September 18, 2025 • 49 mins
Everyone loves a good medieval whodunit, but how did real people investigate homicides in the Middle Ages? What did they look for? And how did they decide if a person’s death was an unfortunate accident or foul play? This week, Danièle speaks with Sara Butler about forensic medicine, and how death investigation was conducted in medieval England.
You can support this podcast on Patreon - go to https://www.patreon.com/medievalists
You can support this podcast on Patreon - go to https://www.patreon.com/medievalists
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hi, everyone, and welcome to episode three hundred and seven
of the Medieval Podcast. I'm your host Danielle Sebalski. Everybody
loves a good Who'd done it? Sifting through clues and
(00:23):
witness testimony trying to find the truth at the heart
of a murder mystery. So it's not surprising that some
of the most beloved fictional medieval characters are those who
are thrust into detective work. But the question is how
did real medieval people investigate crimes? What do they look
for and how did they decide if a person's death
was an unfortunate accident or foul play. This week, I
(00:48):
spoke with doctor Sarah Butler about forensic medicine and death
investigation in the medieval world. Sarah is professor and King
George the Third Chair in British History, as well as
being the director of the Center for Historical Research at
Ohio State University. She's also the author of several books,
including Divorce in Medieval England, From One to Two, Persons
(01:09):
at Law, The Language of Abuse, Merit of Violence in
Later Medieval England, and most recently, Pain Penance and protest
Pain foute adieux in Medieval England. Today though, we're looking
at one of Sarah's earlier works, Forensic Medicine and Death
Investigation in Medieval England. Our conversation on how death investigation
(01:31):
was conducted, who was involved, and how we know about
medieval forensics is coming up right after this. Well, thank
you Sarah for being on the podcast. I've wanted to
talk to you about this book for Ages, and here
we are. We're finally making it work. It's so nice
to meet you.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Welcome well, and I'm absolutely delighted to be here and
as well to finally have a chance to meet you.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Yeah, I mean we are vibing already. People can't see you,
but your lipstick is on point today, just so they
know that's my hard. We have a professional in the
studio today, so we're going to be talking about forensics.
We're gonna be talking about the process of investigating debt.
So we need to start at the beginning with the coroner.
(02:19):
So who is this guy? How do they get the job?
What is the job?
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Okay, So I think it's important to note that the
coroner in the Middle Ages is not a medical practitioner.
Corner is also not a lawyer. These are sort of
the images that we get I think when we watch TV.
Really the coroner is just a rich guy and that's
what makes him qualified for the job because he can
(02:46):
afford to do it, He has the time, and he
has the money to travel, and he's either appointed or
elected sort of depending on where he is coming from
and whether or not he's a county foreigner, or if
he is a coroner for a specific borough or a
liberty or something along those lines. These are you know,
(03:07):
sort of independent jurisdictions within England. Basically, his job is
to go out there and deal with any sudden or unexpected,
unnatural deaths and figure out what happened. And he's best
qualified to do it because he doesn't really have anything
else going on in his life.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
So if we're really old school and we're pitching like
Quincy MD, who's got people in his office, he's putting
them on a table because he's a doctor, we're not
talking about the same thing. We're talking about a guy
whose job is completely different and does have some detective
work involved, which I'm super excited to get into. But
one of the distinctions that you make that's really important
(03:49):
in the book is a coroner is not the same
as a sheriff, So tell us who the sheriff is.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Okay, so one really big difference here, So sheriffs first
of all, After like the twelveth I think it's the
twelve seventy inquests of sheriffs, the position of sheriff becomes
a yearly appointment because the sheriffs are so important in
the shire the county that everybody is worried about them
being corrupt. So one of the ways to prevent that
(04:18):
is by saying, okay, it's a year appointment, so how
much damage can you do in a year? And I
think that is something that really helps, because the sheriff
is the guy who is the most important King's official
in the county. His job, from what I can tell,
his job is to sit there every day with a
basket of rits from the king, opening each one of
(04:41):
them up and then telling his bailiffs to head out
and do these things that he needs to do. He
spends a lot of time assembling in quests, which is,
you know, just basically finding juries to take care of problems.
