boleyn were regurgitated from literature in his own time; his original writing based upon his witness has been corroborated.

  • Elisabetta

    “e.g. his story that Ann Boleyn was Henry VIII’s own daughter, were simply borrowed by him from earlier writers.”

    Any “historian” who writes/plagiarizes NONSENSE like this cannot be taken seriously. Catholic or Protestant, doesn’t matter. Anne Boleyn is a woman I have studied almost as long as Elizabeth I. Have you ever READ Sanders entire work? If so, give me a detailed analysis or a review at least. So far all you do is quote Wikipedia. And that is not enough. I agree EVERY source must be considered. It’s the duty of a historian to cast his personal feelings aside and check every source, good or bad. Sanders is an embarrassment to Catholics, just like John Foxe is an embarrassment to Protestants. Both blatantly lied, used hearsay, blew things out of proportion and lacked any kind of insight whatsoever.

  • Elisabetta: “Sanders is an embarrassment to Catholics, just like John Foxe is an embarrassment to Protestants. Both blatantly lied, used hearsay, blew things out of proportion and lacked any kind of insight whatsoever.”

    I prefer to think (as is my prerogative) that Sanders referred to that which was believed at the time – it doesn’t make him a liar, it makes him gullible. As for the majority of his writing, it has been confirmed as true. Making one mistake does not repudiate an entire oeuvre surely!

    And we agree on Foxe – his writing has little value outside of fuel :)

  • Elisabetta

    “I simply said that Sanders’ anti-Elizabeth views have been corroborated by evidence.”

    Give me an example of Sanders’ work that actually represents the sober truth. But then, even Pere Duchesne contained half truths about Marie Antoinette. Would you call Hebert, its writer, a historian?

    “You can’t say I am ignoring the historians you mention as I specifically dealt with one.”

    Sanders wasn’t a historian and will never be considered as one.

    “As for my comment on excommunication – what is simplified in it? It literally means exclusion from the sacraments – that is exactly what I said – it means nothing more.”

    It meant a lot more to a monarch in that century. As we both know.

    “What does remain is the fact that Elizabeth executed those who did not “convert” to her father’s religion.”

    She actually did not. She never persecuted people “just” for their religion. I explained that in my loooooooooooooooong post and I’ll not do so again. I explained the Cuius regio, eius religio concept. I explained the problem with the Jesuits. And lots more. After the St. Bartholomew’s Eve massacre the Protestants on Elizabeth’s council asked her to react in kind in England. She refused. She had Catholics executed who broke her laws, conspired to kill her and caused sedition. She did not attempt to “convert” anyone, not in her country OR abroad. Hence her Catholics being loyal to her rather than supporting the Armada. That fact speaks louder than any words.

    “To murder people who don’t agree with your religion is evil. Queen Mary is on the original list for the very same reason, though she be Catholic.”

    You still haven’t understood the historical context. That you can’t judge people who lived 500 years ago by 21st century standards. Elizabeth was shockingly tolerant for her age. She abhorred the Puritan Protestants and refused to have a St. Bartholomew’s Eve massacre in England. And bloodlusty tyrant would have jumped at that chance. She did not.

  • Elisabetta

    “I prefer to think (as is my prerogative) that Sanders referred to that which was believed at the time – it doesn’t make him a liar, it makes him gullible. As for the majority of his writing, it has been confirmed as true. Making one mistake does not repudiate an entire oeuvre surely!

    And we agree on Foxe – his writing has little value outside of fuel”

    Shockingly differing standards here. ONE mistake? ONE? Have you read Sanders entire work? It reads like a 16th century Pere Duchesne. Fanaticism, lewd perversion, blatant lies he was only to happy to come up with/plagiarize…..his writing has no historical value whatsoever. A few raisins don’t make a rotten pie taste good. Same goes for Foxe.

  • Elisabetta

    And as for evil women….

    Try Catherine of Medici. You’ll have a field day! ;-)

  • Elisabetta

    If you like we can continue this debate tomorrow. Let me once more urge you to take a look at these books. They are amazing reads and not at all glorifications of Elizabeth. None argues that she was without fault. But EVIL? In a time when Catherine of Medici was around? Hardly. She was the greatest and most tolerant monarch (Not 21st century tolerant, but shockingly tolerant) of her time. Of course her reign or her conduct isn’t flawless. But if one were to compare her to two the girls you admire (Catherine of Russia and Eve Peron) then Elizabeth’s biography is way less sordid, way less controversial and certainly way less polarizing.

  • Elisabetta

    Yikes, I meant to say “No one argues the fact that she wasn’t faultless” or something to that effect. Sorry, too tired to type correctly.^^

  • “Sanders wasn’t a historian and will never be considered as one.” – I, and many, consider him to be so – and he is quoted nowadays as such. You may not consider it so but you have chosen your camp and set your tent.

    “It meant a lot more to a monarch in that century. As we both know.”

    No – excommunication is an objective thing – it means the same today as it did then – exclusion from the sacraments. You said this: “It cut all of her Catholic subjects off their duty to her as queen for one and it also meant that it “would not be a sin to murder her”, quite the contrary, whoever murdered her was guaranteed a place in paradise for the brave deed.”

