Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining Infanticide: Motives for Murder

  • Chapter
A History of Infanticide in Britain c. 1600 to the Present

  • 1065 Accesses

Abstract

As we saw in Chapter 4, the options for infant disposal that were open to pregnant women in Britain before the twentieth century were limited. Abortion, infant abandonment, wet-nursing and baby-farming were all problematic because of their potential fallibility, the expense they necessitated and the threat they posed to both physical health (in the case of pre-modern terminations) and future security, given that these mechanisms were commonly predicated on the need for the woman concerned to reveal her condition to another party. For many women, when faced with few alternatives, infanticide must have seemed like their only reliable course of action or was their last resort, when other options had failed.2

women who are pregnant, without daring to avow their situation, are commonly objects of the greatest compassion; and generally are less criminal than the world imagine.1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. W. Hunter (1783) ‘On the Uncertainty of the Signs of Murder in the Case of Bastard Children’—A Paper Read to the Members of the Medical Society, p. 5. The essay was published a year later in the journal Medical Observations and Inquiries, 6, pp. 266–90 [University of Glasgow, Sp Coll. Hunterian Add. 279].

    Google Scholar 

  2. For further discussion see J.L. Harrington (2009) The Unwanted Child: The Fate of Foundlings, Orphans and Juvenile Criminals in Early Modern Germany (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press), pp. 51–3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. and C.B. Backhouse (1984) ‘Desperate Women and Compassionate Courts: Infanticide in Nineteenth-Century Canada’, The University of Toronto Law Journal, 34, p. 47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. This is a point reinforced by O. Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide in Eighteenth- Century Germany’, in R.J. Evans (ed.) The German Underworld: Deviants and Outcasts in German History (London: Routledge), p. 114

    Google Scholar 

  5. and R. Schulte (1984) ‘Infanticide in Rural Bavaria in the Nineteenth Century’, in H. Medick and D.W. Sabean (eds.) Interest and Emotion: Essays on the Study of Family and Kinship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See K. Wrightson (1982) ‘Infanticide in European History’, Criminal Justice History, III, p. 14

    Google Scholar 

  7. as well as K. Wrightson (1975) ‘Infanticide in Earlier Seventeenth-Century England’, Local Population Studies, XV, p. 19

    Google Scholar 

  8. and A.-M. Kilday (2002) ‘Maternal Monsters: Murdering Mothers in South- West Scotland, 1750–1815’, in Y.G. Brown and R. Ferguson (eds.) Twisted Sisters: Women, Crime and Deviance in Scotland since 1400 (East Linton: Tuckwell), p. 193.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For further discussion see M. Kamler (1988) ‘Infanticide in the Towns of the Kingdom of Poland in the Second Half of the 16th and the First Half of the 17th Century’, Acta Poloniae Historica, 58, pp. 44, 46 and 49;

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Wilson (1988) ‘Child Abandonment and Female Honour in Nineteenth- Century Corsica’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 30, p. 762;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. and J. Dalby (1995) ‘Women and Infanticide in Nineteenth- Century Rural France’, in V. Shepherd, B. Brereton and B. Bailey (eds.) Engendering History: Caribbean Women in Historical Perspective (London and Kingston, Jamaica: James Currey and Ian Randle), p. 338.

    Google Scholar 

  12. For further acknowledgement of this problem see G.K. Behlmer (1979) ‘Deadly Motherhood: Infanticide and Medical Opinion in Mid- Victorian England’, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, XXXIV, p. 415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. For further discussion see Kilday (2002) ‘Maternal Monsters’, p. 170;

    Google Scholar 

  14. P.C. Hoffer and N.E.C. Hull (1984) Murdering Mothers: Infanticide in England and New England 1558–1803 (New York: New York University Press), p. 145;

    Google Scholar 

  15. and Dalby (1995) ‘Women and Infanticide’, p. 346.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P.A. Gilje (1983) ‘Infant Abandonment in Early Nineteenth- Century New York City: Three Cases’, Signs, 8, p. 583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. See Wrightson (1982) ‘Infanticide in European History’, p. 6 and Wrightson (1975) ‘Infanticide in Earlier Seventeenth- Century England’, p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  18. B. Mandeville (1723, 1772 edition) The Fable of the Bees: Or, Private Vices, Public Benefits–Volume I (Edinburgh: J. Wood) [Bodleian Library, ESTCT77574], pp. 45–6.

    Google Scholar 

  19. For further discussion see M. Jackson (1996) New- Born Child Murder: Women, Illegitimacy and the Courts in Eighteenth- Century England (Manchester: Manchester University Press), p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  20. E. Darwin ‘Letter to Unknown Man, 7th February 1767’, in D. King- Hele (2007) (ed.) The Collected Letters of Erasmus Darwin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 76.

    Google Scholar 

  21. For further discussion see Jackson (1996) New- Born Child Murder, p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hunter (1783) ‘On the Uncertainty of the Signs of Murder’, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. For further discussion see Jackson (1996) New-Born Child Murder, p. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  24. For further discussion see T. Laquer (1989) ‘Bodies, Details and the Humanitarian Narrative’, in L. Hunt (ed.) The New Cultural History (Berkley: University of California Press), pp. 176–205

    Google Scholar 

  25. and Jackson (1996) New-Born Child Murder, Chapter 5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mandeville (1723, 1772 edition) The Fable of the Bees, p. 46

    Google Scholar 

  27. and Hunter (1783) ‘On the Uncertainty of the Signs of Murder’, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  28. For further discussion of the social stratification of the validity of shame with regard to infanticide trials see R.W. Malcolmson (1977) ‘Infanticide in the Eighteenth Century’, in J.S. Cockburn (ed.) Crime in England 1550–1800 (London: Methuen), p. 205;

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jackson (1996) New-Born Child Murder, p. 114;

    Google Scholar 

  30. and T. Rizzo (2004) ‘Between Dishonour and Death: Infanticide in the Causes Célèbres of Eighteenth- Century France’, Women’s History Review, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  31. For further discussion see Jackson (1996) New-Born Child Murder, p. 125.