But it's a busy job. So the coroner in some
way was kind of created as a bit of a
(05:02):
check on the sheriff, but the sheriff is also supposed
to be a check on the coroner. I mean, I'm
sort of assuming the two were probably good buddies a
lot of the time because they had to do a
lot of work together, and you don't find too many
situations where you know, coroners are riting out sheriffs or
vice versa, so they had to find a way to
work together. But they'd end up being two quite different positions,
(05:23):
in part because the sheriff is there for a year
at a time, and you find people are often sheriffs
successively in different counties, and they will go back and
be a sheriff multiple times in the same county. So
sometimes it's you know, people do that a bit, but
often corners are former sheriffs, so they know what's going
on the coronership though it's a life appointment. So I
(05:48):
think what most people are doing is they're doing different
offices out there, corner bailiff constable, things like this or sorry,
sheriff bailiff constant well, and the hope that eventually they'll
get that plum position of a corner and then they
can just do that until they die. But yeah, it
(06:09):
requires a lot of working together, I think. And it's
the same group of men who are filling these positions generally.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Yes, well, and it's important to figure out how they
get to have the knowledge to do these jobs because,
as you say, they're not medical practitioners. Corners are not
medical practitioners. They're also not lawyers. So how do they
learn how to do the job?
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Yeah, you learn it by being in one of those
families that's constantly working in the fields. I kind of
think of this as sort of like a medieval blue bloods.
You know, Oh dad's a coroner. Oh my brother is
a sheriff. Uncle Joe has been working as a baila
for the last couple of years. You're in one of
those families that does this work, so you know what happens,
(06:55):
you know what's going on. It does seem to be
the same families who dominate over and over in these positions, right.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
And there's one more aspect that I think we need
to clarify before we get to the fun stuff, and
that is it's also a position that deals with finances.
So one of the lines that you have in the
book is that death, what did you say, Death is
highly profitable for the king. So what does this mean?
Speaker 2 (07:18):
It is? And actually that's one of the things that
I was most surprised by when I first entered this field.
I remember, actually in the first year of my PhD,
my doctoral advisor Cynthia Neville, saying something to me about,
you know, the profits of justice, and I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Oh,
justice is not supposed to be profitable, and she said, oh,
that is such a modern way of faking, and it
(07:42):
is really important to look at things that way. So
I will say that a lot of justice in this
period I don't think is actually all that profitable, but
criminal justice sure was. It was one of those areas
where the king made away like a bandit, which you know,
there's a real irony to that. Yeah, So I mean
the king could make a lot of money off of death,
(08:03):
in particular, because if somebody is dead and another person
is responsible for it, then that other person is going
to be considered a felon and have all of their goods,
both landed property and movables confiscated to the king. And
I realized that often we end up with felons who
(08:25):
don't own that much, but some did own a lot,
and that was useful. But on top of that, accidental
deaths are also another situation where the king made money
because if a person is run over by a cart,
for example, well there's always a possibility that the cart
and all of its goods, whatever it was holding, might
(08:46):
actually be confiscated to the king. Now, a lot of
people will sit back and say, it should only be
the part of the cart that moves, i e. That
should be held responsible as a murderer. So maybe the
cart wheels, but we find quite a puce of situations
where everything is confiscated. On top of that, there are
a lot of procedural faults we discover that end up
(09:08):
leading to the finding of communities that also make the
king money. This is, you know, somebody forgot to raise
the hue and cry the four nearest vills close to
the person where that person died. They're supposed to show
up for the coroner's inquest. If they don't, or it
just even one of them forgets, they're going to get fined.
It's all of these tiny little finds out there that
(09:31):
ad up so really it ends up being very profitable
for the king.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Right And so one of the points that you really
really stress in the book is that this does not
mean that the coroner is corrupt. It means that what
he's trying to record, the purpose of the job is
different than what it might be today.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Right, And this really shapes the records, which I think
is one of the most important points, particularly when you
compare these records to what's going on in the continent
the content. When you have a death, sometimes the records
you can have, like you know, fifty folios about it
with all these witness depositions and stuff like that. But
it's a different system there, and the records serve a
(10:12):
different purpose the corrin's roles. They're really about the king
wanting to know, Hey, where's my money, what's going on
with it? I mean often there is way more when
it comes to an inventory of the possessions of the
accused than anything else. Like none of the investigative process
is there. So when you're the historian who's using these records,
(10:36):
you spend a lot of time sort of looking between
the lines to try and figure out what actually happened.