    This is an extremely flawed comment. Excommunication vitandus merely means that a person be shunned. It does not abbrogate the moral law that prevents the execution of another person. Elizabeth was shunned by the Church and her subjects – it absolutely was not a death warrant as it would be immoral to kill her. And – let us not forget, the encyclical meant that “her subjects” were NOT her subjects – she lost her rights as Queen the moment she excluded herself from communication with the Church.

    “Cuius regio, eius religio” – if we really must go down this track, do you support the idea that as the King of Saudi Arabia is Muslim, all of his subjects must be and death for not being so is acceptable? Is President Bush therefore allowed to demand that all Americans be Southern Baptist or else be killed?

    “Catholics were still permitted to read mass, all they had to do was what any Christian subject had to do in those times, accept her authority. As long as you did that, you had little to fear.”

    So – as long as you renounced the head of the Church for the past 1,500 years (the Pope), you had nothing to fear. You could go to Mass as long as the priest removed the words of reverence to the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy. You claim to be a Catholic – what would you think if your president turned around tomorrow and said you can go to Mass, but in future all mention of the Pope was forbidden and you would regard HIM as the head of the Church? By your argument you would immediately agree and not consider him bad for so doing. You would dump your religion and follow his new version (which looked the same but wasn’t the same) simply because he is the leader of the nation. I am not convinced that you believe in the indefectibility of the Church which all Catholics must believe.

  • Elisabetta

    And that’s EvA Peron of course!^^

  • Elisabetta: I agree to continue tomorrow – it is 1 in the morning here and I have had an incredibly hectic weekend! It has been a pleasure and I look forward to seeing (and hearing) more of you on my site!! :)

  • oh – I HAVE to reply to this one comment: “A few raisins don’t make a rotten pie taste good.”

    In fact, it does! When you add some spice and fruit – you can make lovely pies from rotten meat – just ask the 17th century English – it worked for them and the result is Christmas Mince – or fruit mince if you prefer :) Very apt for this time of year :)

  • Elisabetta

    “This is an extremely flawed comment. Excommunication vitandus merely means that a person be shunned. It does not abbrogate the moral law that prevents the execution of another person. Elizabeth was shunned by the Church and her subjects – it absolutely was not a death warrant as it would be immoral to kill her. And – let us not forget, the encyclical meant that “her subjects” were NOT her subjects – she lost her rights as Queen the moment she excluded herself from communication with the Church.”

    Which is her death warrant. If her subjects weren’t her subjects, she was a usurper, not a God anointed queen and it would have been necessary to dispose of her as a heretic. Anything else is naive.

    ““Cuius regio, eius religio” – if we really must go down this track, do you support the idea that as the King of Saudi Arabia is Muslim, all of his subjects must be and death for not being so is acceptable? Is President Bush therefore allowed to demand that all Americans be Southern Baptist or else be killed?”

    Can’t you or won’t you understand the DIFFERENCE of mentality 500 years ago?

    “So – as long as you renounced the head of the Church for the past 1,500 years (the Pope), you had nothing to fear.”

    Yes. Quite a tolerant view for a 16th century ruler. No other ruler matched her in that regard.

    “what would you think if your president turned around tomorrow and said you can go to Mass, but in future all mention of the Pope was forbidden and you would regard HIM as the head of the Church? By your argument you would immediately agree and not consider him bad for so doing. You would dump your religion and follow his new version (which looked the same but wasn’t the same) simply because he is the leader of the nation. I am not convinced that you believe in the indefectibility of the Church which all Catholics must believe.”

    We are talking 16th century, not 21st century. Today this would not be possible. In the 16th century this was every day life.Her standards were loose compared to those of Philipp II, Charles IX and others. Had I lived in the 16th century I’d have left England & not conformed. I’d certainly not have broken the law. All Catholics must believe in the Catholic doctrine. The Church is not infallible, only God is. The Church even accepted that when it apologized for several historical offenses.

  • Elisabetta

    Thanks for not booting me off your site! Sweet dreams! I know I’m passionate about The Tudors, can’t help it. :-D

  • Elisabetta: I don’t boot people off the site – it is good to hear all opinions – and passion is a good thing – I passionately hate Elizabeth I, and you passionately like her – but we can discuss it without hatred. That is the what this site is all about!

    In closing, I do need to point out a small error in your previous comment: “The Church is not infallible, only God is.”

    All Catholics are obliged to believe in the infallibility of the Pope – to disagree is considered heresy. To Catholics God is infallible – but so is the Pope – it is a solemnly defined dogma. In the words of Blessed Pope Pius IX:

    We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

    So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

    This is a declaration of the First Vatican Council, the full text of which can be read here. :)

  • Elisabetta

    Yep, hatred is bad. But so are bias.

    As for the infallibility of the Pope…that is a VERY delicate subject. As is heresy. But my beliefs matter little and are only my concern. This is about Elizabeth I., not theology. Read some books on the Tudors. You’ll love them, they are way more fun that dictionaries!^^ And that should balance things out. Nighty Nite!

    BTW, if you want to start out with a critical historian, try David Starkey. He is deliciously snarky & witty.^^

  • Nicosia

    Elena Ceau?escu could be #1 on a Top Ten Ugly Hags list….

  • Seanette

    Actually, one of Marybeth tinning’s children actually died of natural causes, which is believed to have tipped her over into killing the others. Still a horrible case.