    Google Scholar 

  32. C. Hodgson (1800) A Letter from a Magistrate in the Country, to his Medical Friend at Peterborough (Peterborough), p. 2

    Google Scholar 

  33. cited in Jackson (1996) New- Born Child Murder, p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  34. For further discussion see Jackson (1996) New- Born Child Murder, p. 117;

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kilday (2002) ‘Maternal Monsters’, p. 167;

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, p. 127; and

    Google Scholar 

  37. P.M. Prior (2008) Madness and Murder: Gender, Crime and Mental Disorder in Nineteenth- Century Ireland (Dublin: Irish Academic), p. 139.

    Google Scholar 

  38. A. Rowlands (1997) ‘“In Great Secrecy”: The Crime of Infanticide in Rothenburg ob der Tauber, 1501–1618’, German History, 15, p. 191.

    Google Scholar 

  39. For further discussion see L. Abrams (2002) ‘From Demon to Victim: The Infanticidal Mother in Shetland, 1699–1802’, in Y.G. Brown and R. Ferguson (eds.) Twisted Sisters: Women, Crime and Deviance in Scotland since 1400 (East Linton: Tuckwell), p. 182

    Google Scholar 

  40. and U. Rublack (1999) The Crimes of Women in Early Modern Germany (Oxford: Clarendon), p. 184.

    Google Scholar 

  41. In certain regions and communities across pre- modern Europe, illegitimacy was not seen as problematic and rather it was regularly welcomed by society. For further discussion see Schulte (1984) ‘Infanticide in Rural Bavaria’, p. 84;

    Google Scholar 

  42. R. Sauer (1978) ‘Infanticide and Abortion in Nineteenth- Century Britain’, Population Studies: A Journal of Demography, XXXII, pp. 84–5;

    Google Scholar 

  43. P.M. Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children in England, 1580–1800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 40;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. R. Mitchison and L. Leneman (1998) Girls in Trouble: Sexuality and Social Control in Rural Scotland 1660–1780 (Edinburgh: Scottish Cultural Press);

    Google Scholar 

  45. and L. Leneman and R. Mitchison (1998) Sin in the City: Sexuality and Social Control in Urban Scotland 1660–1780 (Edinburgh: Scottish Cultural Press).

    Google Scholar 

  46. For further discussion see Rowlands (1997) ‘“In Great Secrecy”’, p. 192;

    Google Scholar 

  47. Harrington (2009) The Unwanted Child, pp. 43–4;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Kilday (2002) ‘Maternal Monsters’, p. 172;

    Google Scholar 

  49. A.-M. Kilday (2008) ‘“Monsters of the Vilest Kind”: Infanticidal Women and Attitudes towards their Criminality in Eighteenth- Century Scotland’, Family and Community History, 11, pp. 103–4;

    Google Scholar 

  50. and Wrightson (1982) ‘Infanticide in European History’, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  51. For further discussion see Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, p. 49;

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, p. 128;

    Google Scholar 

  53. R. Roth (2001) ‘Child Murder in New England’, Social Science History, XXV, p. 113;

    Google Scholar 

  54. and Dalby (1995) ‘Women and Infanticide’, p. 356.

    Google Scholar 

  55. For further discussion see Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, p. 128

    Google Scholar 

  56. and Rublack (1999) The Crimes of Women, p. 184.

    Google Scholar 

  57. For further discussion see Rizzo (2004) ‘Between Dishonour and Death’, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Anonymous (1861) ‘The Prevalence of Infanticide’, Magdalen’s Friend, 2, p. 34 [British Library, P.P. 1098b].

    Google Scholar 

  59. For further discussion see N. Lonza (2002) ‘“Two Souls Lost”: Infanticide in the Republic of Dubrovnik (1667–1808)’, Dubrovnik Annals, 6, p. 87;

    Google Scholar 

  60. Harrington (2009) The Unwanted Child, p. 42;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, p. 130;

    Google Scholar 

  62. Wilson (1988) ‘Child Abandonment’, p. 774;

    Google Scholar 

  63. and Abrams (2002) ‘From Demon to Victim’, p. 186.

    Google Scholar 

  64. For further discussion see Lonza (2002) ‘“Two Souls Lost”’, pp. 79 and 84;

    Google Scholar 

  65. Malcolmson (1977) ‘Infanticide’, p. 193;

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kamler (1988) ‘Infanticide’, pp. 43–4;

    Google Scholar 

  67. and Harrington (2009) The Unwanted Child, p. 41.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  68. For further discussion see Malcolmson (1977) ‘Infanticide’, pp. 193 and 203;

    Google Scholar 

  69. D. Cooper Graves (2006) ‘“…In a Frenzy While Raving Mad”: Physicians and Parliamentarians Define Infanticide in Victorian England’, in B.H. Bechtold and D. Cooper Graves (eds.) Killing Infants: Studies in the Worldwide Practice of Infanticide (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen), p. 113;

    Google Scholar 

  70. Harrington (2009) The Unwanted Child, p. 44;

    Google Scholar 

  71. Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, p. 43;

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wrightson (1982) ‘Infanticide in European History’, p. 7;

    Google Scholar 

  73. Rublack (1999) The Crimes of Women, p. 165;

    Google Scholar 

  74. M. Oberman (2002) ‘Understanding Infanticide in Context: Mothers Who Kill, 1870–1930 and Today’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 92, pp. 722–3;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. and Backhouse (1984) ‘Desperate Women’, p. 458.