And yes, it is important not to think, oh, the
coroner only cares about money. It's the records, it's it's
not the coroner.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Yes, And I mean, what does he need to write
down if it's all already in his head. He's already
got that. He just needs something that's going to prompt
him to remember the details if he's asked about it later,
right exactly.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
And that's the thing. I mean, he's going to be
at the trial. It's part of his job. So really
the record is okay, quick little mnemonic device? What happened?
Oh yeah, I remember that one. So it's not that
important to have everything down on paper. It's really hard
for us sometimes to look back at it because again,
we have expectations that are not being met. But I
(11:27):
think we have to remember they're not us.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Yes, they're not us. And while we've spent a bunch
of time shaping this, I think it's so important that
we do that because when we go through the procedure,
we need to remember that they're not us. So yeah,
we need to just set this up first. Okay, so
let's get into the fun stuff. I'm just like a
farmer in a field and I'm walking out to my
(11:52):
field and I find a body. What do I do?
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Will you scream? That's required by law. It's called the
hue and cry. You have to run and scream, but
run and scream with purpose. You are alerting all of
your neighbors, and your neighbors once they hear the human cry,
they're expected to come out and join that procession. The
point is you are alerting the authorities and the four
(12:18):
nearest vills because you want everybody to know that a
murder has taken place, because for all you know, the
murderer might still be in the area and this hole
running around and screaming might flush the person out. There's
also you know, everybody's supposed to join. Hey, when you
look back later and start thinking, hu, is there anyone
(12:40):
who didn't join the human cry, that's a great opportunity
to think, could there be a reason person the murderer?
I mean, there's a lot going on with this process.
It's about alerting people, disseminating the news so everybody knows,
and everybody knows quickly. But it's also, hey, something terrible
has happened. Start thinking, is there anybody you know who
(13:02):
might be responsible? Was there any suspicious behavior going on?
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Yes? And I mean it does a bunch of things,
like it establishes the time when this body was found
and we have to remember there's no police force. So
if you raise the human cry and somebody is running away,
they can be apprehended. They might not otherwise be So yeah,
this is a very important part of the process.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
It is, It definitely is. And then you know, hopefully
through this whole process, word will be sent out to
the coroner, and the coroner hopefully we'll get there quickly.
Now there are four corners for every county. Sometimes they
work alone, sometimes they work in pairs. The goal is
to get them there as quickly as possible. It isn't
(13:46):
always possible for them to be there quickly. Sometimes it
takes a little bit of time. The one important point, though,
is there has to be I mean, I use the
term seen integrity because that's the term that gets used today.
It's not a medieval term, but it's clearly what they
were striving for. Don't touch the body, you know, you
want that body left in place because they want to
(14:09):
examine the body. I mean, the body is definitely going
to be undressed before they get there because they need
to see the body naked. But it would be nice
to keep that body without any you know, further bruising
or anything. Happening to it afterwards as a result of mismanagement.
So they have to guard the body until the coroner
(14:31):
gets there.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
That's right, and it's not exactly don't move it, as
you're saying, why would they have to remove the clothes
from the body, maybe even before the corner gets there.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Yeah, so clothing in this period is really expensive. People
don't own that many clothes, and because of this, clothing
actually ends up having value and is used for paying taxes.
This is something we don't think about. It is clear
that in some areas the clothes were actually used to
pay the coroner, which I still think is just weird
(15:02):
and wonderful. But if not, they were going to end
up being used to pay your local priest who's going
to perform the burial. So it's a form of payment
more than anything else. And you know, you have to
make sure that those clothes then aren't going to be stolen.