  • Jes

    I very much disagree with Elizabeth I being on this list, mainly for the reasons Stacy has already said. Mary Queen of Scots was after her throne. Things were done differently back then in the way of removing competition. Methods have since evolved, but back then, imprisoning and executing someone was the only way to remove them from the playing field. If you had the power, you used it. And the Spanish weren’t really being sweet little lambs of the sea to the English Navy, so I don’t see why she was so evil for protecting her country. She really doesn’t deserve to be called evil.

  • squenis

    You seem to have forgotten ayn rand

  • deviantmiss

    jfrater must agree with another person on here (without the cursing) PLEASE put a limit on how much someone can write in a comment some of these “comments” are like essays and i for one do not like to be preached to.

  • deviantmiss

    what about Mary Ann Cotton? its a shame but i could do this and evil men many times over :(

  • JwJwBean

    One of the great things about reading someone’s comments is I am in control. When I see a long comment I skim it, or read the first few lines to see if I want to read the whole thing, or read a little here read a little there, or just skip it. “I Have the POWER!” – He-Man

  • Zoombafoo

    How awful, just terrible. What has this world come to? lol
    srry dramatic moment there

  • Nightwolf

    “She encouraged piracy against Spanish ships and allowed the slave trade to thrive.”

    On the subject of the Spanish, let us not forget the Spanish Inquisition! Because as of yet, no one has brought up that little footnote.

    Who gave no quarter to captured English sailors and tried and convicted them them based on their nationality as being heretics. They were either killed or committed to slavery. They also similarly raided English and Dutch trading vessels. Piracy as you call it was practiced by all seafaring European nations at the time. Available to anyone who requested a letter of Marque and were legalized to go out and plunder enemy nations vessels. The English are only remembered because they were exceptionally good at it and because this is America, former British colony. Who also have engaged in privateering might I add. (Against Cuban fishing vessels cit.”The Paquete Habana”1900) But I’m going to say that at the time the Spanish and the French were doing exactly the same thing. So no, Elizabeth the I did not allow piracy to thrive, it was already thriving.

    On the subject of Mary, Queen of Scots as Elisabetta pointed out, received a very gracious end. She was allowed (as was her royal privilege) to request her own swordsman from France to conduct her beheading. (Instead of say receiving the Axe or being drawn and quartered by four angry horses or being set on fire, the accepted method of death for traitors) And her own son was named Elizabeth’s heir and sat on the English throne after her death. Naming his own daughter Elizabeth.

    She was a very intelligent woman who mastered court politics, playing the marriage game for the entirety of her 60 year reign and managing power (while staving off both assassination and war) as the only female ruler in Europe at the time. She also spoke I believe at least four languages as well as being highly educated. (Something a little more unique during her time period.) She was balancing the religious fallout from the three previous rulers (and yes, I do count her younger brother Edward, who’s regents attempted to be even more radical in their attempts to make the country protestant.) Her sister, who then went back and tried to forcibly turn the country Catholic. (Not to mention her father, where the entirety of this trouble occurs.) She was forced to play a balancing act between the three sects (Protestant, Anglican, and Catholic), reinstating Anglicanism as the primary religion. There was already incredible amounts of bad blood between the Catholics and the Anglicans. Essentially, her reign was based around trying to fend off invasion from at least two hostile countries while trying to maintain her own independence as queen.

    She also inherited a country that was almost virtually broke. (By her father’s excesses and others.) She faced the possibility of war on many fronts, (nearly every catholic country surrounding her nation) all that desired to conquer

    She is to this day considered to be one of the finest rulers that England has ever had, celebrated and beloved by the people of during her reign and well after. (Several Shakespeare plays document this, including those written during James’ reign, which play upon the people’s wanting for a return of Elizabeth, if you want a more popular resource.)

    Yes, the Tudors were an interesting bunch, yes many people died. (Though, comparatively to other countries at the time not that many.) But on the whole her people did not suffer, she had their love and their respect. She was under pressure even late in her reign to produce an heir to stop an impending fight for the English crown, but she even solved that problem by naming and cementing James as her heir. (Once again fighting off the outside French threat.)

    I’ll give you that Ireland was a bad idea for an invasion, but for the most part they drove the English back. Besides, they weren’t being attacked because they were Catholic.

    She most certainly was not a saint, but if she had been, she would not have survived. In addition, she and Queen Victoria are both remembered as being the greatest monarchs in English history. And not every part of that has to do with good press.

    But I’m rambling and since, Elisabetta has already made these points (except perhaps the Inquisition, because no one expects the Spanish Inquisition) So I’ll stop. And if Elisabetta hasn’t convinced you by this point, I doubt I will.

    But I do get the feeling that you do not have a firm grasp on the politics of the time, are judging by the moral values of the 21st century, and seem to be biased towards the Catholics. (Who were their own box of interesting frootloops.) Perhaps you feel they’ve been misrepresented? I don’t know. Anyway, interesting list. Cheerio.

  • Car-ell

    You didn’t mention LaLaurie’s husband. He was suspected to have done the maiming. Also,some people think they moved to Jamaica, but there’s no proof except for a similar incident.
    If I remember correctly, only one slave was chained to the stove, and her son was either chained to the bed near her or one found in the room upstairs. By the by, the room in the house, and the burned slaves quarters were at different times.