    Google Scholar 

  76. For further discussion see Wilson (1988) ‘Child Abandonment’, p. 766. See also, for, the case against Jane Evan, heard at the Court of Great Sessions in Wales and mentioned below.

    Google Scholar 

  77. For further discussion see Malcolmson (1977) ‘Infanticide’, p. 187;

    Google Scholar 

  78. Backhouse (1984) ‘Desperate Women’, pp. 448 and 458;

    Google Scholar 

  79. Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, p. 73;

    Google Scholar 

  80. and K.D. Watson (2008) ‘Religion, Community and the Infanticidal Mother: Evidence from 1840s Rural Wiltshire’, Family and Community History, 11, p. 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. For further discussion see Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, pp. 35 and 41–2;

    Google Scholar 

  82. Roth (2001) ‘Child Murder in New England’, p. 120;

    Google Scholar 

  83. Malcolmson (1977) ‘Infanticide’, p. 193;

    Google Scholar 

  84. Rublack (1999) The Crimes of Women, p. 164;

    Google Scholar 

  85. and Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  86. For further discussion see M.L. Arnot (2000) ‘Understanding Women Committing Newborn Child Murder in Victorian England’, in S. D’Cruze (ed.) Everyday Violence in Britain, 1850–1950 (Harlow: Pearson), p. 59;

    Google Scholar 

  87. Dalby (1995) ‘Women and Infanticide’, p. 338;

    Google Scholar 

  88. Roth (2001) ‘Child Murder in New England’, p. 114;

    Google Scholar 

  89. Oberman (2002) ‘Understanding Infanticide in Context’, p. 724;

    Google Scholar 

  90. Cooper Graves (2006) ‘“…In a Frenzy”’, p. 132;

    Google Scholar 

  91. and A.R. Higginbotham (1989) ‘“Sin of the Age”: Infanticide and Illegitimacy in Victorian London’, Victorian Studies, 32, p. 326.

    Google Scholar 

  92. R. Bellamy (1995) (ed.) Cesare Beccaria–On Crimes and Punishments and Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  93. For further discussion see Hunter (1783) ‘On the Uncertainty of the Signs of Murder’, pp. 8–9;

    Google Scholar 

  94. Harrington (2009) The Unwanted Child, p. 70;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  95. J.R. Dickinson and J.A. Sharpe (2002) ‘Infanticide in Early Modern England: The Court of Great Sessions at Chester, 1650–1800’, in M. Jackson (ed.) Infanticide: Historical Perspectives on Child Murder and Concealment 1550–2000 (Aldershot: Ashgate), p. 49;

    Google Scholar 

  96. Wrightson (1982) ‘Infanticide in European History’, p. 7;

    Google Scholar 

  97. Kilday (2002) ‘Maternal Monsters’, p. 171;

    Google Scholar 

  98. Rowlands (1997) ‘“In Great Secrecy”’, pp. 198–99;

    Google Scholar 

  99. Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, p. 120;

    Google Scholar 

  100. and Oberman (2002) ‘Understanding Infanticide in Context’, p. 737.

    Google Scholar 

  101. For further discussion see Dalby (1995) ‘Women and Infanticide’, p. 359;

    Google Scholar 

  102. Rowlands (1997) ‘“In Great Secrecy”’, p. 197;

    Google Scholar 

  103. Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, p. 132;

    Google Scholar 

  104. and Backhouse (1984) ‘Desperate Women’, p. 448.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Harrington (2009) The Unwanted Child, p. 44.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  106. Kamler (1988) ‘Infanticide’, pp. 43 and 49.

    Google Scholar 

  107. See also Wilson (1988) ‘Child Abandonment’, p. 767, who agrees that poverty was rarely used as an excuse in infanticide trials.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, pp. 129–30.

    Google Scholar 

  109. See, for instance, Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, pp. 113–14;

    Google Scholar 

  110. Schulte (1984) ‘Infanticide in Rural Bavaria’, p. 90;

    Google Scholar 

  111. Rublack (1999) The Crimes of Women, p. 188;

    Google Scholar 

  112. Cooper Graves (2006) ‘“…In a Frenzy”’, p. 114;

    Google Scholar 

  113. Roth (2001) ‘Child Murder in New England’, p. 114;

    Google Scholar 

  114. M.N. Wessling (1994) ‘Infanticide Trials and Forensic Medicine: Württembergs 1757–93’, in M. Clark and C. Crawford (eds.) Legal Medicine in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 124;

    Google Scholar 

  115. and Kilday (2008) ‘“Monsters of the Vilest Kind”’, p. 101.

    Google Scholar 

  116. See, for instance, Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, p. 35

    Google Scholar 

  117. as well as Arnot (2000) ‘Understanding Women Committing Newborn Child Murder’, pp. 57–8;

    Google Scholar 

  118. R. Smith (1983) ‘Defining Murder and Madness: An Introduction to Medicolegal Belief in the case of Mary Ann Brough, 1854’, Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, 4, p. 182;

    Google Scholar 

  119. Prior (2008) Madness and Murder, pp. 119 and 139;

    Google Scholar 

  120. Higginbotham (1989) ‘“Sin of the Age”’, p. 321;

    Google Scholar 

  121. and Sauer (1978) ‘Infanticide and Abortion’, p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  122. For further discussion see Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, p. 39;

    Google Scholar 

  123. Schulte (1984) ‘Infanticide in Rural Bavaria’, p. 85;

    Google Scholar 

  124. Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, pp. 116–17;

    Google Scholar 

  125. Higginbotham (1989) ‘“Sin of the Age”’, p. 327;

    Google Scholar 

  126. K. O’Donovan (1984) ‘The Medicalisation of Infanticide’, Criminal Law Review, 259, p. 260;

    Google Scholar 

  127. and Dalby (1995) ‘Women and Infanticide’, p. 353.

