One of Britain’s most evil killers is a woman you’ve never heard of

Amelia Dyer was a Victorian ‘baby farmer’ who murdered hundreds of babies over 25 years (Picture: Thames Valley Police Museum)

‘Highly respectable married couple wish to adopt a child; good country home; premium required, very small.’ 

When Amelia Dyer placed the above newspaper advert, she was indeed searching for a young baby. But the young woman had no husband, no vast home, and was anything but respectable. In fact, she planned to kill any child she could get her hands on.

Dyer was a ‘baby farmer,’ a role which existed in the Victorian times when women could be ostracized for having a baby outside of wedlock. Dyer would place adverts in local newspapers and meet new mothers at mainline train stations. Each ‘client’ paid £10 – around £650 in today’s money – to the older woman to have her look after their baby. Dyer, a former nurse, would then pocket the money and brutally murder the infant. 

‘Amelia Dyer had a 25 year career of killing children,’ Joel Briggs, curator of the True Crime museum, tells Metro. His eclectic museum in Hastings, East Sussex, houses Dyer’s bodice, which was bought at auction by Joel’s father in the early sixties. 

‘At the start, for a fee, she would kill a child before it took its first breath, strangling the baby before it emerged fully from the womb. This was when she was in her twenties. Dyer was eventually found out [in 1879 after a doctor became suspicious about the number of babies who died in her care] and sentenced to hard labour. But she then feigned insanity and was sent to an asylum instead of prison. 

Trained as a nurse and widowed in 1869, Amelia Dyer turned to baby farming to support herself (Picture: Thames Valley Police Museum)

Amelia Dyer advertised her services in newspapers and described herself as ‘highly respectable’ (Picture: Thames Valley Police Museum)

‘Once she was dismissed from the asylum, she lived under various different names in cities close to the Thames like London, Gloucester, Bristol and Oxford. She liked to keep moving.’

Upon her release, Dyer changed tack and began her fake ‘adoption services.’ She’d meet with a new mother who answered her newspaper advert and promise their son or daughter would be cared for. But it was all a lie.

‘Amelia Dyer would take the baby home,’ Joel explains. ‘And look after it for a couple weeks, just in case the mother changed her mind.

‘Once enough time had passed, she’d fetch a ribbon and tighten it around the baby’s neck until they were asphyxiated. She then wrapped the poor child up, in brown paper or wax paper, and add a brick or stone on top of the baby. She’d tie the whole thing up and throw the body into the Thames or Avon, whichever one she lived nearest to at the time.’

Dyer got away with this evil practice for years as adoption services were not regulated at the time, making it easy for her to escape suspicion. Sometimes she would administer copious amounts of Godfrey’s Cordial – a medicine laced with opiates which was also known as ‘Mother’s Friend’ – to kill the baby if strangulation wasn’t possible or if she’d run out of ribbons.

Eventually, her evil exploits were revealed on March 30, 1896 when a bargeman found the small body of baby Helena Fry in the Thames. The baby’s mother was Mary Fry, a domestic servant, who had paid to have Dyer ‘care’ for her daughter. 

Police discovered the connection because the killer ‘got cocky’, says Joel.

‘Dyer had become so blasé that she wrapped one baby in brown paper from a parcel which had been sent to her. The corpse of this baby didn’t sink and it rose to the surface. Bargeman hooked it out and found the body of the child tied up with the brick and took it to Reading Borough Police. The police saw the address on the side of the paper and got to work.’

The smudged writing on the parcel read ‘26 Piggott’s Road, Caversham.’ Detectives visited the address where they were told Dyer, in her fifties by this point, had moved to Kensington Road in Reading. Police then sent a young woman to Dyer’s home to request her ‘services.’ 

This clearly linked the murderer to the business of baby farming and an arrest was made. The clear evidence against her gave Dyer little wriggle room to deny the crimes at her Old Bailey trial when it began on May 22, 1896. It emerged that baby Helena Fry, who had been found by the bargeman, was given to Dyer at Bristol Temple Meads station on March 5.

Amelia Dyer’s bodice on display in the True Crime Museum (Picture: True Crime Museum)

Police with a strangling kit used by Amelia Dyer to kill babies (Picture: Thames Valley Police Museum)

Joel recalls a ‘painful part’ of the case which came shortly after her arrest, which proves Dyer was by no means alone in being a child killer.

