After Dark: Myths, Misdeeds & the Paranormal - Amelia Dyer: Victorian Baby Farm Killer

Episode Date: November 29, 2023

Some estimates have it that Amelia Dyer killed more than 400 babies. It's hard to say for sure because so few victims were recovered. She was a phantom that grew up in a very dark corner of Victorian society where helpless mothers were given with no better options but to give their babies to 'baby farmers'.Anthony tells Maddy this painful history.Edited and produced by Freddy Chick. Senior Producer is Charlotte Long.Discover the past with exclusive history documentaries and ad-free podcasts presented by world-renowned historians from History Hit. Watch them on your smart TV or on the go with your mobile device. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code AFTERDARK sign up now for your 14-day free trial http://access.historyhit.com/checkout/subscribe/purchase?code=afterdark&plan=monthly

Hi everyone, it's Maddy here. I'm just jumping in to let you know that in this episode we are going to be talking about historical infanticide. It is the 28th of March 1896 and the River Thames is lined with supporters of the annual Oxford-Cambridge side-by-side rowing race. Bunting flutters in the fresh spring air and banners are held aloft. Then, biting through the collective anticipation, the umpire Frank Willan, a former rower himself, pulls the trigger and the Oxbridge crews lower their oars. On that particular day, the Thames would offer up a victory to the Oxford Boys, who seized triumph by two-fifths of a length, securing their seventh consecutive victory. Two days later, further downstream, closer to London this time,

in a less salubrious bend of the river, mighty Thames would offer up something altogether more calamitous. No cheering crowds this time, no celebrations on shore, just a package delivered from the very darkest depths of humanity. A bargeman, used to the tides and treasures of the Thames, reached for the bundle of tightly wrapped paper, curious to discover what was inside.

As he peeled back the sudden layers, the little face of a baby girl, still as if sleeping, revealed itself. Her name, it later emerged, was Helena Fry. Horrifyingly, the bargeman noticed, around the tiny infant's neck was wrapped white edging tape. Upon closer inspection, the bargeman could just about make out a name inside the brown wrapping paper. It read, he thought, Mrs Thomas. Hello and welcome to After Dark Myths, Misdeeds and the Paranormal. The case that you're about to hear is one that lingers.

It makes itself an unwelcome visitor in your mind, I guess. It haunts you. There's no better word for it, really. Now, thankfully, there are not many histories like this one. Today, we explore the heinous history of Amelia Dyer, the ogress of Reading, or as some of you might already know her, the Victorian baby farmer. Anthony, on After Dark, we're used to talking through some pretty gruesome true crimes, some very difficult histories. But before we started recording, we were both talking about how really Amelia Dyer's story has affected both of us. I think it's a really difficult

topic to talk about, but it's one that we've chosen to discuss on the podcast today because it tells us so much about women's lives in the 19th century, about motherhood, the realities of it, societal expectation of it, and the economic status of women who had legitimate babies within marriage and also illegitimate babies. I think for that reason, it is an important one to get into. But it is particularly difficult, isn't it? It's a scary and grim story. Yeah. If you think about how these people are feeling, that's always what I come back to with histories like this.

What are the individuals that we're encountering feeling? And it's very easy for us, once time has passed, to dilute those feelings and to think that those feelings are something for us to almost revel in sometimes when people are dealing with these types of topics. But actually, these are acute, life-changing, devastating things that are happening to these people. And in this case, it involves something that many of us are very iffy about when we come to explore the death of children and infanticide, the deliberate killing of so many innocent victims. And that was what drew me to the story. I had this image for a while in my head. I'd obviously heard it somewhere and I'd picked up somewhere, but this image of the package rising to the top of the Thames that hadn't been... So the package that contained the body of what it turned out to be Helena Frye. And that bargeman then has to go

home and tell his family what he discovered that day. And then not to mention, of course, the huge knock-on effect for Helena's family, for her relatives. It's just unthinkable. And I think even for us, it's quite an acute emotional response to an event in the past, even today. For me, what really stands out as well, and what's important to think about, is that this isn't that many generations removed from us today. This is the end of the 19th century. What are we in? 1896, did you say? So this is a time, Queen Victoria is on the throne, sure, but she's in her 60th year as queen. So we're coming to the end of this era of a huge social, technological, imperial change. It's a strange transitional time, I suppose. It's the end of