    Google Scholar 

  128. M. Daly and M. Wilson (1988) Homicide (New York: Aldine de Gruyter), p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  129. For more on poverty being a key motivation for infanticide in the pre- modern period see Rowlands (1997) ‘“In Great Secrecy”’, p. 192

    Google Scholar 

  130. and Harrington (2009) The Unwanted Child, p. 44.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  131. Oberman (2002) ‘Understanding Infanticide in Context’, p. 723.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Ibid. See also Kilday (2002) ‘Maternal Monsters’, p. 172;

    Google Scholar 

  133. Higginbotham (1989) ‘“Sin of the Age”’, p. 321;

    Google Scholar 

  134. and Daly and Wilson (1988) Homicide, p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  135. For more detailed discussion see Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, pp. 57–8.

    Google Scholar 

  136. For further discussion of the precarious nature of women’s employment in the pre- modern period, with particular reference to single women, see especially Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, pp. 58–9;

    Google Scholar 

  137. Harrington (2009) The Unwanted Child, pp. 45–6;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  138. Hoffer and Hull (1984) Murdering Mothers, p. 115;

    Google Scholar 

  139. Backhouse (1984) ‘Desperate Women’, p. 448;

    Google Scholar 

  140. and Watson (2008) ‘Religion, Community and the Infanticidal Mother’, p. 125.

    Google Scholar 

  141. See, for instance, A.-M. Kilday (2007) Women and Violent Crime in Enlightenment Scotland (Woodbridge: Boydell)

    Google Scholar 

  142. and especially R.A. Cage (1981) The Scottish Poor Law, 1745–1845 (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press), especially the maps on pp. 35–6 and 38–9.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  144. For further discussion see L. Hollen Lees (1998) The Solidarities of Strangers: The English Poor Laws and the People, 1700–1948 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  145. and various chapters in P. King, P. Sharpe and T. Hitchcock (eds.) Chronicling Poverty: The Voices and Strategies of the English Poor, 1640–1840 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  146. Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, pp. 37–8.

    Google Scholar 

  147. For some evidence that fathers rarely paid maintenance of this kind see Schulte (1984) ‘Infanticide in Rural Bavaria’, p. 89

    Google Scholar 

  148. and Harrington (2009) The Unwanted Child, p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  149. For further discussion see Arnot (2000) ‘Understanding Women Committing Newborn Child Murder’, p. 57;

    Google Scholar 

  150. C.L. Krueger (1997) ‘Literary Defences and Medical Prosecutions: Representing Infanticide in Nineteenth- Century Britain’, Victorian Studies, XL, p. 274;

    Google Scholar 

  151. A. Hunt (2006) ‘Calculations and Concealments: Infanticide in Mid- Nineteenth- Century Britain’, Victorian Literature and Culture, 34, p. 72;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Higginbotham (1989) ‘“Sin of the Age”’, p. 320;

    Google Scholar 

  153. and Cooper Graves (2006) ‘“…In a Frenzy”’, p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Anonymous (1871) Infant Mortality: Its Causes and Remedies (Manchester: Ireland and Co), pp. 14–15 [Accessed from the University of Illinois Urbana- Champaign Library at http://archive.org/details/infantmortalityi00manc from the Talbot Collection of British Pamphlets, Ref. 5526548].

    Google Scholar 

  155. For further discussion see Malcolmson (1977) ‘Infanticide’, p. 187;

    Google Scholar 

  156. Oberman (2002) ‘Understanding Infanticide in Context’, p. 725;

    Google Scholar 

  157. O’Donovan (1984) ‘The Medicalisation of Infanticide’, p. 260;

    Google Scholar 

  158. Behlmer (1979) ‘Deadly Motherhood’, p. 415;

    Google Scholar 

  159. and Roth (2001) ‘Child Murder in New England’, p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  160. See L. Rose (1986) The Massacre of the Innocents: Infanticide in Britain 1800–1939 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul), Chapters 15 and 16 and also Cooper Graves (2006) ‘“…In a Frenzy”’, p. 114

    Google Scholar 

  161. and Kilday (2007) Women and Violent Crime, p. 76.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Rose (1986) The Massacre of the Innocents, pp. 136–7.

    Google Scholar 

  163. For further evidence of this across Europe and North America in the pre- modern period see Rublack (1999) The Crimes of Women, p. 163;

    Google Scholar 

  164. Watson (2008) ‘Religion, Community and the Infanticidal Mother’, p. 129;

    Google Scholar 

  165. Hoffer and Hull (1984) Murdering Mothers, p. 115;

    Google Scholar 

  166. Hunt (2006) ‘Calculations and Concealments’, p. 71;

    Google Scholar 

  167. and Behlmer (1979) ‘Deadly Motherhood’, p. 416.

