You're so right that the relegation of the second story to back page filler almost compounds the crime. And of course taking out life insurance policies on the lives of potential victims, including children, was a big motivation for serial poisoners, too. People sometimes express a wish to go back and live in those "simpler times." We have our own troubles today, but no thanks.
Very well said! 👍We do not think we would want to go back in time. We are actually astonished the human race has survived as long as we have. We also take a brighter view of our future. We think the youth today are more switched on, kinder and more compassionate. We see forward movement. But possibly our optimism is born from research on history. 😉
It's sad that people think it's best to murder than to pay up for their mistakes. It's best not to get yourself in that position in the first place. That goes for both parties. Thank you for sharing.
Thank you! We have always said it was our wish to show all sides of Victorian life. The first case at the time was a "bigger" story in its day. The second case - so terrobly shocking - was not. Just a small article in terms of the win for the newly formed NSPCC (which Dickens had been arguing for some 40 years before). Thank you. 🙏
That second story brought me to real tears. What we "adults" do to each other is bad enough but when the grownups treat the most innocent of us with such neglect and horror, well, it is beyond the scope of human behavior. There are no punishments harsh enough for people like this, or rewards great enough for the people that try and save them.
Thank you - we were horrifed followed by appalled then incredibly sad when we saw the article. The first case was a relatively "important" case at the time. Many follow ups and given a lot of space in the papers (stories tended to be very succinct pre 1850's). The second case was a filler story buried in the back pages. Its purpose had more to do in showing the legal success of the NSPCC rather than the story of the children itself. We would like to think things have changed dramatically for the better. As for the punishment - the law at the time was still more geared to punishing murder rather than abuse. We think the judge was probably restricted in what he could do. Thank you - we think it is important to bring these stories to light with history as our baromoter of where we have been and how far we have (or have not) come. 🙏
These two cases about child support were very "heartbreaking," in every sense of the word. First case, I believe Samuel horrifically murdered Betty because he didn't want to support her and his unborn baby and he also didn't want to marry her either. I'm thrilled that he received the death penalty because he deserved it, period! Second case, these parents waiting for their children to die for financial gains/insurance were despicable to abuse and neglect their three precious young children in the manner that they did. I can't comprehend how they both received such lenient sentences of months rather than years including hard labor. Do you know whatever happened to these three young children? Great investigation, presentation, backstories, illustrations, photos and videos, too. Take care 🦋 P.S. I appreciate the fact that your channel presented this sensitive and yet vital subject about abused and neglected children.
Thank you so much - we think the second case in particular is important too! So the second case was really a blip - like a filler article buried in the middle of the paper. It's purpose was more to show the legal win of the relatively newly formed child protection service (which Dickens had been pushing for some 40 years before). The followup on the children: yes, our memory is the boy - the infant - recovered. There was much pride that he had been gaining weight rapidly. The girl taken on also recovered. The third child -we do not know. As for the penalties - yes quite! Why didnt they do some real time? The NSPCC was relatively new. Bringing parents to justice for abuse was new. The law was geared to punishing death, not abuse (similar to poor Mary from the previous episode). Thank you again for your kind comment and support!🙏
As always I enjoyed your video but with no reflection on the job you did l found the 2nd story very hard to watch and was very put out by the little slap on the hand punishment especially the woman reserved l can't refur to her as mother 😢
Quite! We thought the article was important. The article at the time was not important - it was a filler story to show the good work that the relatively new child protective service had been doing. It was a buried small story. Yes, some real time woud have been far more appropriate! The legal system at the time was more geared towards punishing murder than abuse. We believe the judge was restricted in what he could actually throw at them. We know that two of the children recovered. We do not know what happened to the "parents" 😢
Really shameful! And what almost makes it worse - or is a commentary of the time - is that the second article was a filler article, buried in the back pages. Not considered important. We woudl like to think that at least here in the UK, we have come a long way in this area. 🙏