one era of change, but there is more change to come. So there are already voices calling for women's suffrage, the right to vote, and women's lives are about to dramatically change at the beginning of the 20th century. And we have to think in this period, if you are an unmarried woman of any social class, and you get pregnant and have that baby, there are huge ramifications. We have stories of women who are working as servants, domestic servants, who are giving birth in closets because they don't want to reveal they're pregnant. And then they're having to get rid of their babies, find a way to give them to a relative or to send them somewhere. And what's really important to remember about the 19th century, even up until the end of this period, is in 1834, the Poor Law comes in that

transfers the responsibility that must be taken over children born out of wedlock from the man to the woman. So until 1834, if you gave birth to a child out of wedlock, you could apply to the father for financial aid. He might even be forced to marry you. He would be forced within the community to take responsibility. And in the 19th century, we see the shift where suddenly women are having to take that responsibility. Women who often, if they're in the lower classes do not have the financial means to support a child it's devastating and that's the context with which we're going into this story thinking about how women dealt with the children that they simply could not look after these are not necessarily women who don't want to keep these children. Some of the women in this story we're going to talk about are married,

but already have 12, 14 children and cannot cope with any more. And the options in those circumstances are so limited. And I think the legality around that, the social pressure, the idea that a woman must be responsible for a child and solely responsible in a lot of cases, opens up a vacuum. And I think for me, Amelia Dyer is this phantom who grows up in that dark space, in that vacuum. So let's talk about the women at the centre of this story then, and let's start with Amelia Dyer, as some of the listeners may already know her. Now, if you remember, with this bundle that came from the depths of the Thames that the bargemen discovered, there was a name on the package, or just faintly

discernible on the package, and that name was Mrs Thomas. But Mrs Thomas was, as we now know her today, infamously Amelia Dyer. And Amelia Dyer has killed, we believe, it's an unknown number, but some people estimate that she has killed up to 400 babies in the latter half. 400. It's an unbelievable, it would make her Britain's most notorious serial killer in that latter half of the 19th century. And we'll talk about some of the ways in which she did that. And her archive, and by that we mean the newspaper articles

relating to her, her trial records, any correspondence that exists that relates to her, it really brings to the fore some of those tensions that you were talking about in terms of female experience in the 19th century. And of course, it also brings some of those working class single mothers to the forefront where usually they would be sidelined in society. So it's a really interesting way to look at some of the more difficult aspects of female experience in the latter half of the 19th century. So can you just tell me a little bit about who Amelia Dyer was, what her circumstances were, and how she came to be a serial killer who's killing potentially 400 children? I mean, that is an unfathomable amount. So she was born Amelia Hubley, that's her maiden name, and she was born in 1836. Her father was a

shoemaker. They lived near Bristol. So, you know, a relatively comfortable upbringing. Sarah was her mother's name, and she was keen that Amelia learned to read and write, which wasn't necessarily a given in the early half of the 19th century. We have a record that, it's kind of tantalising in a way, but we have a record that Amelia loved poetry and literature. She loved escaping into these fictional worlds and creating this other world for herself as she escaped into books and poetry. See, to me, that sounds very much like that's written once her crimes have been exposed, that that's sort of retrospective myth making isn't it that she is this romanticizing which is quite strange and and i mean we'll get into discussing

her her sort of mental state maybe but it's almost a way of explaining and explaining away her her terrible crimes by saying she was a bit imaginative. And we know that she shifts her identity throughout her life, doesn't she? And she gives people false names and things. This idea that the root of that lies in her childhood, sure, Freud would agree, but I don't know. It feels a very Victorian construct, that does. But go on, tell me some more. Tell me some more. No, I do. I do.