  • Joypril

    How dare you have Elizabeth the I on this list! How is she different from every other ruler in the world?

  • Sei646

    How dare you place ELIZABETH I in this list! And it was Marys fault for her death! If she weren’t as stupid anough to commit treason against her own cousin then hell, she might have had not gone through her morbid death! She deserved it!

  • moshmonster

    It is mentioned that Dorothy Puente “slowly” murdered her victims. I’m a little curious about that- did she poison them over time, or do you mean she tortured them to death? Anybody who knows…?

  • pjdominic

    I appreciate the inclusion of Elizabeth the first. Actually I appreciate all the the very balanced views and research on listverse.

  • Aj

    These women should be tied and,stoned and beaten to death by the people.

  • mad88

    karla is in montreal canada , not west indies

  • David

    Elizabeth wasn`t evil. Compared to Bloody Mary, her stepsister, at the time, she was described as-“England has never known, a more evil, queen, or of that matter, king than this queen Mary.” Elizabeth was a bit cold, but compared to our Kings-Bad King John,(moron incarnate) Richard II,(Peasant`s Revolt)Richard III, (killed his son) Henry VIII.. Elizabeth was disowned, and declared a bastard, Anne Boleyn, her mum was beheaded, put in The Tower..

    • inge

      Where have you got this drivel from? You say "our kings" If you are English, your knowledge of our history is sparse to say the least

  • cadist

    #75 Carol Bundy?

  • W.L.Farrell

    To Ms. Michelle Lyne Lisson,

    I am very interested in your story. I am a newspaper columnist trying to make it big, and i feel that we both have something to offer to the other. If you are interested please contact

    [email protected]


    W. L. Farrell

  • BlueButterflies

    There are some flaws with the Karla post on the list.
    First, Karla has lived in Montreal Canada since her realease. She has never lived in the West Indies. She lives under an alias and is raising her baby boy.
    Second, Karla did not set out to kill her sister. Paul, her husband, wanted the sister to sexually assault. The term rape is no linger used in Canadian justice system and it is not said via media either. Karla worked at a vet’s office and stole drugs. SHe gave her sister too many in error and her sister died. It would be a manslaughter case and not first degree murder.

    The two other cases of the school girls, was in fact first degree murder.

    As to why Ksrla served 12 years only is not the fault of trhe Canadian justice system as implied. Karla was found to have depression and battered womens syndrome. Those are mental illnesses that pass as a defense in Canada. She told her story to the police and with her illnesses, she was thought to have done it out of fear of her husband, Paul.

    Psychiatry is not an exact science but she was believed. So the justice system should not be blamed. If anything, she conned a psychiatrist or two. If in fact, what was suffering from battered womans syndrome, she should not be on the list as then she committed crimes out of mental illness.

  • ?????


  • dee dee


  • ashleysweet

    i’m probably going to get alot of hate comments for this post…but i think karla homolka was innocent. i did research, i read every little bit, every little detail down to what she ate for breakfast the day she went to court. i saw the lifetime movie Karla (yes, its a movie, but it sort of helps because it was all real information) paul burnado was a sick fuck, and he dragged poor karla into his twisted games, most likely with threats. He beat her and treated her badly, and as everyone knows, when a girl is abused she will do anything to keep from getting hit or worse. THey are afraid to leave or go to police because the husband scares them. I feel really bad for her, and if i had her address id love to send her a letter and find out what really happened. i will not change my mind on her innocence until she is completely proven guilty.

  • guff65

    Elizabeth I should be no.1 on this. She had no business invading Ireland. The Catholics there were not going to overthrow her – merely defending themselves. She was a bald coot in a wig who rubbed her opinion in everyone elses face. Her plantations are why the Troubles began in Northern Ireland.

    • inge

      What a sad post. Your comments really show your intelligence….

  • Chessi

    Surprised not to see Elizabeth Bathory’s name on this list.

  • Hannah

    I must disagree with Elizabeth I’s inclusion in this list. At the very least, the events surrounding Mary Queen of Scots’ imprisonment and execution deserve clarification. Mary was imprisoned and eventually executed for continually plotting to kill Queen Elizabeth and to have herself crowned as Queen of England. The murder of Catholics during Elizabeth’s reign and the piracy against Spanish ships both call for a more nuanced explanation as well.

