The Hopetoun Quarry Murder

[Chris Paton]

Hi all,

I had an article published in the Scotsman on Saturday about a murder I have been investigating at the start of the 20th C, and the role of the University of Edinburgh in appropriating the body parts of the victims, two young boys drowned by their father in Hopetoun Quarry. The article is online at http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/magazin ... =933292007.

At issue was the fact that the boys' very well preserved body parts were appropriated by the university in an act described by one of the professors involved as an act of "body snatching". The parts are still retained by the institution, and a cousin wants them released for burial. The state can hold onto specimens if the families give permission, but no-one was consulted back then, and the samples were appropriated before the father was found guilty of their murder.

I'd be interested in people's opinions, it is quite an emotive subject matter.

Chris

[AnnieMack]

What a fascinating story, I really enjoyed reading about it albeit on such a sad and macabre subject.

Personally I feel that the body is a vessel that carries the soul and as such when I or indeed if any of my children were to die I would be prepared to give any part of the body to help another either as a living donation or for research. Without the soul we cease to exist as far as I am concerned. (In case you wonder I am not a practising religious person this is merely personal opinion)

You refer to Alder Hay and at the time I found the whole thing distasteful as some of the parents involved went for substantial monetary compensation and I felt that was at odds with their reasoning as to why they need the childrens bodies intact.

Ultimately though the need to have the bodies buried complete is a decision for the individual and I hope Marella gets some closure on this. Thanks for sharing this with us.

Annie

Note to self - make time to read quality newspapers again

[Chris Paton]

Hi Annie,

Thanks for that. I think the issue here is that nobody was consulted to grant permission for the boys remains to be given to the university. The boys certainly could not speak for themselves, their father was not consulted, and at the time of his arrest was still innocent until proven guilty. Their mother was already dead. No other members of the family were consulted, as can be seen from the professor's book, quoted in the article.

I actually agree with your position, I'm happy for my remains to be used in whichever way can benefit anyone, whether through donor organs or medical research, and I have the relevant donor cards etc. I actually made two TV programmes for the BBC two years ago following the transplant department at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, and know the terrible problems they have in obtaining good quality donor organs. My own grandmother gave her body to Queens University for medical research, but on the condition that her remains were returned to the family for proper disposal after two years (stipulated in her will). The university honoured her wishes, and the family received her remains for cremation in 1981, two years after her death. I do think that differs with what happened here though!

Regards

Chris

[Russell]

Hi Chris

I feel that the underlying difficulty we face in this is making judgements based on our current appreciation of what is moral and right. It is very difficult to alter our thinking to embrace the morality of a past age.
Coming from a medical/nursing background I appreciate the problems of having adequate specimens with which to inform and teach certain aspects of required medical knowledge. Applying that to an age when there was only rudimentary refridgeration capacity and limited chemical understanding of specimen preservation; indeed it was the outstanding process of natural preservation which they wished to convey!
My modern thought processes agree that such specimen collection without permission is awful but the historical, medical part of my brain was fascinated by the opportunity which this situation presented to them.
It is important to keep in mind that children were almost like chattels and could be passed from relative to relative to complete stranger almost without recourse to any legislative process. Who knows how many other body parts were appropriated by Police Surgeons in the course of their duties as a means of teaching his students forensic medicine?
My view is that the boys were viewed as worthless burdens in life; at least in death they have given valuable lessons to many classes of budding doctors.
I am agnostic but like Annie, my feeling that if there is a soul it does not dwell in any part of the mortal body. Unlike the many soldiers on the WWl battlefields who were never found, the boys, or their souls, received whatever blessing was required as they were buried.
May they rest in peace.

Russell

[Chris Paton]

Hi Russell,

Thanks for those thoughts. In principle I agree with much of what you are saying, indeed, so does Maureen, with regard to the needs for teaching materials, but it is the specific circumstances here that are perhaps more problematic. If the boys had been buried and then secretly exhumed - ie a literal act of graverobbing - I think our moral compasses would possibly react more strongly to the situation. I would point out that the moral judgment on what the professors did back then was not based on my modern day perception of events, though I can of course make a comment from that perception - it was in fact the very perception that one of the professors himself had, and hence why he described it as "an act of graverobbing", and his description of the unfolding of events seems to indicate that he himself thought that he had crossed the line morally and ethically in this regard.

It is interesting to note that many specimens of aboriginal bones etc, taken much further back in time from much further away, have been since returned, on pretty much the same moral basis as the events that happened in this case.