So I think that the family would probably want to
(15:23):
remove the clothes just to secure them and make sure
that nothing happens before they're needed.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Yes. Well, and there's another reason that you need to
touch the body, and that is to establish are they
really dead? Because this is not super easy.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
It isn't super easy. I know that when you read
like treatises in this period, they do talk about pulse
and things like that, but I'm sure if you've ever
tried to take somebody else's pulse before, you know, sometimes
it can be kind of heart and you know, if
a person isn't breathing all that well, etc. It can
be really difficult. And they do the idea of putting
(15:57):
things in front of a person's lips to see if
any wind is coming out, and that seems to be
the major priority. But on top of that, I think
they're probably also going to look at the body and
see do we have any wounds that look like mortal wounds,
just to make sure this guy's really dead.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Right, yes, because there are times when it is hard
to tell. They don't have a mirror to play against
the face. They might have a thread that might work,
but without you say in the book, without a stavscope,
you might not be able to tell the heart's beating.
Like it's a lot harder to tell than we might imagine.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Well, and if you ever read miracle stories from this period,
the number of people who are miraculously to return to
life after prayers to a saint suggest to me that
they really weren't very good at this. Sorry not to
not to destroy people's faith here, but I think some
of those people just may not have been dead.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Yes, well, I mean I love it. We can call
it a miracle and maybe a miss take at the
same time, they don't have to be mutually exclusive, right, exactly,
all right? So the coroner shows up, what's the first
thing that they do? What do they start doing?
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Well, actually, I think even before the coroner gets there,
a corner works with a jury, and the jury was
probably assembled and ready and waiting by the time the
coroner arrived. Now, they're not supposed to get to work
until the coroner shows up, but it seems pretty clear
that once the coroner's there, they're already there. They have
(17:32):
been chosen from the locality, and they already have been
talking to people and have some good ideas of what's
going on. So the coroner's inquest. They're a funding group.
In a lot of ways. This is definitely a group
of jurors, but not jurors in the way we see
jurors in the modern era. Today, we have this idea
that jurors should be impartial and have you know, evidence
(17:53):
fed to them that is not at all the idea
of a jury in the Middle Ages. In the Middle
Age were supposed to be witnesses of sorts, not eyewitnesses.
But you know, the idea that because they're from the area,
they know what's going on, because they know the people,
they can talk to the people. It seems like too
(18:15):
often these jurors are people who might be from the
same profession as the person who died, so you know,
not necessarily family or friends, but you know, colleagues of sorts.
It also seems clear that sometimes they would put people
whose knowledge they needed on these jurors. And spending a
(18:37):
lot of time looking over jury list, it became clear
to me that there are some folks who seem to
make it on there a little bit more often than others.
Barbers in particular, seemed to make it on there when
they needed a medical opinion. Now again, I know, we
don't necessarily think of barbers as being medical professionals. They
had the knives, meant they had everything you needed not
(19:00):
only to cut your hair, but to perform a little
bit of surgery. Farmers were usually people who knew all
about anatomy, and there were more plentiful than a lot
of the other medical professionals out there. Doctors and university
trained surgeons. There are very few of them in England
at all. England didn't even have the schools to train
(19:21):
them for that, you had to get training on the continent.
And when we did have physicians, quite frankly, they usually
were foreigners who were working for rich people. Regular people
went to their moms for medicine, or if things got
really dire, to a barber, or to a pharmacist or
someone in an apothecarry someone like that out there. But
(19:44):
it does seem like in really difficult situations they might
need to call in someone like that. But these are
the people then who are going to sit on the
jury and they are going to help the coroner with
the investigation, you know, the corner in charge. But the
corner is also an outsider, so he's sort of relying
(20:04):
on their inside knowledge to get the job done. And
the inquest, every mail over the age of fourteen in
that area and the four closest bills are supposed to
show up to the inquest, and it seems clear that
a lot of the inquest is about asking questions. You know,
they'll divide people up into you know, groups that would
(20:27):
be not necessarily intimidating. So don't put the rich people
and the poor people together. That's not a good idea.
Keep people the same level of society altogether, so they're
not going to feel that they can't answer honestly. So
there's a lot of questioning being asked. But then they're
also going to look at the scene of the crime.
When you look at something like Bracton the legal treatise
(20:50):
from the thirteenth century, it says, you know, look around
for horseprints, cart tracks, see if there's a trail of blood,
ask people if they have any idea what happened, and
then start tracking down that person. They're whereabouts, where were
they the night before? Whose home did they stay at?
You know, are there any known associates. They also want
(21:12):
to ask about that person's family history. Now part of
that is determining that that person is actually English, because
we go back far enough and could say that person
was Norman, then there was a fine that was due.
But I think a big part then is also figuring
out who's this person? Can we find their family, what
can you tell us about them? Do you know, honestly
where they are right now. So a lot of questioning
(21:36):
is going on. They're also looking at the scene and
then finally they're looking to the body as well.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Well I love that, well this entire book, but you
have this part about looking at the actual scene of
the crime because I think that because the legal system
is different, people today might imagine that nobody cared about
forensic nobody can heard about the crime scene. They found
a body and they're like, oh, well, let's bury it,
but this is not what happened.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Yeah, So, I mean the body. They're not doing autopsies.
But the one thing that I always like to point
out to people, we watched way too much TV and
on TV autopsies left, right and center. But autopsies are expensive.
They don't do that many autopsies today either and quick. Frankly,
sometimes when looking at a body, you don't really need
to do an autopsy because you know what killed them.
(22:27):
There's an acts sticking out of your chest. We can
be pretty darn shirt with the acts that killed you.
So I mean, like autopsies aren't always necessary, but this
is it. They are looking at the bodies. The body
is naked, they roll it over to make sure that
they're looking at all parts of the body so that
they can see if there are any sort of smaller
(22:48):
wounds that may be important. They have to figure out
which one was the mortal wound, so which one actually
killed you, Which means so they're looking at, you know,
the with the depths of the wounds. They want to
measure all of this so that they can put it
up against a weapon if they find a bloody weapon somewhere.
(23:08):
But they also want to get a good sense of
does it look like this was enough to kill a person.
That's also really important in those instances where you know,
there was an assault and then a person died maybe
a couple of days later, trying to figure out could
that assault have killed them or did the person maybe
you know, just catch a flu or something and die
(23:29):
because of that. So, I mean they're looking at a
lot of things on those fronts. Bracton again, when you
go back to Bracton practice says look for strangulation marks
around the neck. There's another good Corners manual out there
that suggests if a body was found in the water,
sit on the chest and see if it expels any water.
(23:49):
I mean, I think that these are a lot of
things that we're just assuming they're not really doing, because
if they're not doing autopsies, they're not doing anything. But
that's that's absolutely not the case. They're not doing autopsies,
and I kind of think actually the reason there has
something to do with what Katie Parks has argued, which
is that up north in Europe, they're convinced that it
(24:13):
takes about a year for the soul to leave the body,
so you don't want to mess with the body because
you might be endangering the soul. I actually see that
as something that fits in well with a lot of
the Revenant stories that sort of pop up. So I'm
convinced of that. But no matter why they aren't doing autopsies.
But just because they're not doing autopsies doesn't mean they
(24:34):
don't care about the body. They do, and they realize
that in a lot of ways, the body is kind
of speaking for the dead. Let's listen to it by
paying attention to the body.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Yes, And this is one of the parts I love
messed about the book is you're like, it's systematic, it's logical.
They are recognizing that you could kill a body first
to kill a person throw the body in a lake
or something, and then it wouldn't have any water in
the lungs, which means they understand how drowning works. And
I actually thought that sitting on the body to expel
(25:05):
the water is genius. I wouldn't have thought of that,
but it is probably a really effective way, as effective
as these things get to figure this out, because you
do need to know what happened. Is it accidental? Is
it not accidental? Because there were a lot of drownings
at this time and you want to find out is
it accidental or is it murder because that's a big difference.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Well, it really is, And I mean, this is the
thing I get. It is interesting there were a lot
of drownings. I am always shocked when going through the
coroner's roles. I'm left wondering did nobody teach these people
to swim? It's astounding how many times somebody heads off
to take a bath and never comes back. So, I mean,
this is the thing. When confronted with a lot of
(25:48):
drowning deaths, it would be very easy to just sit
back and say, oh, another person should have learned to
swim but didn't. But they aren't. They are being careful
with all of this to try and figure out what happened. So,
I mean that is something Again, it impresses me. I
think a lot of people tend to think that the
medieval legal system, the law enforcement system in particular, was
(26:10):
very inefficient and you know, corrupt, and they weren't really
worried about catching anyone. I really don't think that's the case.
It does seem to me that they were determined to
resolve these matters whenever they could, because it's about restoring
peace and harmony to a community, and that's not going
to happen. And if everybody is worried that there's a
(26:31):
murderer in the midst who should be.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Punished, yes, and again, when it comes to what's happening
to somebody, say they catch a murderer, they may not
always make sure that they're strung up. They may expel
them from the community, and that's because the priorities are different.
If they're not in the community anymore, then they're not
a danger to the community. It's fine, it's done. And
so we have to pay attention to these cultural differences.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Yeah, this is another one of the elements that I
do end up talking a bit about in the book.
I've written about it elsewhere too. Again, a lot of
people are very scornful. I think about the medieval law
enforcement system because they are very high rates of acquittal.
It is true, most people are acquitted, and you know what,
(27:16):
a lot of those people probably did it. One of
the things that is very different between then and now
is they didn't have gradations and punishment. I mean, the
only punishment that existed for a felony was execution. But
there are a lot of times where people can sit
back and say, yeah, I know so and so killed
so and so, but I'm not really sure he deserves
(27:38):
to die for it. The other part is I think
that often people were sitting there and saying, you know,
basically time served. This guy sat in prison for four
years waiting for his trial. It was miserable, and prison
back then really was much more miserable than it is
today today. We need you, we can do a place
to sleep, We give you electricity and lighting. In this period,
(28:03):
if you wanted any of that, you had to pay
for it, and they were willing to go through the
goods that they had confiscated from you to extract the money.
So you know, if you were particularly cheap. You might
just say I'll forego the Hey, I don't need a candle,
and then hope that your family might come in to
feed you every now and then. But it could be
(28:25):
pretty dire. And you know, if you sat in prison
for four years, A lot of times I think people
get out and say, yeah, that was that was punishment enough.
I'm not sure that we actually need to convict in
order to punish. So I think something that's really important.
People are using the legal system in ways that it
was not designed. But that's not a sign of failure,
(28:47):
it's a sign of adaptation.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
And this is something that I harp on quite a
lot when I'm talking to people about this, is that
there is a difference between law and justice. And when
we are came out of village where you know the people,
you've known them your whole life, you know the circumstances,
and this is the very reason why the jury's worked
as they did, like witnesses and things. It's different. It's different,
and you can see in your book you have a
(29:12):
few examples of people sort of just tweaking the law
a little bit so that justice is served rather than
just the letter of the law.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Exactly. And you know, I mean I think today as well,
people would say there's a big difference between law and justice,
but we often assume it's because, oh, things have progressed
so much that the legaless has gone crazy, It's gone
so far away from its original goal. You know, our
thinking is not actually that different from their thinking in
(29:40):
the Middle Ages. I mean, I love anything they have
to say about lawyers. They have the most terrible poems
about lawyers in this period. You know, they are saying
they're corrupt, all they want is money. They also are
constantly worried about judges out there, and you know, maybe
they're making these decisions for their own goods rather than,
(30:01):
you know, because it's the right thing to do. So
I think it's important to recognize a lot of what
it comes down to is lawmakers very different values than
the people who use the legal system.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Yes, And I mean we do see this today with
jury's deciding to go their own way, no matter what
they're supposed to be doing. And I think this to
sort of speak to that human experience where we want
justice even if it doesn't quite fit the parameters that
we're supposed to be following. And one of the examples
that you give in the book is when it comes
to suicide, So the coroner shows up, finds a body
(30:36):
and realizes, oh, no, this person has killed themselves. What
are some of the things that might happen in that circumstance.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Yeah, so I will say suicide is a really difficult
situation in this period. I actually suspect that often the
community or maybe the family tried their best to sort
of hide the possibility that it might have been suicide,
or a coroner got there. It's actually astounding. There quite
(31:08):
a few instances where bodies are actually buried when the
coroner shows up and he's like, what's going on here?