The woman and man at the end,were fortunately stopped by their neighbors and a charity sponsored by the government for child protection, before she could finish drugging and starving her child. No doubt her stating blatantly to her negʻgʻighbor, that she couldn't pay her rent because she had to pay the premiums on the two insurance polices she acquired for an infant at a time of high infant mortality, and when the child was not old enough to work or upper class enough to have his death be a loss to the mother long term in a financial respect. I suspect she has done it before successfully with another infant child of hers or another relative of some sort. The way she nonchalantly told her neighbor that she double insured her baby and that it's death would leave her swollen enough in dough to pay the rent she couldn't pay, as she rather had to pay the premiums for the policies she expected to gain enough from to cover her debt and give her a slice for herself. No doubt that highly strange conversation is the source of the complaint that led the inspector to visit her home. At the time female baby farmers and burial insurance murderers would kill infants by dosing them with laudinum to keep them quiet as they starved them to death. I have no doubt she used this common method of murder amoung serial murderers of the time when dispatching their own or others children to gain by their painful and pitiless deaths. Her husband may have worked alit as he claimed, but he could not have failed to notice his child starving or his money for the houses upkeep going instead to insurance premiums. He must have known. As for the woman she was caught red handed in the middle of starving her baby for financial gain. Both despite their heartless and terrible crime spent less than five months in prison. Sadly they escaped justice and likely had done so before in similar murders that were not detected. The only good thing to come from all this is that the child was saved by a man who had the power to remove him from the clutches of his mother who almost starved him to death for what amounts to a few hundred bucks. I feel conflicted. I wish the parents had went to the gallows for the near starvation of their own child who barely escaped with his life due to an alert and decent neighbor. But for that to happen the child would have had to die at their hands. So I am stuck being happy that they didn't hang, because that means the infant survived and despite their deserving to pay for what they almost succeeded in doing...I am far more satisfied that they failed and the baby was freed from their plot and their care. Very good as usual. Many of these stories are more complex than they first appear and you walk away having mixed emotions and a puzzle to unwrap like a story within a story. Implied if not stated.
Well said! 👍 In general, we do not tend to do baby farmer or infanticide stories - they are just too heartbreaking. We did this case because of its show on the NSPCC which is a giovernement department - child protection agency. The statement in the paper: "it was the same usual story" speaks volumes of the state of affairs for so many children at the time. We agree with you and your assessment that she had probably done this before. As you can tell from the punishment they received, the law at the time really did not have much in place for abuse - it was geared towards punishing murder. We actually have quite a few stories similar ot the first story where the prime motivation is most certainly to avoid child payments. Thank you! We very much appreciate your thoughts! We hope that we as a society have certainly progressed form those days.🙏
Yes, it was rather a horrific story and made all the worse as it comes across from the newspaper article that this was woefully common. It was also not a big story - it was a filler story. We found it tremendously shocking and utterly sad. 😔
Fallowes was so stingy that he was willing to commit murder!! What a DESPICABLE individual!! I reckon his second girlfriend, Mary, had a VERY lucky escape!! Those poor children in the second case!! How they must've suffered due to their mother's "care"!! How can a BABY wash itself?! Some people should NEVER be allowed to procreate!! Well done, Robin and team!! This video was VERY educational!! ❤👍👏💞💞
Thank you! Yes, the Fellowes case at the time was relatively famous in its day. It had more to do with that he was a solid middle class well respected young man. The second case. we could not believe it when we read it. And it was like a filler story, buried in the papers and really meant more to showcase the success of the new NSPCC. The article starts with along the lines of "it was the same sad story..." so this was a common thing. So common, that people were sadly used to it. One just wishes that the parents - and really, it doesnt feel like they should be called that - had done some real time. Thank you for your support!🙏
@@newsofthetimes Sounds like Fallowes wasn't THAT respectable character-wise, anyway!! What an odious toad!! Was the second case based in Keighley, West Yorkshire?!
@@nadiabrook7871 Hmmmm. we do not currently have access to our database / online papers - so not sure! It just sounds like it was so common that people had become blase about it. Tragic. 😢
The NSPCC is called the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. One of our team worked in the department of child protection for 2 years, They take it deadly seriously. There have been some terrible fails, for sure, but we think it is taken seriously on the whole. Thye do good work and we would not want in any way to imply otherwise. It was only just beginning to get the national governement attention it deserved in the late Victorian. Dickens had written repeatedly of the requirement to protect children. You can also see this from him with Oliver Twist and David Copperfield. 🤨
@@newsofthetimes I worked as a gardien ad litem for The Court of Chsncery. I also was working in A&E, in Brighton in '73 when Maria Colwell came in the doors. I just find it so angering that one for animals has royal patronage, and kids don't warrant it. I know how seriously The NSPCC takes it's work. As a Gardian, I worked closely with them on some cases. It was a very rewarding job, but burn out is always a very real possibility. Thank your friends there, they often made my job so much easier by getting us the information on which to act. Be safe and always stay free.
@@newsofthetimes I have a medical doctor friend, whose passion is The History of Medicine. I worked with him for years, he taught me well. He's a retired anaesthetist. Now the history of that speciality is an interesting tale. Richard Gordon wrote a book on it's beginnings. We've still not got a good handle on how a why it works! Essentially it's controlled poisoning.
You're so right that the relegation of the second story to back page filler almost compounds the crime. And of course taking out life insurance policies on the lives of potential victims, including children, was a big motivation for serial poisoners, too. People sometimes express a wish to go back and live in those "simpler times." We have our own troubles today, but no thanks.
Very well said! 👍We do not think we would want to go back in time. We are actually astonished the human race has survived as long as we have. We also take a brighter view of our future. We think the youth today are more switched on, kinder and more compassionate. We see forward movement. But possibly our optimism is born from research on history. 😉
It's sad that people think it's best to murder than to pay up for their mistakes. It's best not to get yourself in that position in the first place. That goes for both parties.
Thank you for sharing.
Thank you! We have always said it was our wish to show all sides of Victorian life. The first case at the time was a "bigger" story in its day. The second case - so terrobly shocking - was not. Just a small article in terms of the win for the newly formed NSPCC (which Dickens had been arguing for some 40 years before). Thank you. 🙏
Thanks, NotT. Enjoyed, as always.
Thank you! Glad you liked!😁
That second story brought me to real tears. What we "adults" do to each other is bad enough but when the grownups treat the most innocent of us with such neglect and horror, well, it is beyond the scope of human behavior. There are no punishments harsh enough for people like this, or rewards great enough for the people that try and save them.
Thank you - we were horrifed followed by appalled then incredibly sad when we saw the article. The first case was a relatively "important" case at the time. Many follow ups and given a lot of space in the papers (stories tended to be very succinct pre 1850's). The second case was a filler story buried in the back pages. Its purpose had more to do in showing the legal success of the NSPCC rather than the story of the children itself. We would like to think things have changed dramatically for the better. As for the punishment - the law at the time was still more geared to punishing murder rather than abuse. We think the judge was probably restricted in what he could do. Thank you - we think it is important to bring these stories to light with history as our baromoter of where we have been and how far we have (or have not) come. 🙏
Fallows sounds like a miser in the making.
It was commented upon repeatedly. Murder because one is a miser - rather pathetic. 🤨
These two cases about child support were very "heartbreaking," in every sense of the word. First case, I believe Samuel horrifically murdered Betty because he didn't want to support her and his unborn baby and he also didn't want to marry her either. I'm thrilled that he received the death penalty because he deserved it, period! Second case, these parents waiting for their children to die for financial gains/insurance were despicable to abuse and neglect their three precious young children in the manner that they did. I can't comprehend how they both received such lenient sentences of months rather than years including hard labor. Do you know whatever happened to these three young children? Great investigation, presentation, backstories, illustrations, photos and videos, too. Take care 🦋 P.S. I appreciate the fact that your channel presented this sensitive and yet vital subject about abused and neglected children.