I think that's right. Obviously, you know, we don't know what she was reading, but I do think that is correct. So in 1859, then she marries George Thomas. He's 59 when they married and she's 23. So now we know who Mrs. Thomas from the newspaper ad is. This is Amelia. She trained as a nurse. when they married and she's 23. So now we know who Mrs. Thomas from the newspaper ad is. This is Amelia. She trained as a nurse and George must, because potentially because of the age

difference, whatever it was, George seems to have passed away at some time across the next decade because in 1872, she marries again, this time a man called William Dyer. And then she separated from him. And it's at this point, so this is how we get Amelia Dyer. So we've gone from Amelia Hobley, her maiden name, to Amelia Thomas, Mrs. Thomas of the package, which helps identify her through the package. And now Amelia Dyer through her marriage to William Dyer. But she separates from him. And as I say, this is where the story takes a turn. What stands out to me about Amelia's life story up until

the point where she starts committing crime is that it's completely typical. And this experience for women of moving from husband to husband in need of protection, domestic stability, is completely ordinary in the 19th century. She marries an older man. I think, what did you say? He's nearly 60 when she's 23. So inevitably, he dies before her. And then she marries again. Interesting that she separates from William Dyer, her second husband. And I would love to know more about that dynamic. But I suppose once she's left his household, whether he's the one to leave or she is, she's no longer under his protection and she'll be no longer the beneficiary of

the financial stability that he would bring into that household. And so she has to look for a way of earning money. And the way that she does that is she turns to something called baby farming, which actually isn't an unusual thing in the 19th century. This isn't murdering children. Anthony, can you just tell us a little bit, what is baby farming? Because it's an accepted form of childcare, of child rearing in this period, right? Basically, you could find ads in your local newspaper where a woman who either has a child that she feels she cannot care for, be that through illegitimacy or financial reasons, even married women would have placed these ads sometimes, she will look for a new family,

a new home within which to place her child. On the other side of that, you also get women, mostly women, but sometimes men and women writing together, a husband and wife team writing together, who cannot have children or who have not had children themselves, and they seek to house a child that another mother might be looking to give up for what we might term adoption. Of course, by this point in the 19th century, this is really an industry, isn't it? And people are advertising their homes as open to unwanted children, no matter of their circumstances. They're advertising in the newspapers. So we have the print media playing a huge role. And this is an organised, albeit not yet institutionalised, This is an organised, albeit not yet institutionalised, form of adoption or fostering. And it's happening in public. You can read these adverts in the newspapers. It's out in the open.

I just find that fascinating. And of course, the women who are giving up their children, these mothers, they would have to place so much trust in the strangers that are taking their children into their homes. And it's difficult to think about those women in that situation and what it must have felt like to hand your child over in that way and to not know what was going to happen to them. And what's amazing about the Amelia Dyer case is that we do hear from some of these women who otherwise would have remained voiceless in this society. And particularly, we wouldn't hear them talking about this particular experience. But because of what happens with Amelia Dyer, because of the trial that takes place later on, we do hear their voices as witnesses, don't we? Yes, and because we have the material from Amelia Dyer's trial at the Old Bailey,

what we end up getting is an insight into the words and experiences and mindsets of these desperate, working-class, often unmarried Victorian mothers-to-be. And in this case, one of the voices you're going to hear next is that of Miss Evelina Edith Marmon. And unfortunately for poor, unmarried Evelina, she is about to cross paths with a woman who will become one of the most notorious and horrifying mass murderers in British history. In January this year, I was confined a female child. In January this year, I was confined a female child. In March, I saw an advertisement in Bristol paper of which this is a copy. Couple with no child, won't care of or would adopt one. Terms £10.

Desperate, Evelina wrote to Mary Harding, who had placed the ad, yet another pen name used by Amelia Dyer, to conceal her true identity. She explained her situation. She received the following reassuring reply. First, I must tell you we are plain, homely people in fairly good circumstances. We live in our own house and have a good and comfortable home. We are out in the country and sometimes I am alone a great deal. I do not want the child for money's sake, but for company and comfortable home. We are out in the country, and sometimes I am alone a great deal. I do not want the child for money's sake, but for company and home comfort.

Myself and husband are dearly fond of children, none of my own. A child with me would have a good home, and a mother's love and care. We belong to the Church of England. I would not mind the mother or any friend coming to see the child at any time, and know the child is going on all right. I only hope we may come to terms. I should like to have the baby as soon as you can arrange it. If you will let me have an early reply, I can give you some references.