    Google Scholar 

  168. For further discussion of altruism as a motive for new- born child murder see Watson (2008) ‘Religion, Community and the Infanticidal Mother’, p. 128;

    Google Scholar 

  169. Oberman (2002) ‘Understanding Infanticide in Context’, p. 734;

    Google Scholar 

  170. Arnot (2000) ‘Understanding Women Committing Newborn Child Murder’, p. 54;

    Google Scholar 

  171. Gilje (1983) ‘Infant Abandonment’, p. 583;

    Google Scholar 

  172. and P.J. Resnick (1969) ‘Child Murder by Parents: A Psychiatric Review of Filicide’, American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, p. 329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Hunter (1783) ‘On the Uncertainty of the Signs of Murder’, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  174. See, for instance, V. McMahon (2004) Murder in Shakespeare’s England (London and New York: Hambledon and London);

    Google Scholar 

  175. G. Walker (2003) Crime, Gender and Social Order in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  176. J. Kermode and G. Walker (1994) (eds.) Women, Crime and the Courts in Early Modern England (London: Routledge);

    Google Scholar 

  177. J. Hurl-Eamon (2005) Gender and Petty Violence in London, 1680–1720 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  178. L. Zedner (1992) Women, Crime and Custody in Victorian England (Oxford: Oxford University Press);

    Google Scholar 

  179. Kilday (2007) Women and Violent Crime

    Google Scholar 

  180. and A.-M. Kilday (2005) ‘Women and Crime’, in H. Barker and E. Chalus (eds.) Women’s History: Britain 1750–1800–An Introduction (Abingdon: Routledge), pp. 174–93.

    Google Scholar 

  181. See also Rowlands (1997) ‘“In Great Secrecy”’, pp. 179 and 196 for further evidence of this.

    Google Scholar 

  182. See, for, instance Abrams (2002) ‘From Demon to Victim’, p. 196;

    Google Scholar 

  183. Dalby (1995) ‘Women and Infanticide’, p. 359;

    Google Scholar 

  184. Wilson (1988) ‘Child Abandonment’, p. 774;

    Google Scholar 

  185. Resnick (1969) ‘Child Murder by Parents’, p. 330;

    Google Scholar 

  186. Rublack (1999) The Crimes of Women, p. 195;

    Google Scholar 

  187. and Wrightson (1982) ‘Infanticide in European History’, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  188. For further discussion see R. Leboutte (1991) ‘Offense against Family Order: Infanticide in Belgium from the Fifteenth Through the Early Twentieth Centuries’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 2, p. 183;

    Google Scholar 

  189. Hoffer and Hull (1984) Murdering Mothers, p. 154;

    Google Scholar 

  190. Behlmer (1979) ‘Deadly Motherhood’, p. 415;

    Google Scholar 

  191. and Roth (2001) ‘Child Murder in New England’, p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  192. For further discussion see Kilday (2002) ‘Maternal Monsters’, pp. 172–3;

    Google Scholar 

  193. Schulte (1984) ‘Infanticide in Rural Bavaria’, p. 91;

    Google Scholar 

  194. Rowlands (1997) ‘“In Great Secrecy”’, p. 197;

    Google Scholar 

  195. and Resnick (1969) ‘Child Murder by Parents’, p. 330.

    Google Scholar 

  196. See, for instance, M. Jackson (1995) ‘Developing Medical Expertise: Medical Practitioners and the Suspected Murders of New- Born Children’, in R. Porter (ed.) Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam: Rodopi), p. 157

    Google Scholar 

  197. and R. Smith (1981) Trial by Medicine: Insanity and Responsibility in Victorian Trials (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), p. 144.

    Google Scholar 

  198. For further discussion see Jackson (1995) ‘Developing Medical Expertise’, p. 155

    Google Scholar 

  199. and D. Rabin (2002) ‘Bodies of Evidence, States of Mind: Infanticide, Emotion and Sensibility in Eighteenth- Century England’, in M. Jackson (ed.) Infanticide: Historical Perspectives on Child Murder and Concealment, 1550–2000 (Aldershot: Ashgate), p. 74.

    Google Scholar 

  200. Jackson (1996) New- Born Child Murder, p. 119.

    Google Scholar 

  201. For further discussion see, for instance, Jackson (1995) ‘Developing Medical Expertise’, pp. 155–6;

    Google Scholar 

  202. Daly and Wilson (1988) Homicide, p. 67;

    Google Scholar 

  203. Jackson (1996) New- Born Child Murder, p. 128;

    Google Scholar 

  204. and Krueger (1997) ‘Literary Defences and Medical Prosecutions’, p. 217.

    Google Scholar 

  205. For further discussion see H. Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood: Insanity and Childbirth in Victorian Britain (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 182–3;

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  206. H. Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder? Puerperal Insanity, Infanticide and the Defence Plea’, in M. Jackson (ed.) Infanticide: Historical Perspectives on Child Murder and Concealment, 1550–2000 (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 182–3;

    Google Scholar 

  207. Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, p. 41;

    Google Scholar 

  208. Dalby (1995) ‘Women and Infanticide’, p. 358;

    Google Scholar 

  209. Prior (2008) Madness and Murder, p. 124;

    Google Scholar 

  210. and Ulbricht (1988) ‘Infanticide’, p. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  211. Rabin (2002) ‘Bodies of Evidence’, pp. 86–7.

    Google Scholar 

  212. See also D.Y. Rabin (2004) Identity, Crime, and Legal Responsibility in Eighteenth- Century England (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  213. J.P. Eigen (2003) Unconscious Crime: Mental Absence and Criminal Responsibility in Victorian London (Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press), p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  214. Hunter (1783) ‘On the Uncertainty of the Signs of Murder’, pp. 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  215. For further discussion of the association between childbirth and mental incapacity see Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, pp. 9–27;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  216. Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 173;

    Google Scholar 

  217. Jackson (1995) ‘Developing Medical Expertise’, p. 157;

    Google Scholar 

  218. Prior (2008) Madness and Murder, p. 126;

    Google Scholar 

  219. R. Smith (1981) Trial by Medicine: Insanity and Responsibility in Victorian Trials (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), p. 150;

    Google Scholar 

  220. L. Gowing (1997) ‘Secret Births and Infanticide in Seventeenth- Century England’, Past and Present, p. 88;

    Google Scholar 

  221. Jackson (1996) New- Born Child Murder, pp. 120 and 123;

    Google Scholar 

  222. and J.P. Eigen (1995) Witnessing Insanity: Madness and Mad- Doctors in the English Court (New Haven and London: Yale University Press), p. 148.