I for one would not avocate for a moment that all teaching specimens to be returned for burial, but where there are instances whereby family members do make discoveries such as these - and there will be more discoveries I am sure as genealogy continues to become a much more widespread hobby - should those family members have a right to say whether those specimens can continue to be used, when the original family members were not even consulted? Whilst there can be an agnostic view on the matter, or perhaps a religious perception of a different hue, the point here is that Maureen in fact does have a particular religious point of view on this, and as the first family member to have discovered this, when no-one was consulted originally, should that carry weight?

Chris

[Russell]

Hi Chris

I accept the moral standpoint but there is also a practical consideration.
As the boys were effectively paupers I presumed they were buried in a paupers grave which by the nature of practices then in force means that their actual burial place is acommon grave or even unknown since they were often scattered across various sites in some graveyards.
To now bury the last remains would mean in effect each child having two separate burial places which would be an oequally odd state of affairs.
I was actually quite glad that the anatomy professor recognized the nature of his actions.
It is quite apt that today it was reported on the news about 5 skulls being returned to their native island in the Pacific.
I tend to be a pragmatist when considering mortal remains - to me they are just that. Something we leave behind regardless of where, if anywhere, is our next destination.

Russell

[marilyn morning]

Chris wrote

I'd be interested in people's opinions, it is quite an emotive subject matter.

Hi Chris,

When I first read your thread today, I was reluctant to reply. But after thinking it over for several hours and for the sake of Maureen, I've decided to share my own personal experience on this topic. Before doing so, I wish to say that I both understand, respect and appreciate all of the replys made this far. What I'm about to share is in memory of Heather and please no sympathy is required.

On 28 April 1975 my niece, Heather was born 2 months pre-mature. With her lungs not fully developed ,they were not able to save her life and she passed away on 2 May 1975. She was the only child of my older sister. The day Heather passed away my brother in law, who was a Doctor came to my sister with some papers to sign for the release of the body. Naturally, my sister in her state of mind signed the papers without question, thinking the body was being released to a funeral home to be prepared for burial. Only to find out, that her husband had donated Heather's body to Science. Yes, the papers that my sister signed were a release to a University here in the United States. She never forgave her husband and divorced him shortly afterwards.

Although my sister lives a productive life, she has never fully recovered from her loss and to this day still morns for her child. I know she would pay any amount of money to give her daughter the proper burial that she feels she deserves.

The comfort I find in this sad tale, is every time I read or hear about a pre-mature birth and the child survives, I think of Heather and her contribution to mankind!

My best advice to Maureen would be to leave well enough alone. Although I can fully understand her emotional state of mind, she may wish to consider the benefit of these two boy's memory being preserved to benefit future generations.

Regards
Marilyn

[Chris Paton]

Hi Marilyn,

What an absolutely horrendous situation. It reminds me of a situation that used to exist in Britain, whereby mothers who had given birth to a stillborn child were never given the chance to at least hold their child, as they were immediately removed before they could form any kind of bond to it. Thankfully it is now recognised that that is not the way to deal with the situation, and there is now a still birth register, and funerals for the babies etc. Many women in Britian suffered the same feelings that I am sure your sister did, of not having had a proper burial or time to connect, and charities such as SANDS (Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society) have been working miracles in changing the situation and helping these mothers to come to terms with their losses.

I think one thing to add is that whilst Maureen commissioned this research, she does have her family behind her in the States on this, I think they all feel the same way about it, but I will of course let her know of your unique perception on this, and thank you for sharing that.

Chris

[dycer]

Whilst I cannot comment directly on this case a bit of historical background.
My Father was a Policeman in Fife between 1919 and 1955 and during his service was stationed in St.Andrews.
If a Tramp/Vagrant died in the Town reasonable attempts were made to trace the next of kin.
Where no next of kin could be traced the Body was handed to the University for teaching purposes.
As an aside my Father willed his own body for medical research in Aberdeen in the 1960's.At this time it was impossible for his ashes to be returned and a joint Memorial Service was held.
This does not,however,seem to be the case today as my Mother died last year and Manchester would have taken her body and returned her ashes.Unfortunately the fall-out of the Shipman case meant that a P.M. had to be carried out so I was unable to fulfill her wishes regarding her body
George

[Chris Paton]

Hi George,

That's indeed how it should be done. The difference here was that it seems that these rules weren't followed. If you're following standard procedures, you don't get your partner to distract the police while you take what you want by way of specimens, and then put the lid on the coffin before the police officers can see what you have done. When this happened, there hadn't been enough time to trace the family - the bodies had literally just been discovered, and this happened in Linlithgow where they had just been removed to.

As I've said, from my POV I would not have a problem with this if correct procedures had been followed, but they clearly hadn't in this particular case. Maureen has written to the university, and they so far have not replied. What is the problem with a courteous reply to explain the situation if everything had indeed been done by the book?

I think correct procedures are there for a reason, otherwise it's a license to do what you want regardless, and I feel that that's the crux of the matter here.

Chris