Yours, Mary Harding. Dyer's reply was entirely fictional, of course. Though she coveted the child, she had no intention of raising Evelina's baby as her own in bucolic bliss. Nonetheless, Evelina arranged for her child to be adopted by the kindly Mary Harding. There was no real legal procedure required. She gave Dyer a cardboard box containing baby clothes and said goodbye to her dear little girl, as she called her. box containing baby clothes and said goodbye to her dear little girl, as she called her. Before they parted, Evelina noted that Mrs. Harding carried with her a carpet bag.

She thought no more of it at the time. Soon, however, it would become a vital piece of evidence in piecing together the unthinkable deeds of Amelia Dyer. Within days, Evelina would see her daughter once again in the most devastating of circumstances. I heard no more from Mrs. Arding. I wrote to her on April 4th. On April 7th, a police constable called on me at Cheltenham, and on the 11th I went to the mortuary at Reading at the request of the police and there saw the body of my child. It was ten weeks old. Thank you. The End lives, six lives. I'm Professor Susanna Lipscomb, and this month on Not Just the Tudors, I'm joined by a host of experts to tell the stories of the six queens of Henry VIII, who shaped and changed England forever. Subscribe to and follow Not Just the Tudors from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts. What I'm wondering about Amelia at this point in the story is whether she took on the role of baby

farmer initially because it would have provided her with a semi-stable income and the opportunity to make her own way in the world after her separation from William, or whether she seeks to take on this role in order to kill children. What do we know about her mental state, her motivations? Are we able to glean that from the historical record that's left? And we're talking here about the trial transcripts once she's been arrested. Are we able to work that out? Exactly what she was thinking and at what point in her career as a baby farmer, she first started to do these atrocious crimes? I think if we were to give Amelia Dyer the benefit of the doubt, it seems that when she started, she was actually not so

much looking to care for the children, I'll say that, but find a legitimate way of making a living for herself. I don't think she was motivated by a love for children. She was motivated by the need to survive. And she runs into trouble quite quickly because actually a lot of the children in her care do start to die. Now, obviously the infant mortality rate at this time, that is the age that children are dying at in the Victorian era, notoriously we all know today, that was much higher than it is now. But it still aroused enough suspicion for the authorities to actually investigate her and see what was going on in her home. And essentially, what it was, was it was found that she was being negligent and she was sentenced to six months hard labour. Not that she had purposely killed the children, but that she had been negligent.

So, hold on. You're telling me that the authorities investigate her and find that she is malpracticing to some extent and that children are dying in her care quite early on and that she's punished for it. And then goes back to doing it and continues to kill children. Yeah. And it's a slap on the wrist she gets essentially. I mean, six months hard labour is a pretty intense punishment for a lot of people. But in terms of at the expense of the lives of children, it doesn't seem anything at all. So it is essentially a slap on the wrist for her. She then enters into a period of going in and out of what was referred to at the time as mental

asylums. And this accounts for a deterioration in her mental health overall. However, in between these stints, she's still coming out of the asylum and then sourcing. And then that's when she starts deliberately murdering the babies who come into her supposed protection. The lack of regulation here, it's so shocking, isn't it? This is a person who has been caught neglecting, at the very least, the children in her care. Children are dying in her care. She's been to prison, six months hard labour. She's then in and out of mental institutions. And in between these stints, at various points, she is still able to look after children. She's still allowed to advertise in the newspapers. Women are still

writing to her, presumably because they don't know the truth of her circumstances, her life, who she is and what she's done to that point. It's absolutely terrifying. And I think, how is she getting away with this? How on earth is no one noticing? Well, they are. And I think anybody who's from a small town or from a small village knows what it's like for the inhabitants of that town or village to know what people are up to. I mean, call it gossip, call it whatever you will. But the people in the area, in and around Bristol, knew what she was doing, or they had a fairly strong inkling. But if any of the authorities ever got too close to her because of some of these reports, she would check herself

into the mental asylum again and basically say, you know, I've lost my mind. This is all too much. So she was able to distance herself from the authorities, specifically the police, distance herself from the authorities, specifically the police and her neighbours, by moving around, number one, but number two, checking herself in to, checking herself in, it sounds too casual, but by making sure she was admitted to a mental asylum. Now, what did catch her in the end was the wrapping paper in the River Thames containing Helena Frye's body that we opened with. Because not only did it contain the name Mrs Thomas, as we've said before, but it had an address which was very faintly discernible, but was spotted by Police Chief Constable George Tewsley, who was at the Reading Borough Police Station. Now, he's at Reading because Amelia Dyer is moving around.