  • Amber

    I apologise, but I disagree on the subject of Elizabeth I. Being a British History student, I am intimitely familiar with her reign, and she was a highly tolerant person. She had the Elizabethan Religious Settlement (incoporating the revival of the 1549 Act of Uniformity) passed in 1559, and, although there were measures in place to make people go to the new Protestant churches, they were never actively enforced. Elizabeth pursued a policy of tolerance in order to appease the Catholics and Protestants, and also to stave of religious conflict and lessen the chance of rebellion. She compromised her own Protestant beliefs in order to keep the peace. Unfortunately, rebellions sprang up across England anyways. A good compromise leaves everybody angry, afterall. All of these plots surrounded Mary Queen of Scots, who was a figure head of the Catholic movement to depose Elizabeth (as they viewed her father’s marriage to Anne Boleyn invalid and hated her Protestant views). Often, there was evidence that Mary was actively involved in these plots- for example, the Ridolfi Plot of 1571. Elizabeth STILL refused to execute her. This woman waltzed into England, having fled her own country in disgrace, begging refuge. Everybody knew she believed herself the rightful Queen of England, yet Elizabeth let her stay despite all of this. And then the woman has the cheek to attempt to overthrow the woman on whose mercy she depended. If nothing else, Mary Queen of Scots was too stupid to be a Queen in the first instance. It’s actually shocking that Elizabeth waited for so long to send Mary to the block. Despite the Babington Plot, in which Mary was implicated, she still dithered for days over the decision, and then professed grief over the action. She was kind to her subjects, and, when Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley, was on his death bed, she sat beside him and fed him with a spoon. In 1575, a firework display in her honour damaged a house, and Elizabeth summoned the elderly couple who owned the property so that she could pay to fix the damage. Certainly, many were executed during her reign, but it was common practice at the time, and her father certainly executed more than her in his shorter reign: 78,000 in 38 years, according to some sources. Furthermore, there had always been hatred between the Spanish and the English, and it’s not at all surprising that she would encourage privateering. Certainly, if roles were reversed, Philip of Spain would doubtless pray on English ships as fiercely. I can’t excuse what she did, but stealing hardly earns her a place on this list. Elizabeth lived in the sixteenth century. This was a time in which slavery and execution and blood-soaked battles were the norm. Therefore, we have to allow her a degree of excusal for her actions.

    On a side note, I also believe Elizabeth is overrated, and my favourite Tudor is her frequently-overlooked half-brother Edward VI, who was abnormally intelligent and set the groundwork for her religious policies. His were much more radical than her’s, and he was much quicker to denounce Catholicism.

  • Keiri

    those saying #3 isnt so bad and boo hoo she was raped…. "At one point she was raped by a group of men in Behmai, A VILLAGE THEY ATTACKED"… she had it coming

  • Matt Schoe

    Great list…would've liked to see Elizabeth I even higher. She was truly a despicable person, and if I could piss on her grave, I would. No question, if there's a hell she's burning there.

    • inge

      What a well bred person you must be. Ignorance of historical fact is no excuse for your disgusting comments.

  • Andromeda

    Why isn't Eva Peron on the list? She helped drive Argentina from first to third world status and argentina has never recovered! She also harbored Nazis.The fact that she's on the list of greatest women in history makes me wonder about the moral character of the list author.

  • oh my, karla went to sir winstons, i had no idea!

  • angie

    responding to the conclusion; as gruesome as it seems , imagine the world with no good in it, All about the above stories, it is a small amount of women with destructive forces for what ever reason compared to the good and strong that has been passed generation to generation. I will take those odds any day of the week!!!

    If I had to make a conclusion. ying and yang will always exist.


  • Chrisrex

    You should include Amelia Dyer "The Reading Baby Farmer" in your next one. She was an evil bitch too…

  • Jojo

    Give us a third list on evil women already!!

  • omegron

    Hey where is Charlene Gallego?????????????
    She must hit place one on this List!!!!!!!!!!!
    She is at least higer as Karla!!!

  • neesha

    Whoa number 2 is intense. Defiantly looking into that. Crazy white ppl

  • Anna

    I have a problem with the final comment in this list.
    How come there is no disclaimer on the countless male serial killer lists about erradicating evil before it can emerge?
    Aren't good journalists supposed to remain generally unbiased in their reports? I really think this is a biased list. It doesn't mention anywhere that yes there are some evil women in the world, however, when compared to the number of "evil" men the numbers do not even compare…

  • inge

    There are some amazing comments on this forum. How can you equate what Elizabeth I and Mary I did with murderous baby farmers and female serial killers. Mary I had her life turned upside down and her religion outlawed because Her father wanted to marry another woman and steal the riches hoarded in the monastries. She was ill treated and her mother died lonely and mistreated. Her religion was the most important thing in her life and she wanted to reinstate it. Elizabeth did what she did in order to protect her country and her life. Neither of them can be judged by today's standards as life was cheaper then than it is now. Some of the historical "fact" bruited by some of the posters would be funny if it wasn't so sad. There are several people on here who have obviously studied Tudor history but there are far more people who have based their knowledge on innaccurate and trashy, made for American TV soap operas such as The Tudors and even worse The other Boleyn Girl. Do yourselves a favour and buy a good book

  • walster

    im sorry but the majority of the women on here did their crimes for money or power which is very different compared with the ‘evil men’ who committed their crimes for perverse reasons. its very rare you here of a female rapist or peadophile

  • noel

    You are a poor woman who is kidnapped by bandits. You have nowhere to go. Going back to your life is as bad as where you are and you don't hae the freedom anyway. You join the bandits. On One of their raids you are gangraped. Hell, I'd kill every man on earth if I was dealt this hand. She definitely does not deserve tobe on this list. Did you put Bonnie from Bonnie and Clyde here??? Just look at what the other people on the list did compared to Phoolan Devi.

  • Alle Nelson

    if you all know the book by David Peltzer A Child Calle "IT". then you wuold agree his EVIL mother should be on this list.