    Google Scholar 

  223. NRS, Justiciary Court North Circuit Records, JC11/62. See also Crawford (2010) Parents of Poor Children, p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  224. For further discussion see Rabin (2002) ‘Bodies of Evidence’, p. 74;

    Google Scholar 

  225. Wrightson (1982) ‘Infanticide in European History’, p. 11;

    Google Scholar 

  226. and A. Loughnan (2012) ‘The “Strange” Case of the Infanticide Doctrine’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 32, pp. 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  227. A. Alison (1832) Principles of the Criminal Law of Scotland (Edinburgh: Blackwood), p. 159 [Bodleian Library, Cw UK Scotl 510 A413].

    Google Scholar 

  228. For further discussion see Smith (1981) Trial by Medicine, p. 148;

    Google Scholar 

  229. Eigen (2003) Unconscious Crime, p. 71;

    Google Scholar 

  230. Prior (2008) Madness and Murder, p. 119;

    Google Scholar 

  231. and Anonymous (1871) Infant Mortality, p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  232. For further discussion see Eigen (2003) Unconscious Crime, p. 79;

    Google Scholar 

  233. C. Quinn (2002) ‘Images and Impulses: Representations of Puerperal Insanity and Infanticide in Late Victorian England’, in M. Jackson (ed.) Infanticide: Historical Perspectives on Child Murder and Concealment, 1550–2000 (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 193–4;

    Google Scholar 

  234. K.D. Watson (2011) Forensic Medicine in Western Society—A History (Abingdon: Routledge), p. 108; and Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  235. L. Zedner (1991) Women, Crime and Custody in Victorian England (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 90.

    Google Scholar 

  236. H. Marland (1999) ‘At Home with Puerperal Mania: The Domestic Treatment of the Insanity of Childbirth in the Nineteenth Century’, in P. Bartlett and D. Wright (eds.) Outside the Walls of the Asylum: The History of Care in the Community 1750–2000 (London and New Brunswick, NJ: Athlone), p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  237. See, for instance, Gowing (1997) ‘Secret Births’, pp. 107–8;

    Google Scholar 

  238. Leboutte (1991) ‘Offense against Family Order’, p. 173;

    Google Scholar 

  239. Schulte (1984) ‘Infanticide in Rural Bavaria’, p. 89;

    Google Scholar 

  240. Wilczynski (1991) ‘Images of Women Who Kill their Infants’, p. 80;

    Google Scholar 

  241. N. Theriot (1990) ‘Nineteenth- Century Physicians and “Puerperal Insanity”’, American Studies, 26, p. 81;

    Google Scholar 

  242. and Abrams (2002) ‘From Demon to Victim’, pp. 186, 194 and 198–9.

    Google Scholar 

  243. For further discussion of the history of puerperal insanity see C.L. Meyer and M.G. Spinelli (2003) ‘Medical and Legal Dilemmas of Postpartum Psychiatric Disorders’, in M.G. Spinelli (ed.) Infanticide: Psychological and Legal Perspectives on Mothers Who Kill (Washington, DC and London: American Psychiatric Publishing), p. 168;

    Google Scholar 

  244. Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, passim;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  245. various articles in J.A. Hamilton and P.N. Harberger (1992) (eds.) Postpartum Psychiatric Illness: A Picture Puzzle (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press);

    Google Scholar 

  246. Eigen (1995) Witnessing Insanity, p. 142;

    Google Scholar 

  247. Eigen (2003) Unconscious Crime, p. 72;

    Google Scholar 

  248. and T.M. Twomey and S. Bennett (2009) Understanding Postpartum Psychosis: A Temporary Madness (London and Westport, CT: Praeger), p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  249. See Twomey and Bennett (2009) Understanding Postpartum Psychosis, p. 32. For the purposes of this volume, I will use the term puerperal insanity to describe this condition and all its variants. Lactational insanity has never been associated with instances of infanticide as it was considered to be an illness linked to over- exhaustion and malnutrition rather than direct action.

    Google Scholar 

  250. See Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, p. 150;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  251. Twomey and Bennett (2009) Understanding Postpartum Psychosis, p. 32;

    Google Scholar 

  252. and Quinn (2002) ‘Images and Impulses’, p. 198.

    Google Scholar 

  253. See K. Johnson Kramar and W.D. Watson (2006) ‘The Insanities of Reproduction: Medico- Legal Knowledge and the Development of Infanticide Law’, Social and Legal Studies, 15, p. 242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  254. and M.G. Spinelli (2004) ‘Maternal Infanticide Associated with Mental Illness: Prevention and the Promise of Saved Lives’, American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, p. 1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  255. See, for instance, Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, p. 6.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  256. For further discussion see Quinn (2002) ‘Images and Impulses’, pp. 196–7;

    Google Scholar 

  257. Watson (2011) Forensic Medicine, p. 108;

    Google Scholar 

  258. and Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 176.