He continues: ‘Dyer told police which part of the Thames she had killed and dumped the babies. She also explained it would be possible to tell which ones were “hers” due to the ribbon round their necks. Heartbreakingly, the police went to the location and pulled out 10 dead babies, only six of which were Dyer’s. This shows how killing an unwanted baby was not an uncommon crime during this period.’

During the trial, the prosecution gave insight into the killer’s early life; a difficult upbringing in the village of Pyle Marsh near Bristol. The young Amelia Dyer showed a talent at reading and the arts, but was confined to her home to care for her typhus-afflicted mother who was mentally ill and had violent fits.

In 1861, at the age of 24, Dyer moved to Bristol where she met and married George Thomas, who was 59 and died in 1869. It was while working as a nurse that she found out about baby farming. Dyer also had three children of her own; Ellen, Mary Ann and William. Joel suspects Mary Ann and her partner Arthur were ‘in on the killings’ as they lived with Dyer and Mary Ann sometimes met with new mothers.

But Dyer, who wore a blue cloak and a feather boa during proceedings, claimed sole responsibility when her case reached court. She also pleaded insanity to try to escape punishment. However, the jury saw through the ‘play acting’ and, after just a few minutes of deliberation, found 57-year-old Dyer guilty of murder and her plea of insanity not proven.

A confession written by Amelia Dyer in Reading prison (Picture: Thames Valley Police Museum)

Newgate Prison was the execution capital of England and between 1783 and 1902, with a total of 1,169 people were put to death there (Picture: Getty Images)

Dyer was sentenced to death and hanged at Newgate prison on 10 June 1896 at 9am. The killer responded ‘I have nothing to say’ when asked for any final words.

The case was heavily reported on in the press and Dyer was branded the ‘Ogress of Reading.’ The murky world of baby farming was brought to light and, crucially, to Parliament. The Infant Life Protection Act (1897) and the Children’s Act (1908) were passed to better protect new-borns. Stricter regulations were introduced for adoption and fostering services and, as a result, baby farming ultimately became a thing of the past.

Today, some visitors to Joel’s True Crime Museum in Hastings have expressed sympathy for Dyer. Several feel the Victorian killer was ‘forced’ to carry out atrocities due to abortion being illegal. Joel doesn’t go as far as to clear Dyer of her crimes, but does acknowledge the murky backdrop to her deadly actions.

‘I don’t think you can ever forgive what Dyer did,’ the curator says.

‘But the more I read about the Victorian era, the more disdain I have for it. You can’t look at the case without looking at the social context of the time.  The double standards, the hypocrisy, the status and hierarchy, the dreadful treatment of the poor and of women sticks out. If you could “pretend” to be godly and righteous then that was kind of “job done” as far as some members of society were concerned.’

An illustration of Amelia Dyer from an newspaper cutting which detailed her trial at the Old Bailey

How much Dyer could have made from her killing spree (Picture: True Crime Museum guidebook)

At her trial, Dyer told the courts that she was killing three children a week at the height of her murderous spree. Joel and his team at the True Crime Museum have crunched the numbers and, if she’d been doing this for 25 years then that would result in 3,900 victims and £39,000 in profit. [£5 million in today’s money]

But despite Dyer’s horrific number of victims, her story has been somewhat forgotten. Meanwhile other British serial killers such as Harold Shipman, who worked in England as a doctor and killed 200 of his patients, remain household names among true crime fans. 

Joel suggests the reason behind this could be the motive behind her gruesome killings.

‘Harold Shipman was a lust killer. He did kill for money, but also out of arousal. That motive is almost impossible for us to understand,’ Joel says.

‘Then you look at the Moors murderers, or the killings by Fred and Rose West. They had nothing to gain financially out of their crimes. Instead, they clearly got some perverted joy out of what they were doing. If we go further back in time, there was the Yorkshire Ripper who got sexual satisfaction from hammering women’s heads. I think that’s why these cases are still so talked about today, as they still kind of ignite people’s imagination. 

‘Amelia Dyer undoubtedly killed hundred of babies, but was in it for financial gain. I think people can wrap their head around people killing for money and, in a way, maybe even understand it.’