  • amy

    the woman who was raped… the men she killed died quite quickly compared to the pain and shame and the memories of her torchers she carried with her for life. no she shoukdnt have lined a load of men up and killed them they may have all been innocen they may have all been guilty it was her way of punishing those who in there own way torcherd her there pain lasted so long her pain lasted her life time i think torcher is worse than murder because the person being torcherd will never know when it will end if it will what more is in store and what else will happen to them when someone has been sexually abused or raped they never forget it and are always reminded of it. though the woman who got raped i dont believe it was for justice or for the pain she suffered but so that she fel in control again and so she had the power so in that sense she was very cruel but the cruel treeatment by men turned her that way she was not born evil her sercumstances and treatment were what made her eventually snap remember she was kidnapped it was probably find a way to be of use to the men who kidnapped her or carry on being rapped and eventually killed

  • wisnu

    hey what about elizabeth bathory? i think she should've made the list..

  • Jynx

    I think you have your Queens crossed…
    Elizabeth I never had a burning of the heretics law… her sister Mary did. Elizabeth imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots in an attempt to stifle an assassination plot.

    • dr. retarded

      again, history is written by the winners.

      • Megan

        What is that supposed to mean? There is complete documented evidence, and a ton of witnesses, that prove that Mary was involved in plots to have Elizabeth assassinated. Elizabeth imprisoned her for good reason — Mary was a rash ruler with a legitimate claim to the throne, supported by the Catholics, and willing to do whatever it took to regain her power. Elizabeth didn’t even want her to be executed; it was done without her knowledge.

  • scaryyy………

  • phaze

    Desiree Duigou should be on this list – she has tried to murder her mother for years…and was a key component in her father death…..she has no values and is a pretty and accomplished liar . I think she is a sociopath – BEWARE!!!!

  • phaze

    Desiree Duigou has similar traits to these women – watch out everyone. She is an accomplished liar and a narcistic sociopath

  • Wasabi

    I havnt seen the first list, but shouldn’t bloody Mary be up there? She matched the death toll of her half sister Elizabeth in five years, while it took Elizabeth 45 years to kill so many people. Also indira ghandi (no relatio)

  • Pingback: 10 Curious Tales and Oddities From History()

  • thren0dy

    Marybeth Tinning killed eight of her nine children. Her third child died of meningitis, which is what possibly sparked her Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

  • This list is never going to end until you include Empress Tzu Hsi. I mean she was on the cover of the book World’s Wickedest Women for chrissakes.

    Check out this other list of the Most Evil Women…at least in fiction:

  • Soshann

    I can’t help wondering this:if Homolka was ugly,and not the glorified pretty blonde who can get away with murde(literally),would she have been allowed to plea bargain and been given a lighter sentence despite the evidence against her?I can’t be the only person who thinks her looks had a lot to do with it.If she’d looked like West or Ceaucescu,she’s be rotting in jail with hubby.

  • aynomous

    Where is Cixi?

  • Elaenor

    I would agree except for Elizabeth I. Her half sister Mary I killed thousands of protestants, earning her the nickname “Bloody Mary” though their father, Henry VIII and many other monarchs before them killed the same amount or more. Plus at that time, England was on bad terms with spain, so piracy is not the issue. Elizabeth was not necessarily a tyrant either. When Irish pirate Grace O’Malley was brought before her on trial, a lady of the court offered O’Malley a brocade hankerchief to wipe her nose with. After using it, O’Malley threw it into the fire. When questioned why, she told Elizabeth that in Ireland they valued sanitation. Elizabeth pardoned her. Tyrants don’t pardon.

  • mike

    Cool list , but I see a lot of repetitiveness and cross over from other lists on this site. Also, it seems to appeal a lot to history buffs. Mind you there have been some horrific crimes committed by women in the seventies and sixties that I’ve never seen mentioned here. Some guy has collected vintage super 8 footage of these people and their victims before and after their crimes and added some eerie music to the vid clips where he explains about their grisly murders. Check it out at youtube under search of ‘true crime case’ or click here:

    These murder stories with the filmclips are really CREEPY and most are committed by freaky old women. I dont recommend watching late at night!

  • Megan

    The blurb on Elizabeth I is factually lacking. While she did kill a lot of Catholics, she didn’t betray Mary Queen of Scots at all. And of course she encouraged piracy against the Spanish — they were the leading world power and they were doing it as well.

  • CekunduddyCit


  • Captain Carrot

    To all the female “supporters” of Karla, let me just say that you are all s e x i s t. So the man is the only one that can be guilty, even if the woman is on videotape? Please. That’s what’s wrong with society, so many women love to say that the gender shouldn’t take responsibility for their actions. It’s all the man’s fault.

    She was not innocent, she was as reprehensible as her husband and should be rotting in a cell to this very day. Period. Quit the male blaming and let the female take the blame she’s rightly entitled to.

    Innocent. Good Lord. If that’s the way you think, there should be a law against you expressing your opinion.

  • Pingback: A matter of life and death /  The Wheat Project()

  • Jace Scott

    This article is TERRIBLY written. I would like facts presented in a witty or entertaining manner, I do not need personal ancedotes and unobjective commentary. While I find myself intrigued by the premise of this list, the quality of its content is maddening to wade through.