    Google Scholar 

  259. For further discussion see Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, pp. 172 and 179;

    Google Scholar 

  260. Twomey and Bennett (2009) Understanding Postpartum Psychosis, pp. 36 and 38;

    Google Scholar 

  261. Quinn (2002) ‘Images and Impulses’, p. 195;

    Google Scholar 

  262. Marland (1999) ‘At Home with Puerperal Mania’, p. 50;

    Google Scholar 

  263. Theriot (1990) ‘Nineteenth- Century Physicians’, p. 73;

    Google Scholar 

  264. and I. Lambie (2001) ‘Mothers Who Kill: The Crime of Infanticide’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24, p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  265. Marland (1999) ‘At Home with Puerperal Mania’, p. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  266. See also Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, p. 38;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  267. Theriot (1990) ‘Nineteenth- Century Physicians’, p. 73;

    Google Scholar 

  268. and N. Walker (1968) Crime and Insanity in England—Volume One: The Historical Perspective (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), p. 125.

    Google Scholar 

  269. See, for instance, Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, pp. 3 and 28–64

    Book  Google Scholar 

  270. and Quinn (2002) ‘Images and Impulses’, p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  271. With regard to the sudden but serious nature of puerperal insanity see, for instance, Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, p. 2;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  272. Walker (1968) Crime and Insanity in England—Volume One, p. 127;

    Google Scholar 

  273. Rabin (2002) ‘Bodies of Evidence’, p. 77;

    Google Scholar 

  274. Eigen (1995) Witnessing Insanity, p. 38;

    Google Scholar 

  275. Prior (2008) Madness and Murder, p. 122;

    Google Scholar 

  276. and Eigen (2003) Unconscious Crime, p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  277. For further discussion of the treatment of this condition see Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, pp. 44 and 50–63;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  278. Marland (1999) ‘At Home with Puerperal Mania’, pp. 45–65;

    Google Scholar 

  279. Twomey and Bennett (2009) Understanding Postpartum Psychosis, p. 26;

    Google Scholar 

  280. Theriot (1990) ‘Nineteenth- Century Physicians’, p. 74;

    Google Scholar 

  281. Quinn (2002) ‘Images and Impulses’, p. 200;

    Google Scholar 

  282. and J. Andrews (2002) ‘The Boundaries of Her Majesty’s Pleasure: Discharging Child- Murderers from Broadmoor and Perth Lunatic Department, c.1860–1920’, in M. Jackson (ed.) Infanticide: Historical Perspectives on Child Murder and Concealment, 1550–2000 (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 216–48.

    Google Scholar 

  283. See, for instance, Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, pp. 35–7;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  284. Marland (1999) ‘At Home with Puerperal Mania’, pp. 51–2;

    Google Scholar 

  285. Theriot (1990) ‘Nineteenth-Century Physicians’, p. 70;

    Google Scholar 

  286. Smith (1981) Trial by Medicine, p. 151;

    Google Scholar 

  287. and A.-U. Rehman, D. St. Clair and C. Platz (1990) ‘Puerperal Insanity in the 19th and 20th Centuries’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 156, pp. 861–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  288. See, for instance, Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, pp. 5 and 175;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  289. Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 191;

    Google Scholar 

  290. and Rabin (2002) ‘Bodies of Evidence’, p. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  291. For further discussion see Hoffer and Hull (1984) Murdering Mothers, p. 146;

    Google Scholar 

  292. Watson (2008) ‘Religion, Community and the Infanticidal Mother’, p. 117;

    Google Scholar 

  293. Eigen (2003) Unconscious Crime, p. 83;

    Google Scholar 

  294. and O’Donovan (1984) ‘The Medicalisation of Infanticide’, p. 264.

    Google Scholar 

  295. See, for instance, W. Burke Ryan (1862) Infanticide: Its Law, Prevalence, Prevention, and History (London) [Bodleian Library, (OC) 151 c/345]

    Google Scholar 

  296. and for further discussion see Johnson Kramar and Watson (2006) ‘The Insanities of Reproduction’, pp. 241–2.

    Google Scholar 

  297. See Wrightson (1982) ‘Infanticide in European History’, p. 16;

    Google Scholar 

  298. Eigen (2003) Unconscious Crime, p. 71;

    Google Scholar 

  299. and Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 168.

    Google Scholar 

  300. The M’Naghten Rules (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, McNaughton) were a reaction to the acquittal of Daniel M’Naghten. They arise from the attempted assassination of the British Prime Minister, Robert Peel, in 1843, by Scottish woodcutter Daniel M’Naghten. In actuality, M’Naghten fired a pistol at the back of Peel’s secretary, Edward Drummond, who died five days later. The House of Lords asked a panel of judges a series of hypothetical questions about the defence of insanity. The principles pronounced by this panel have come to be known as the M’Naghten Rules, even though they have only gained status through usage in the common law and M’Naghten himself would have been found guilty if they had been applied to his own trial. The rules formulated from M’Naghten’s Case (1843 10 C and F 200) have been a standard test for criminal liability in relation to mentally disordered defendants in various common law jurisdictions ever since, albeit with some minor adjustments. After deliberation, the House Of Lords declared that: ‘the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong’. When the tests set out by the rules are satisfied, the accused may be adjudged ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ or ‘guilty but insane’ and the sentence may be a mandatory or discretionary (but usually indeterminate) period of treatment in a secure facility, or otherwise at the discretion of the court (depending on the country and the offence charged), instead of a more punitive disposal. For further discussion see House of Lords Decisions, 10 C and F. 200 and 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843) and also Twomey and Bennett (2009) Understanding Postpartum Psychosis, pp. 54–7;

    Google Scholar 

  301. Eigen (2003) Unconscious Crime, p. 78;

    Google Scholar 

  302. J. Macfarlane (2003) ‘Criminal Defense in Cases of Infanticide and Neonaticide’, in M.G. Spinelli (ed.) Infanticide: Psychological and Legal Perspectives on Mothers Who Kill (Washington, DC and London: American Psychiatric), p. 145;

    Google Scholar 

  303. and Rabin (2002) ‘Bodies of Evidence’, p. 76.

