CHAPTER 2

The Reading Baby-farmer Amelia Elizabeth Dyer 1896

On 30 March 1896, a bargeman steering his vessel slowly down the river Thames, between Kennet’s Mouth and the Caversham Lock, spotted a brown paper parcel floating in the river. Grabbing his boat-hook, the bargeman snagged the parcel and dragged it towards his boat. Then, as he pulled the sodden bundle from the river, the paper tore and a baby’s foot slipped out. The bargeman had just recovered the body of a child.

The tragic parcel was soon handed over to the police and one alert officer, Constable James Anderson, found a label from Temple Meads station in Bristol. He also noticed that there was some faint writing on part of the paper. The cold water of the Thames had all but obliterated the writing but by subjecting it to a microscopic analysis, Anderson was able to decipher a name and an address: Mrs Thomas, Piggott’s Road, Lower Caversham. Unfortunately, when that address was checked, officers discovered that Mrs Thomas was no longer there. Meanwhile, using the apparent link to Bristol, officers discovered that a young mother had recently placed a child in the care of a Mrs Thomas. This, in turn, led to the identification of the child found inside the brown paper parcel, as Helena Fry.

The investigation continued and diligent police work soon determined that not only had Mrs Thomas taken in many more children, but also that she had done so under a number of other names. Further, her real name was Amelia Dyer and she had now moved to Kensington Road. A check on her history at Bristol raised a number of concerns. Dyer had a history of mental instability and had been confined to asylums on more than one occasion. It was believed that should she come to think that she was being investigated by the police, Dyer would simply move on yet again. For that reason, a young woman was used as a decoy and arranged a meeting at Dyer’s home, ostensibly to discuss placing yet another child in her charge. However, when Mrs Dyer opened the door to her new potential client, at the appointed hour, she was faced instead with two police detectives who said they wanted to interview her about missing children.

The house was searched and much evidence gathered. There were piles of baby clothes in the house and, in addition, officers found letters and telegrams detailing the apparent adoption of dozens of children and babies. However, though the evidence indicated that she should have many children living with her, only two babies were found in the house. Dyer could give no account of what might have happened to all the others and that was enough for the police to arrest her and, on 4 April, she was formally charged with murder.

Since the body of Helena Fry had been found in the river, it was reasonable to assume that if there were any further victims, they too might have been disposed of in the same manner. As a result, officers and others began a systematic dragging of the river.

On 8 April, the decomposed body of a baby boy was recovered. He was never identified. Two days later, another baby boy was found. He too was never identified. That same day, 10 April, a carpet bag was fished out of the Thames. When this was opened, it was found to contain two bodies: a girl, later identified as Doris Marmon and a little boy, identified as Harry Simmons.

Almost two weeks later, on 23 April, a baby identified by a Miss Golding, was recovered from the river. Exactly one week later, on 30 April, yet another unidentified baby boy was found. The body count now stood at seven.

Even before this, the police investigation seemed to indicate that others might have been involved in this awful trade in human life. Dyer’s daughter, Mary Ann Palmer and her husband, Arthur, were arrested and may well have faced similar charges to Amelia Dyer, but during the inquests on the various bodies, Dyer wrote a confession, dated 16 April. It read:

Sir, will you kindly grant me the favour of presenting this to the magistrates on Saturday the 18th instant? I have made this statement out, for I may not have the opportunity then. I must relieve my mind. I do know and feel my days are numbered on this earth but I do feel it is an awful thing drawing innocent people into trouble.

I do know I shall have to answer before my Maker in Heaven as on earth, neither my daughter Mary Ann Palmer nor her husband Arthur Ernest Palmer, I do most solemnly declare, neither of them had any thing to do with it. They never knew I 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 myself and I alone must stand before my Maker in Heaven, to give an answer for it all.
Witness my hand.
Amelia Dyer.

That letter undoubtedly saved Mary Ann and Arthur Palmer from further investigation on a possible murder charge and the inquest decided that they had not been diectly involved in any of the deaths. However, it was decided to charge Mary Ann Palmer with being an accessory and she was timetabled to face her trial on that charge in June. Dyer, meanwhile, was sent to face her trial on the capital charge.