We've mentioned she's in and out of asylums. She's going between different places to evade capture. But this is one of the places where she meets her match slightly with some of these detectives. Chief Constable George Tewsley assigns other detectives then to stake out where she is living in Reading at the time. And they employ a decoy. living in Reading at the time. And they employ a decoy and she pretends that she wants to avail of, the decoy pretends that she wants to avail of Dyer's services. And they arrange eventually to meet at Dyer's house, which was unusual for Dyer. She didn't usually do that. And the expectant mother was supposed to show up at her door. But when the knock did eventually come it was detective constable anderson and

sergeant james of the redding police station and they basically very promptly arrested her so once it started to unravel it unraveled quite quickly amazing that they're using a decoy a fake mother and that says so much about the history of women helping in the police. Obviously, this woman is presumably not a police officer in the 1890s, but she is being used in that way. And it says so much about the development of those police techniques in detecting this kind of crime. Yeah, it's ingenious in a way. And it feels like it wouldn't have happened a hundred years earlier in quite this way. They are also using forensics to decipher the address on the packaging that surrounded the body of Helena Frye. So they really are using what's available to them and really using new techniques to try and catch up with Amelia Dyer. What's also

heartbreaking, I think, is once they get into the property and once they search the property after she's been arrested, there is a plethora of, well, letters from birth parents to Amelia Dyer under many pseudonyms. You know, we've had Mrs. Thomas. We have, she also uses Mrs. Howard at different times. She's using all of these different pen names to conceal her identity. And they want to know how their children are and they want to know what they're getting up to and how they're progressing. But the house has absolutely no children in it. So these letters that they're found should be the number of children that are in the house that Amelia has taken in, but there's none there it's it just shows that she has already disposed of so

many of these these little lives it's it's just so hard to fathom isn't it and more bodies do unfortunately turn up in the thames don't they yeah just straight afterwards in april of the same year they search in and around that area alone they don't obviously do a whole sweep of the Thames. They wouldn't have that. Those resources is far too big. But in that area alone, they uncovered a further six bodies, which is just, it's the bleakest thing you can imagine.

You know, this Victorian landscape where men most likely are in the river because that's how they would have done it. And they are discovering these packages or these wrappings. It's beyond contemplation in one sense. And as a result of all of this evidence, Dyer's trial is then moved forward very quickly and she's assigned to the Old Bailey and it begins on the 18th of May 1896. There's too much evidence. She can't say she didn't do this but instead of pleading guilty outright she pleads insanity. I have made this statement out for I may not have the opportunity and I must relieve my mind.

I do know and I feel my days are numbered on this earth. I should have to answer before my Maker in Heaven for the awful crimes I have committed, but as God Almighty is my Judge in Heaven. I never contemplated doing such a wicked thing until it was too late. I am speaking the truth and nothing but the truth as I hope to be forgiven.

I and I alone must stand before my Maker in Heaven to answer it all. Court rise. The 18th of May, 1896. The old Bailey creaks and groans under the emerging putrid details of

Dyer's trial. The gathered crowds are held rapt. Evelina Marmon, who had spoken on her dead daughter's behalf, listened as details emerged regarding Dyer's methods of killing. Each of the six little bodies recently recovered from the Thames had been strangled with Dyer's trademark white tape. After her trial, Dyer would go on to confess, White tape?

Yes, that was how you could tell it was one of mine. During the trial, owing to the strength of Evelina Marmon's testimony, Dyer only pleaded guilty to one murder, that of ten-week-old Doris Marmon, Evelina's daughter. She did not comment on the other little bodies that had been discovered, not even the body of Henry Simmons, who had been found alongside Doris's body in the same carpet bag. In order to free themselves from suspicion,

her daughter Marianne Palmer and her son-in-law, Arthur Ernest Palmer, testified that they had been increasingly worried by Dyer's behaviour and mental health, while other neighbours and friends from London stated that they had seen Dyer returning late at night from the banks of the river. One witness, Marianne Beattie, even stated that she had helped Dyer with her luggage one afternoon as she came off the omnibus while visiting her daughter in Harleston. Beatty had taken the notorious carpet bag from Dyer in order to lighten her load. The carpet bag, Beatty testified, was unusually heavy and seemed a solid substance. It made my hand ache carrying it. The bodies of