    Google Scholar 

  304. Eigen (1995) Witnessing Insanity, p. 144.

    Google Scholar 

  305. See also Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 178

    Google Scholar 

  306. and T. Ward (1999) ‘The Sad Subject of Infanticide: Law, Medicine and Child Murder’, Social and Legal Studies, VIII, p. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  307. For further discussion see Cooper Graves (2006) ‘“…In a Frenzy”’, p. 131;

    Google Scholar 

  308. Quinn (2002) ‘Images and Impulses’, pp. 196 and 200;

    Google Scholar 

  309. Eigen (1995) Witnessing Insanity, p. 148;

    Google Scholar 

  310. S. Day (1985) ‘Puerperal Insanity: The Historical Sociology of a Disease’ (Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge), passim;

    Google Scholar 

  311. Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 182;

    Google Scholar 

  312. and Eigen (2003) Unconscious Crime, p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  313. For further discussion see Watson (2011) Forensic Medicine, pp. 108–9;

    Google Scholar 

  314. Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, pp. 172–3;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  315. and Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  316. This argument, and the evidence from the case studies presented below, is somewhat at odds with that contended by Tony Ward, who claims that puerperal insanity only applied to married women and older children—see Ward (1999) ‘The Sad Subject of Infanticide’, p. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  317. For further discussion see Smith (1981) Trial by Medicine, p. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  318. For further discussion see Marland (1999) ‘At Home with Puerperal Mania’, p. 48

    Google Scholar 

  319. and Quinn (2002) ‘Images and Impulses’, p. 200.

    Google Scholar 

  320. For further discussion see Wessling, ‘Infanticide Trials’, pp. 137–8; Rizzo, ‘Between Dishonour and Death’, pp. 6 and 11; A. Wilczynski (1991) ‘Images of Women Who Kill their Infants: The Mad and the Bad’, Women and Criminal Justice, 2, pp. 72 and 77;

    Google Scholar 

  321. Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, p. 171;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  322. Quinn (2002) ‘Images and Impulses’, p. 200;

    Google Scholar 

  323. Smith (1981) Trial by Medicine, p. 160;

    Google Scholar 

  324. Prior (2008) Madness and Murder, p. 131;

    Google Scholar 

  325. and Theriot (1990) ‘Nineteenth-Century Physicians’, pp. 74 and 81.

    Google Scholar 

  326. See Theriot (1990) ‘Nineteenth- Century Physicians’, p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  327. For further discussion see Smith (1981) Trial by Medicine, pp. 144 and 150;

    Google Scholar 

  328. Lambie (2001) ‘Mothers Who Kill’, p. 72;

    Google Scholar 

  329. and Cooper Graves (2006) ‘“…In a Frenzy”’, p. 135.

    Google Scholar 

  330. Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 177.

    Google Scholar 

  331. See also Twomey and Bennett (2009) Understanding Postpartum Psychosis, p. 26

    Google Scholar 

  332. and C.L. Meyer and M.G. Spinelli (2003) ‘Medical and Legal Dilemmas of Postpartum Psychiatric Disorders’, in M.G. Spinelli (ed.) Infanticide: Psychological and Legal Perspectives on Mothers Who Kill (Washington, DC and London: American Psychiatric Publishing), p. 169.

    Google Scholar 

  333. For further discussion see Quinn (2002) ‘Images and Impulses’, p. 197;

    Google Scholar 

  334. Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, pp. 201–9;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  335. Wilczynski (1991) ‘Images of Women Who Kill their Infants’, p. 75;

    Google Scholar 

  336. Lambie (2001) ‘Mothers Who Kill’, p. 72;

    Google Scholar 

  337. and Watson (2011) Forensic Medicine, p. 110.

    Google Scholar 

  338. For further discussion see Ward (1999) ‘The Sad Subject of Infanticide’, p. 169;

    Google Scholar 

  339. Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 170;

    Google Scholar 

  340. and Watson (2011) Forensic Medicine, p. 111.

    Google Scholar 

  341. See, for instance, Marland (2004) Dangerous Motherhood, pp. 142–50;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  342. Watson (2008) ‘Religion, Community and the Infanticidal Mother’, p. 129;

    Google Scholar 

  343. and Marland (2002) ‘Getting Away With Murder?’, p. 183.

    Google Scholar 

  344. See Daly and Wilson (1988) Homicide, p. 68;

    Google Scholar 

  345. Smith (1981) Trial by Medicine, p. 148;

    Google Scholar 

  346. and Theriot (1990) ‘Nineteenth- Century Physicians’, p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  347. For a fuller description of motive categorisation in relation to infanticide see Hoffer and Hull (1984) Murdering Mothers, p. 145.

    Google Scholar 

  348. Hoffer and Hull (1984) Murdering Mothers, pp. 157–8.

    Google Scholar 

  349. See also Kilday (2007) Women and Violent Crime, pp. 73–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Brookes University, UK

    Anne-Marie Kilday (Professor of Criminal History and Pro Vice-Chancellor & Dean)

Authors
  1. Anne-Marie Kilday
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2013 Anne-Marie Kilday

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kilday, AM. (2013). Explaining Infanticide: Motives for Murder. In: A History of Infanticide in Britain c. 1600 to the Present. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137349125_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137349125_6

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-36140-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-34912-5

  • eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation