
Which serial killer was described as the WORST villain to ever set foot in the Old Bailey? New Mail podcast explores the horrifying history of murderous doctors that terrorised Victorian England
In the latest episode of the Mail's 'An Appointment with Murder' podcast, forensic psychiatrist Dr. Andrew Johns and police surgeon Dr. Harry Brunjes examine the Victorian period's most notorious medical murderers.
Medical murderers are those who pervert their positions of trust, as doctors or nurses, to prey on the public.
As modern medicine emerged during the Victorian period, so too did a new breed of killer – doctors who turned healing into harm.
One medical murderer featured on the podcast has been almost forgotten by history, but in his day was described by Charles Dickens as 'the worst villain to ever set foot in the Old Bailey'.
His name was William Palmer, but the press knew him as 'Palmer the Poisoner', after his role in one of the most notorious murder cases of the 19th century.
Palmer the Poisoner
William Palmer, born in Rugeley, Staffordshire in 1824, was a doctor who used cyanide and strychnine to systematically murder family members and friends for financial gain.
His subsequent trial became one of the first high-profile poisoning cases to capture national attention.
'Before Jack the Ripper, there was William Palmer', Dr Harry Brunjes told the podcast.
'William studied medicine in London and qualified at the age of 22. He had a reputation different from most doctors – he was known to be profligate, a drinker, a womaniser and a gambler.
'He poisoned family and friends for money – to cash in on a legacy or an insurance policy.
'The case which brought him to public attention was that of John Cook, a friend who he had murdered by poisoning in 1855. Palmer received £12,000 from Cook, which in today's money would be worth £1.2 million.'
Before his conviction and execution for Cook's murder, Palmer is believed to have killed several family members, including his wife, brother, mother-in-law, and four of his children.
As a doctor, Palmer could sign his own family members' death certificates, suspiciously listing 'convulsions' as the cause of death for all of his children.
The era worked in his favour - potent poisons like strychnine and cyanide were relatively new and produced symptoms that mimicked common diseases like cholera.
High infant mortality rates also provided cover, making it believable that one family could lose four children in the unsanitary conditions of Victorian cities.
'It was thought that he killed his children to avoid the expense', Dr Harry Brunjes explained.
'He also found a way to stop more children recurring, because he killed his wife Anne Palmer, not long after taking a life insurance policy out against her.
'He gave her a diagnosis of cholera, but poisoning was later the suspicion. A year after killing his wife, he killed his brother, Walter, who died shortly after William took out an insurance policy.
'Later that year, he murdered Cook and in 1856, was hanged at Stafford prison.'
Palmer was caught when a post-mortem examination of John Cook revealed evidence of poisoning, leading to his immediate arrest for murder.
While Palmer may be overshadowed by other notorious Victorian murderers, his crimes have an enduring legacy, as Dr. Andrew Johns explained.
'Palmer's preferred poison was strychnine added to an alcoholic drink. His notoriety gives us the expression, what's your poison – when you're asked – what would you like to drink?'
For a complete and chilling history of medical murderers of the Victorian period, search for An Appointment with Murder now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Watchdog slams UK for response to domestic abuse
The Council of Europe has criticised the UK for not having enough spaces in women's shelters, saying that vital services are underfunded and understaffed due to cost-cutting measures. A report by the Council of Europe found that austerity has weakened crucial services and women's rights organisations, hindering the UK's ability to meet its obligations under the Istanbul Convention. Data indicates there are only 5,238 family places in UK shelters, falling short of the required 6,800 based on the UK population of 68 million, leading to women fleeing domestic abuse being turned away. The council said that insufficient training of police, prosecutors, and judges is linked to critically low charging rates for violence against women. The UK government said it plans to publish a new strategy to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Disgraced popstar Gary Glitter refused prison release
Gary Glitter, the disgraced pop star convicted of multiple child sex offences, will remain in jail after his bid for release was rejected. The Parole Board announced its decision following a paper review of Glitter's case, whose real name is Paul Gadd. Glitter, 81, was sentenced to 16 years in 2015 for the sexual abuse of three schoolgirls between 1975 and 1980. Having served half of his sentence, he was automatically released from HMP The Verne on Portland, Dorset in February 2023. Less than six weeks after his release, Glitter was rearrested and imprisoned for breaching his licence conditions. Reports indicated that he had attempted to access the dark web and view downloaded images of children. In a statement, a spokesman for the Parole Board said: 'We can confirm that a panel of the Parole Board refused the release of Paul Gadd following a paper review. 'Parole Board decisions are solely focused on what risk a prisoner could represent to the public if released and whether that risk is manageable in the community. 'A panel will carefully examine a huge range of evidence, including details of the original crime, and any evidence of behaviour change, as well as explore the harm done and impact the crime has had on the victims.' Parole judges review the cases of criminals who are recalled to prison to decide whether they should be re-released or stay behind bars for the rest of their sentence. Glitter's last parole hearing happened in January 2024. If the Parole Board does not recommend him for release in future, he will walk free when his sentence expires in February 2031. 'Parole reviews are undertaken thoroughly and with extreme care. Protecting the public is our number one priority,' the Parole Board spokesman added. 'Under current legislation, he will be eligible for a further review in due course. The date of the next review will be set by the Ministry of Justice.' In April, Glitter was made bankrupt after failing to pay more than £500,000 in damages to one of his victims, her lawyers said. Richard Scorer, head of abuse law and public inquiries at Slater and Gordon – who represents one of Glitter's victims, said the decision is 'absolutely right' but warned of the 'nightmare' his client faces each time the 81-year-old is up for review. 'The decision made by the parole board is absolutely right,' Mr Scorer said. 'My client is relieved at this ruling but is understandably apprehensive about the continued nightmare of Gadd coming up for parole again, and the fear of him being let out on licence. 'This is unfair on victims and it would be better if our clients could be assured that he would serve the rest of his sentence.'


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Gary Glitter denied jail release
Gary Glitter, the convicted child sex offender, will remain in jail after the Parole Board rejected his bid for release following a paper review of his case. Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was sentenced to 16 years in 2015 for the sexual abuse of three schoolgirls and was automatically released in February 2023 after serving half of his sentence. He was rearrested less than six weeks after his release for breaching his licence conditions, with reports indicating he attempted to access the dark web and view images of children. The Parole Board stated that its decisions are solely focused on the risk a prisoner could represent to the public if released and whether that risk is manageable in the community. Richard Scorer, representing one of Glitter's victims, said the decision was 'absolutely right' but warned of the 'nightmare' his client faces each time Glitter is up for review.