Doris and Henry were later found in that same carpet bag. After a cursory four and a half minute deliberation, the jury found Amelia Dyer guilty and sentenced her to hang. During her time in the condemned cell, Dyer held tight to the hymn book she had kept throughout her trial. Her behaviour became erratic and dramatic. She called out to heaven, sermonised and sang aloud from her book. She called out to heaven, sermonised and sang aloud from her book. Dyer walked to the scaffold at Newgate on Wednesday 10th June 1896 to find her executioner, James Billington, waiting to end her life. As was customary, she was asked if she had any last words. She is recorded as having stated simply,

I have nothing to say. As the clock struck 9am, Bellington pulled the lever and Dyer plunged to her mortal punishment. Anthony, we know that the number of babies that she killed is likely so much higher than the number of bodies that are actually recovered by the police ahead of Amelia Dyer's trial. And she is only tried for those murders that they can prove, of course. So the scale of this is really, really hard to estimate in a specific or accurate way. It's really hard to get your head around. Is that the reason why her story endures, do you think? Just the sheer scale and horror of what she did? Yeah, there's a few things going on, isn't there? There's that, I think, without a

shadow of a doubt, that must be number one. The fact that the victims are babies, number two. The fact that it's a woman, number three, female killers. Even in 19th century press, a female killer is going to sell more copies than a male killer is. And especially in the Victorian era where motherhood is so elevated culturally, it's such a thing to aspire to. Obviously, the reality is that motherhood for so many women in this period is incredibly difficult and sometimes genuinely unwanted and just difficult to navigate. And all of these challenges that come up for women who do have children. And Amelia Dyer is sort of the inverse of that. And she is presented as monstrous because of that. She's so unmotherly,

of that. And she is presented as monstrous because of that. She's so un-motherly, but she's wearing the mask of a mother or a mother figure. She's inviting these children into her home, offering to be a mother figure to them, to take them under her wing as it were, and she's killing them. I mean, talking about her role as a mother and talking about her role as a literal mother, mother and talking about a role as a literal mother. She was very adamant when she gave her testimony that she exonerate her daughter, Mary Ann Palmer, who was married to Arthur Ernest Palmer. She was really, really adamant that her actual daughter was not tied up with this. But the funny thing is that I think it was two years later, after Dyer had been executed, there were some railway workers that were inspecting a carriage at Newton Abbott in Devon, and they found a parcel. And again,

note, we're moving around here. The last time we heard from Amelia Dyer's daughter, she was in Harlesden. Now we're in Newton Abbott in Devon. So this is one of the ways in which they tried to confuse, and we found this confusing ourselves. The moving around is unsettling. It doesn't let you get a grasp on the story sometimes. But anyway, in one of the carriages, they found an abandoned parcel. And inside that parcel, there was a body of a three-year-old girl who was cold and wet, but she was still alive. And she was the daughter of a widow, Jane Hill.

And the baby had been given to a Mrs Stewart for £12. Amelia used to charge £10. Amelia Dyer used to charge £10. And Mrs Stewart, whoever she was, had picked up the baby at Plymouth and had dumped her on the next train. And it has been claimed since that Mrs Stewart was actually the daughter of Amelia Dyer. Now that's not confirmed, but there are some very strong suggestions that it was Mary Ann Palmer, Amelia Dyer. Now that's not confirmed, but there are some very strong suggestions that it was Mary Ann Palmer, Amelia Dyer's daughter. And there's other evidence, isn't there, that link Dyer's daughter and her husband to some of the crimes that Amelia was committing. I read somewhere that in the Palmer's backyard, in the period in which Dyer is committing her multiple murders,