  • Pingback: New “Obedient Wives Club” in Malaysia: wives should be submissive helpmeets and first-class whores « man boobz()

  • Lyly

    OMG :O
    this list scared me senseless, i can’t believe that such THINGS exist/existed. urrgghhh! i think #2 should be first.. what she did.. good lord.. and what pissed me off the most is that she was never caught..! as for Karla, she should be in jail, period.
    oohh… am not going to sleep well tonight !

  • Yohannezz

    Wow,, This is Great,,
    I’m Yohannez From Indonesian

  • it

    Where the hell is Catherine de’ Medici she massacred over 10,000 people.

  • it

    Where is Marie, Marquise de Brinvilliers??? She poisoned 50 people including her father and 2 brothers.

  • liz

    LaLaurie story…totally false….good groef…check yer facts people….

  • it

    Ha! Silly list, where is Empress Wu? The Chinese empress who killed thousands of her people including her relatives and children?? Your conclusion makes it seem that mothers who kill their children are the worst, then why is she not in here? Not only did she kill her children but also civilians. And Delphine LaLaurie shouldn’t be in here. I have read a lot of books about evil men and women and she isn’t in any of them.

    • Lewis Carroll

      So if LaLaurie wasn’t in any of the books you’ve read, you’d never read anything about her?

      Well, now you have.

      • a

        The information is way exaggerated.

  • Bathory

    The LaLaurie stuff is just myth

  • learn2history

    Elizabeth I really doesn’t deserve to be here, for reasons others before me have explained very well. Like all leaders she had her dark side and was not without flaws or above poor decisions, however, I don’t believe she was at all malicious or evil. Infact she showed a remarkable level of religious tolerance for her time and put a much greater emphasis on parliament and public opinion than her predecessors and other contemporary monarchs in Europe. Not to mention defeating two major invasions and allowing England to flourish in a cultural renaissance.
    On a related note; George Washington ordered the massacre of hundreds of Iroquois women and children during the war of independence, and not only allowed the slave trade to continue, but owned them himself while preaching equality, freedom and justice for all men without a hint of irony. Maybe he should feature on a top 10 evil men list and we can see how Americans feel about that.

  • Lizzy

    I wouldn’t call Queen Bess evil.

  • Jeff

    This list is too dark for me. Its upsetting. I was not prepared for how twisted that new orleans lady was. I think it should have a warning. I wish i had not read that. I do not appreciate the imagery.

  • A

    Phoolan was avenging her rape if there was any gang rape at all. I don’t think she was particularly evil, and she is also portrayed in the movie as something of a Robinhood… considering you are getting the rape part from the movie, which is not her actual biography.

  • Kevin

    It would seem you have confused Elizabeth with her sister Mary.
    Alison Weir’s history states that only one Catholic was burned during Elizabeth’s reign.

  • Madeline

    I personally have a problem with your closing comments. You don’t have comments like this with your lists of evil men, but with the women it’s suddenly “Gasp! Those evil women!” Women can be (and often are) just as vicious as men, and history has proven that.

    Other than that, another fascinting list here.

  • Emily

    What a mean thing to say about Elizabeth! She did great things for Protestants of the British Isles, and she did NOT persecute Catholics. No doubt, after the treatment she recieved from Catholics in her youth, she harboured some resentment and animosity towards them. But she did not engage in any persecution. It’s no secret that Ireland and Britain do not get along. Elizabeth didn’t persecute, she merely eliminated uprisings. She had to be a strong leader, sometimes ruthless, because virtually everyone wanted her dead. That does NOT make her evil! Her attitude towards the Irish, is unfortunate and disappointing and characteristic of Brits even today, but she advocated well treatment of them. The current Queen Elizabeth is more evil!

  • laura n

    even though i was born 3 years after 1989… to #7: BITCH !!!!!

  • king

    if you read about #3 in Wikipedia you will never say she is evil!!!

  • Megan

    Sorry but I have to disagree with Elizabeth being posted in the list for one there is evidence to suggest Elizabeth didn’t want Mary Queen of Scots to be executed. She refused to sign the death warrant. The secretary slipped in the death warrant with a pile of papers she had to sign. She signed it without knowing. She tried to stop the execution but it was too late. And that she was executed by those close to the Queen for fear she would seize the thrown which had been attempted several times prior. Also her sister Mary killed far more Protestants, Lutherans, and Calvinists (in her 8 year reign) than Elizabeth did Catholics (in her 44 year reign). Mary vowed that she would spill as much blood as necessary to bring England back to the proper faith and executed those who were anything other than Catholic thus earning the name “Bloody Mary”. Elizabeth practiced religious tolerance up until several attempts were made on her life at around 50 years old at which time she did execute a number of them.

    As for slavery, every country took part in it in the 16th century so that hardly made her the most evil seeing as many had worse policies on the matter.

  • victoria

    I find it weird that elizabeth 1 is on the list but her predecessor, Mary isn’t. Mary is known as Bloody Mary and killed more than 50,000 protestants during her reign, as well as imprisoning her own sister, the future queen.

