When the term “serial killer” comes to mind, many imagine a male figure: the charismatic predator who stalks strangers in dark alleys. Yet while most known serial killers are men, women also commit serial homicide, often with different methods, targets and motives. These women remain less famous—but in many cases just as lethal. Understanding their patterns helps expand criminological knowledge and improve detection.
In this article we will examine:
- What research tells us about female serial killers;
- Key differences in patterns of female vs male offenders;
- Profiles of several notable women who killed serially;
- How female serial killers were caught;
- Why they are less visible in popular culture;
- What implications this has for criminology and law-enforcement.
What Research Says About Female Serial Killers
According to criminological research:
- Female serial killers represent a relatively small fraction of all serial killers. One established estimate indicates around 16% of known U.S. serial killers are women.
- Studies show that while the number is smaller, the victims killed by women can number similarly high—though patterns differ. In one study, female serial killers tended to kill victims they knew rather than strangers.
- Female killers are more likely to use covert methods (poisoning, drugs) rather than overt violence; less likely to display sexual sadism; more often motivated by material gain, caregiver roles, revenge or mission-oriented motives rather than lust for killing alone.
- Because they often kill within domestic or caregiving roles, their crimes may be hidden longer or mis-classified. For example, one article describes them as “‘quiet’ killers”.
These findings challenge the myth that serial killers are universally monsters of the same template. Female offenders often operate differently—meaning detection, public awareness and investigation must adapt.
Differences in Method, Motive and Victimology
Understanding female serial killers requires examining how they differ from male offenders in key respects.
Method
Female offenders often use methods that are less overt: poisoning, drugging, smothering are more common rather than public abduction or violent assault. One source states: “50% of women serial killers use poison … suffocation next” compared with male killers who use more hands-on violence.
These methods allow prolonged opportunities and lower risk of immediate suspicion. Because the killer may be in a caregiving role (nurse, home provider) they can access victims and kill without dramatic scenes.
Motive
In many cases, female serial killers have motives such as profit, comfort, caregiver abuse, or revenge, rather than the sexual or sadistic motives more common in male serial killers. For example, research shows females kill for comfort or gain more often than thrill.
Victimology
Victims of female serial killers are more likely to be people they know: family, children, patients, intimate partners. Men are more likely to target strangers, particularly female victims. One study found just 3.6% of female serial killers stalked victims, compared with 65.4% of male serial killers.
Detection Challenges
Because female serial killers may kill more quietly, with victims they know and in places where death might be expected (homes, hospitals), their detection is harder. This contributes to fewer convictions, lower public awareness, and fewer media reports.
Four Prominent Cases of Female Serial Killers
Here are four cases that highlight the diversity and lethal potential of female serial murderers—some more famous, others less so.
3.1 Belle Gunness (USA)
Profile: Born in 1859 in Norway, active in Illinois and Indiana from late 1880s and early 1900s. She is thought to have killed at least 14 people (some sources suggest up to 40 victims) by enticing men through personal ads and then murdering them.
Method & motive: Her aim appears to have been financial gain. She lured men, married them or convinced them to travel with her, then killed them and kept their possessions.
Capture / detection: Following a fire at her farm in 1908 and discovery of bodies, the investigation began. Her case remains partly unresolved—her exact fate is unknown, which adds to its infamy.
Significance: Gunness illustrates early female serial killing, using social roles (widow, homemaker) to mask deadly intent; she blurred the caregiver/house-host role and financial predator role.
Dorothea Puente (USA)
Profile: Puente (1929-2011) operated a boarding house in Sacramento, California in the 1980s, where she catered to elderly and mentally disabled tenants. She was convicted of eight murders, served life in prison.
Method & motive: She killed tenants, stole their social benefits, buried them in her backyard. Her motive was clearly financial gain.
Capture / detection: Suspicious landlords, police and social-services auditing eventually led to digging in her yard, discovering remains.
Significance: Puente is an example of the “angel of death” or caregiver-turned-killer model: trusted female figure exploiting vulnerable people rather than glamorous stranger-predator.
Juana Barraza “La Mataviejitas” (Mexico)
Profile: Juana Barraza (b.1957) a former professional wrestler and later convicted of murdering at least 16 elderly women in Mexico City between the late 1990s and 2006; suspected victims number 40-48.
Method & motive: She posed as an official or social-service worker to access victims, then strangled or bludgeoned them, robbed them. Motive appears to be robbery but also psychologically linked to her resentment of her own mother.
Capture / detection: Arrested in Jan 2006 after large investigation; her case initially confounded police who suspected male perpetrator.
Significance: Barraza’s case challenges gender stereotypes: violent, multiple victims, stranger-killings rather than domestic. She shows that female killers do sometimes kill strangers and commit very violent crimes.
KD Kempamma (India)
Profile: Known as “Cyanide Mallika”, KD Kempamma (b. 1960s) in Karnataka, India, was convicted in 2010 of six murders of women she befriended at temples between 1999-2007 using cyanide-laced holy water.
Method & motive: She befriended victims under guise of religious devotion, then used poison to kill them and stole jewellery. Motive: financial gain.
Capture / detection: Police tracked patterns of thefts of jewellery and poison use; her confession and investigation of temple-linked cases led to arrest.
Significance: Highlights female serial killer in non-Western context; method was covert poisoning and exploitation of trust, aligning with many female-serial-killer patterns.
How They Were Caught: Investigative Insights
While each case is unique, several common themes emerge in how female serial killers are detected:
Pattern recognition and anomaly detection
In the case of Puente and Kempamma, patterns of missing persons with similar victim profiles or financial signatures (benefits, jewellery) triggered investigation. For example, Kempamma’s thefts of jewellery from temple devotees became a clue.
Forensic and statistical scrutiny
Some female killers operate in care-giving roles or homes, meaning deaths may initially appear natural. Scrutiny of mortality rates (hospital nurses) or unusual financial transactions helps detection. Research says that female killers often operate longer unnoticed unless such data is reviewed.
Victim advocacy and outsider pressure
Agencies, social services, missing-persons reports and vigil groups often play a role. In Juana Barraza’s case, elderly neighbours and activists helped raise alarm. In Puente’s case, social-service auditing flagged missing benefit recipients.
Mistakes and escalation
Even “quiet” killers make mistakes: accumulation of victims, forensic advances, escapes from script and exposure. Barraza and Gunness both drifted into more detectable modes of operation; Kempamma’s attempt at disposing of jewellery led to capture.
Gender bias and investigation bias
Female perpetrators often evade suspicion because investigators may not seriously consider a woman as serial killer. This delay aids the offender. For example, female killers may take advantage of gendered assumptions about women’s roles as caregivers or nurture.
Why Female Serial Killers Remain Less Known
Several factors contribute to their relative obscurity:
- Media bias: Coverage focuses more on male serial killers, who fit sensational stereotypes (strangers, violent abductions, sexual sadism). Female killers who kill in domestic or caregiving roles receive less attention.
- Stereotypes about gender: Many people find it difficult to conceive of women committing multiple murders; assumptions about femininity reduce detection and reporting.
- Covert methods: Poisoning, slow-acting drugs, trusted contexts (homes, hospitals) lead to fewer dramatic scenes and less clear evidence, thus fewer headline cases.
- Victim profiles: Victims may be children, elderly, family members—populations less directly visible in the media than young abducted women.
- Research gap: As one article notes, “the field lacks information on female serial killers”.
Because of these dynamics, female serial killers may commit crimes longer, with less scrutiny—and still stay largely out of public view.
Implications for Criminology, Investigation and Prevention
For criminology
- The female pattern challenges existing typologies of serial murder that focus on male offenders’ thrill or sexual motives. Researchers must include female-specific models of motive (profit, comfort, caregiver abuse) and method.
- Recognising female offenders expands our understanding of victim vulnerability: family members, patients, elderly are at risk.
- Data collection must correct gender bias and include more female-offender cases so that patterns and detection strategies can be improved.
For investigation
- Law-enforcement should not exclude women from the suspect pool simply because of gender expectations. Profiling must be gender-informed but not gender-biased.
- Monitoring of mortality rates, financial anomalies, caregiving contexts (nurse deaths, home help deaths) is crucial. Female offenders often exploit roles of trust.
- Training for investigators should highlight that “quiet” deaths may be homicide, especially if financial gains, access or repeated patterns exist.
- Cross-agency cooperation (healthcare, social services, financial institutions) is vital since many female offenders exploit access to vulnerable persons.
For public safety and victim advocacy
- Public education should highlight risk factors for victims in caregiving situations, financial dependency, elderly living alone.
- Gender stereotypes about offenders should be challenged—victim-risk assessments should include female perpetrators as a possibility.
- Support for families of victims in institutional or domestic settings should be strengthened to enhance detection and reporting.
Conclusion
Female serial killers may be fewer in number, but their impact can be devastating. Their methods, motives and contexts differ in meaningful ways from male serial killers—and these differences demand attention. When we fail to study them, we miss key insights into victim vulnerability, offending opportunity, investigation gaps and gendered dynamics of crime.
From Belle Gunness’s turn-of-the-century murder camp in Indiana to KD Kempamma’s temple-linked poisonings in India, these women illustrate that serial homicide knows no gender barrier. By understanding their patterns, criminologists and law enforcement can improve detection, victim protection and prevention.
If you study crime, teach it or follow it, remember: include the less-visible, question the stereotypes, and broaden your lens beyond the headline cases. Because the “quiet killer” may be just as lethal—and just as important to understand.