backyard in the period in which Dyer is committing her multiple murders. The couple had a pile of bricks and in the 19th century, most bricks have a brickmaker's stamp on them so you can identify who's made them. And some of the bodies of Amelia Dyer's victims that were recovered in the Thames had been weighted down with bricks with the same maker's stamp on. So there's not definitive pieces of evidence to link her daughter to the crimes, but there's a heavy suggestion there, I think, that they're involved. But she is adamant at her trial that her daughter is not to be questioned in relation to this. It's the most information she gives, which in itself is suspicious. Almost now, in retrospect, it shines a light on her daughter, right? It does. And I think as well, it's compelling and unsettling how much Amelia Dyer is trying

to protect her daughter in that circumstance that she doesn't want the suspicion to fall on her. And it says something about her own identity as a mother and her relationship to her own daughter, that she does want to keep her safe and out of harm's way. She doesn't want her accused of these crimes. Or does she want to take all the glory herself? It's so hard to get to the bottom, to get to the truth of Dyer's mental state. But I'm so desperate to know more about what was happening in Amelia Dyer's mind. Who was she? She takes on all these different identities. She moves around all the time. She reinvents herself constantly. And the only consistent thing we know about her is that she's murdering children. Who does that? Who was she as a person? Well, it's so funny because the fact that it's so

difficult to draw out meaning, and we look for meaning as people, but it's not always there, but we're desperate for it. But because it lacks meaning, what she did, Emilia Dyer has actually been also, I don't buy into this, but she's been touted as a possible Jack the Ripper figure as well, that she potentially was involved in some of the Ripper murders in London in 1888. I mean, I suppose there's not too many people with a notorious reputation in late Victorian England who haven't been attached to the Ripper murders as a possible suspect. But her inclusion seems slightly wild to me. I mean, I don't for a second think that she had anything to do with those murders. But

it is interesting, isn't it, that her name is attached to that. It says something about the Victorian taste for, I suppose, assembling a pantheon of serial killers. And it's something that we're not adverse to doing today. You think about the popularity of true crime, of which we are beneficiaries here. There is a fascination with serial killers, but with listing them and comparing them in some way, I think. And yeah, it's interesting that her name is included alongside Jack the Ripper. Something for me that this case really brings to the fore, we've spoken a lot about the lives of Victorian women. It just shines a light on the struggle of motherhood in this period, the idealisation of it on the one hand, and the reality underneath,

and how women did their best to try and negotiate that and to try and survive and to try and keep their children alive. And it says so much as well about how little things have changed really when we think today about the cost of childcare and, you know, okay, now we have institutions that take care of adoption procedures, fostering, that's obviously regulated in a completely different and much safer way now. But having a child, even in our 21st century society today, is a significant financial decision. And it's one that many people can't afford or struggle with after a child's arrived. And if you think it's hard now, it must have been so difficult. And you can see why women did give their children up to baby

farmers and took that leap of faith. And it must have been a leap of faith to not know exactly where your child would end up and how they would be treated. There was no way of really knowing that. And those women must have known that when they handed their children over, but they would be treated. There was no way of really knowing that. And those women must have known that when they handed their children over, but they had no choice. I think that might be the place on which we leave you, lovely listeners. I hope you found this case an interesting one

to try and decipher and place within its historical context. It is a fascinating case. It's a dark case. It's a difficult case, but one that can tell us, as Maddy has just been describing an awful lot about female experience in the 19th century, and indeed in our own day in some ways too, we have a little request of you. We would like you to get in touch with us. If you

have any local ghost stories, local unsolvedolved murders any myths or misdeeds that you know of in your family or where you live we would love to have a look at them and see potentially if we the team at after dark might be able to uncover some historical truths in those myths misdeeds and any other paranormal comings and goings that you might have. The email address that you need to contact us on is afterdarkathistoryhit.com. It can be huge, big cases, famous things. It can be small, unsolved, unheard of, untold stories. We want to hear it all and we want to hear it from you. Join us on this investigative journey. We'll see where we end up.

Thank you very much for listening to After Dark, Myths, Misdeeds and the Paranormal. We will see you next time. Well, thank you for listening to this episode of After Dark. Please follow this show wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps us and you'll be doing us a big favour. Don't forget, you can listen to all these podcasts ad-free and watch hundreds of documentaries when you subscribe at historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. And as a special gift, now don't say we never give you anything, you can also get your first three months for £1 a month when you use the code AFTERDARK at checkout.