Thank you so much - we think the second case in particular is important too! So the second case was really a blip - like a filler article buried in the middle of the paper. It's purpose was more to show the legal win of the relatively newly formed child protection service (which Dickens had been pushing for some 40 years before). The followup on the children: yes, our memory is the boy - the infant - recovered. There was much pride that he had been gaining weight rapidly. The girl taken on also recovered. The third child -we do not know. As for the penalties - yes quite! Why didnt they do some real time? The NSPCC was relatively new. Bringing parents to justice for abuse was new. The law was geared to punishing death, not abuse (similar to poor Mary from the previous episode). Thank you again for your kind comment and support!🙏
The case for contraception is very compelling
well said! 👍
As always I enjoyed your video but with no reflection on the job you did l found the 2nd story very hard to watch and was very put out by the little slap on the hand punishment especially the woman reserved l can't refur to her as mother 😢
Quite! We thought the article was important. The article at the time was not important - it was a filler story to show the good work that the relatively new child protective service had been doing. It was a buried small story. Yes, some real time woud have been far more appropriate! The legal system at the time was more geared towards punishing murder than abuse. We believe the judge was restricted in what he could actually throw at them. We know that two of the children recovered. We do not know what happened to the "parents" 😢
How perverted to do this to a child shameful.
Really shameful! And what almost makes it worse - or is a commentary of the time - is that the second article was a filler article, buried in the back pages. Not considered important. We woudl like to think that at least here in the UK, we have come a long way in this area. 🙏
The woman and man at the end,were fortunately stopped by their neighbors and a charity sponsored by the government for child protection, before she could finish drugging and starving her child.
No doubt her stating blatantly to her negʻgʻighbor, that she couldn't pay her rent because she had to pay the premiums on the two insurance polices she acquired for an infant at a time of high infant mortality, and when the child was not old enough to work or upper class enough to have his death be a loss to the mother long term in a financial respect. I suspect she has done it before successfully with another infant child of hers or another relative of some sort. The way she nonchalantly told her neighbor that she double insured her baby and that it's death would leave her swollen enough in dough to pay the rent she couldn't pay, as she rather had to pay the premiums for the policies she expected to gain enough from to cover her debt and give her a slice for herself.
No doubt that highly strange conversation is the source of the complaint that led the inspector to visit her home.
At the time female baby farmers and burial insurance murderers would kill infants by dosing them with laudinum to keep them quiet as they starved them to death. I have no doubt she used this common method of murder amoung serial murderers of the time when dispatching their own or others children to gain by their painful and pitiless deaths.
Her husband may have worked alit as he claimed, but he could not have failed to notice his child starving or his money for the houses upkeep going instead to insurance premiums. He must have known.
As for the woman she was caught red handed in the middle of starving her baby for financial gain.
Both despite their heartless and terrible crime spent less than five months in prison. Sadly they escaped justice and likely had done so before in similar murders that were not detected.
The only good thing to come from all this is that the child was saved by a man who had the power to remove him from the clutches of his mother who almost starved him to death for what amounts to a few hundred bucks.
I feel conflicted. I wish the parents had went to the gallows for the near starvation of their own child who barely escaped with his life due to an alert and decent neighbor. But for that to happen the child would have had to die at their hands.
So I am stuck being happy that they didn't hang, because that means the infant survived and despite their deserving to pay for what they almost succeeded in doing...I am far more satisfied that they failed and the baby was freed from their plot and their care.
Very good as usual. Many of these stories are more complex than they first appear and you walk away having mixed emotions and a puzzle to unwrap like a story within a story. Implied if not stated.