  • tarlomeTetata


  • StydayAtteway


  • yJenniferq


  • Lala

    I don’t understand why are here Elena Ceausescu and Elizabeth I!!!Learn history
    before writing!!!Elizabeth I-DO YOU THINK ENGLISH SING GOD BLESS THE QUEEN FOR NOTHING!!!!People loved her and she was a very wise queen!And Elena Ceausescu-she was what we name today a woman with a bad mouth,but not a sadistic killer!!!She had children and loved children!!!It was better than now,when more people are dying then born!It was not a very good solution,but they wanted more people to be born!And if I was you I should believe what I’m saying because I’m Romanian and I know the history of my country!
    P.S:From another article when you americans sad that Vlad Tepes was a socipatic sadistic killer!He is a hero!

  • Jamie

    Another mother who smothered 8 of her 10 babies all under the age of 14 months. MARIE NOE! She definitely deserves to be on this list!!

  • Richard

    Ok.. I got to chime in on #6 Elizabeth I. This was either written by a Scot or someone who just read something on the net and decided to regurgatate what was read. Mary Queen of Scots on many occasions tried to usurp Elizabeth’s throne. 1st time on the grounds that she was Henry the VII’s bastard child and she (Mary) was the rightful heir to the throne even though old Henry’s will dictated she was third in succesion. 2nd time she sanctioned a rebellion to try to force Lizzie to make her the heir to her throne (and she went her ass to the tower of London). And finally she was part of a scheme with the vatican and Phillip of France to have Lizzie murdered. So three strikes your out or in Mary’s case one stroke and no head.

  • Pingback: Another Crazy Radical To Drive Me Crazy « The World is Going Crazy()

  • C.j

    So elizabeth 1 is evil but her sister Mary Tudor, who burned her own people alive for not having the same religon as she did is not even mentioned.

  • joshuawright1988

    The 2nd one scared me the most. She was never caught, how creepy is that? To do those things and never be tried and brought to justice for it? Think about that for a minute, she lived, what if she had a family? Somebody TODAY could be carrying that messed up gene. LOL. Ugh, what a drag. Makes you want to shower twice in a row doesn’t it?

  • Adolf in the house

    Lol these girls got nothin’ on me!

  • Pingback: Violentas | Las disidentes()

  • shane13

    well..i’ll read the other 2 parts from this top 10, hahah…yeah, because i think we are also missing the Queen that took blood bath’s with young woman’s blood so she could keep her eternal youth and also Lucrezia Borgia wich was said that she had a hole on her ring where she had poison to poison her father’s enemys…fiu!!..allot of woman….let’s carry on

  • Aoife

    Ok, I may be wrong here, but didn’t Elizabeth I reinstate the Church of England? When Elizabeth came to power, the tutors had been bickering over the whole protestant/catholic thing for generations, burning people and all sorts. Her sister was catholic on the throne before her, and she was constantly at risk of assassinations from catholics who wanted a catholic monarch on the throne again. England became protestant the minute she had a protestant monarch, meaning that the existing law of England (ie written before she came to the throne) saw Catholicism as heretical. Elizabeth reinstated the church of England in order to resolve conflict. It’s a middle way between catholicism and protestantism, and was designed to reduce the burnings etc. as it was acceptable to more people. It’s been in place ever since, and the English monarch is still head of the Church of England. So yes, catholics were killed under her reign, but I’m pretty sure that was something she was against, and actually did a lot to stop. Also since England was at war with Spain, who were VERY catholic and wanted to remove her from the throne, and later sent the armada to attack England, any money the spanish pirates got, was pretty much gonna go into aqn attack on england. I’m not supporting it morally, but it wasn’t random destruction, it was a purposeful political move. Sorry dude, but I don’t think she was evil. Not compared to any of the others mentioned here.

  • Sempre Eadem

    I have studied Elizabeth I in great depth and this article is laughable. She did not single handedly murder thousands. You need a fact checker, as she kept Mary, Queen of Scots (who was power hungry and maniacal) imprisoned after she REPEATEDLY plotted to kill Elizabeth in an attempt to seize power in England. She only finally and begrudgingly had Mary executed after another plot against her life was uncovered. Maybe you should reasses whether Mary Stuart should be on this list instead, as she did murder her second husband…..

  • katylette

    There are many lists that talk about evil men, and only on the second list of evil women the writer adds how sad it is that there are mothers who kill? Yes that is sad, but what about those men who rape and torture and kill hundreds of children? There are way many more men like that then women.

  • lawrence

    these women all look like their possesed .creepy.

  • AJT

    How dare you demonize Elizabeth I. Were it not for her, England would have been brought under the tyranny of Catholic Spain.

  • James

    Great list. Well done on including Elizabeth I. Controversial choice, but I too believe she deserves to be there. Yes, she did do some good things for the country, but in my opinion she was little better (if at all) than a lot of the worst rulers at the time morally. Like you said, the winners write history and thus we have a slew of Tudor propaganda following in her wake…

  • Pingback: 10 Curious Tales and Oddities From History | Sing Viral()

  • Pingback: 10 zi?k?r?gs pasakas un Oddities no v?stures | My New WordPress Site2()

  • Pingback: 10 Curious Tales and Oddities From History |

  • Pingback: Another 10 Evil Women - Your History Haven()

  • Pingback: Another 10 Evil Women()

  • Pingback: 10 Curious Tales and Oddities From History - Relationship QIA()

  • Pingback: 10 Curious Tales and Oddities From History | Civil Attorney Team()

  • Pingback: 10 Curious Tales and Oddities From History – Para-SciFi()