Well said! 👍 In general, we do not tend to do baby farmer or infanticide stories - they are just too heartbreaking. We did this case because of its show on the NSPCC which is a giovernement department - child protection agency. The statement in the paper: "it was the same usual story" speaks volumes of the state of affairs for so many children at the time. We agree with you and your assessment that she had probably done this before. As you can tell from the punishment they received, the law at the time really did not have much in place for abuse - it was geared towards punishing murder. We actually have quite a few stories similar ot the first story where the prime motivation is most certainly to avoid child payments. Thank you! We very much appreciate your thoughts! We hope that we as a society have certainly progressed form those days.🙏
GREED avoiding child support BRINGS DEATH OF BLOOD SON,SHAME ON YOU,FATHER+GPARENTS,now USA :(
Yes, it was rather a horrific story and made all the worse as it comes across from the newspaper article that this was woefully common. It was also not a big story - it was a filler story. We found it tremendously shocking and utterly sad. 😔
Fallowes was so stingy that he was willing to commit murder!! What a DESPICABLE individual!! I reckon his second girlfriend, Mary, had a VERY lucky escape!!
Those poor children in the second case!! How they must've suffered due to their mother's "care"!! How can a BABY wash itself?! Some people should NEVER be allowed to procreate!!
Well done, Robin and team!! This video was VERY educational!! ❤👍👏💞💞
Thank you! Yes, the Fellowes case at the time was relatively famous in its day. It had more to do with that he was a solid middle class well respected young man.
The second case. we could not believe it when we read it. And it was like a filler story, buried in the papers and really meant more to showcase the success of the new NSPCC. The article starts with along the lines of "it was the same sad story..." so this was a common thing. So common, that people were sadly used to it. One just wishes that the parents - and really, it doesnt feel like they should be called that - had done some real time. Thank you for your support!🙏
@@newsofthetimes Sounds like Fallowes wasn't THAT respectable character-wise, anyway!! What an odious toad!!
Was the second case based in Keighley, West Yorkshire?!
@@nadiabrook7871 Hmmmm. we do not currently have access to our database / online papers - so not sure! It just sounds like it was so common that people had become blase about it. Tragic. 😢
@@newsofthetimes We should NEVER become blase about ANY sort of abuse, especially to the weak and vulnerable!!
Animals get a royal society. Children don't, gives you an idea of how Britain rates children.
The NSPCC is called the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. One of our team worked in the department of child protection for 2 years, They take it deadly seriously. There have been some terrible fails, for sure, but we think it is taken seriously on the whole. Thye do good work and we would not want in any way to imply otherwise. It was only just beginning to get the national governement attention it deserved in the late Victorian. Dickens had written repeatedly of the requirement to protect children. You can also see this from him with Oliver Twist and David Copperfield. 🤨
@@newsofthetimes I worked as a gardien ad litem for The Court of Chsncery. I also was working in A&E, in Brighton in '73 when Maria Colwell came in the doors.
I just find it so angering that one for animals has royal patronage, and kids don't warrant it. I know how seriously The NSPCC takes it's work. As a Gardian, I worked closely with them on some cases. It was a very rewarding job, but burn out is always a very real possibility. Thank your friends there, they often made my job so much easier by getting us the information on which to act. Be safe and always stay free.
Galvanic experimentation, was the early stirrings of what went on to become a defibrillator.
Quite right! You know your history!👍 The experiments were expected to watch him rise form the dead. They were quite disappointed.
@@newsofthetimes I have a medical doctor friend, whose passion is The History of Medicine. I worked with him for years, he taught me well. He's a retired anaesthetist. Now the history of that speciality is an interesting tale. Richard Gordon wrote a book on it's beginnings. We've still not got a good handle on how a why it works! Essentially it's controlled poisoning.
@@capt.bart.roberts4975 Really fascinatiing! We have come such a long way from Dr Knox's paying for corpses to dissect!🤨