So the coroner can demand that it be dug up
so he can do an inquest. One could also expect
that it might be a little bit harder at that
point in time to figure out what kills the person.
But no matter what, I think that there is some
(31:30):
concealment that happens at times, granted at other times possibly not.
They did worry that a person who died before their
time was up could be one of those people who
is going to be coming back as a revenant, a wanderer.
So you have to be really careful about that, because
(31:51):
if that person does come back, then they could come
back to take revenge on their community. So we also
have the popular tradition of varying suicides at crossroads and
hoping that if they do pop back up, they'll wander
in the wrong direction and get somebody else's village. So,
(32:12):
I mean, there's a lot of popular ideology going on
about this, but I do think that there are attempts
by juries at times to also talk about things like, well,
you know, maybe this is one of those suicides that
is excusefule. If a person was thought to be mentally
(32:33):
unstable or not in their right mind, then that's one
of those situations where you can sit back and say, yes,
it was a suicide, but it's not the damning kind
of suicide. So I think again there's a lot at
play here to sort of either soften or harden the
verdict if they want to.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Well, I think that it's an essential part of the
whole process where people are discussing what are the motives,
because if someone can't make a decision for themselves for
whatever reason, and often they will say this person was
just so sad they couldn't have done anything else, and
so how can we condemn them? And so thinking about
this in sort of a community situation, it makes complete sense,
(33:19):
even if it looks very different from here.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Yeah, well and it does. And I mean I have
to say today we do take a very different position.
But at the same time, I mean, I live here
in the US, and there are some states in the
US where suicide is still considered to be a felony.
So we're not that far off, even if it's an
older law that's still on the books that people wouldn't
(33:42):
actually impost. I think it is important to recognize it's
not that long ago that people were still sitting there
and thinking that anybody who killed themselves was a felon,
i e. An absolutely horrific person who should be cast
out from society. I do think today we are inclined
to think that there probably is some sort of mental
(34:03):
illness and that's why a person committed suicide. Kenny is
interesting in itself. It tells you we are very much
in denial of the possibility that a person could very
rationally minded sit back and think, I just don't want
to be part of this anymore. I'm now exiting. We
have trouble accepting that, whereas in the Middle Ages they
clearly sat back and thought, there's some people who are
(34:24):
doing this rationally. Those people should be punished. There are
other people who are not doing this rationally. It was
a bad idea, and it was one that was made
when they were really should not be held responsible for
their actions. So it's a really different world. But again,
I think that a lot of this sort of goes
in trends in our society and we are at a
(34:46):
point where we don't like the whole people responsible. There
is lots to think about on the subject, and clearly
the medieval world was of a very different mindset than
we are in some respects, but not in all.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
Yes, exactly. And one of the ways I thought was
really interesting was you had a case of a person
who was elderly and they died, and the verdict was
poverty and old age, and that is something that we
don't really like to look at in today's society either,
the systemic problems, whereas the medieval world they're like, this
is what happened, so let's just roll with that, exactly.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
And again it's sort of interesting then to think, what
role do those records actually play. I mean, is it
useful in some ways for that information to make it
back to the king. Oh, your subjects are dying from
poverty and old age. You know, maybe that's a good
thing for him to hear and for him to encourage,
(35:42):
for example, more monasteries to open their doors to the elderly,
no matter how poor they were. And in the medieval period,
if you wanted sort of like a retirement plan, you
could give everything you owned to a monastery and say, hey,
look after me for the rest of my life. Because
you had to have money to do that. What happens
when you're old You don't have the money for that,
(36:03):
and you don't have any kids. The odds are pretty good.
The poverty is what's going to kill you.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
Yes, And again this is the community looking straight at this,
So it's worth asking the question. We're talking about responsibility,
we're talking about systemic issues. Who decides whether the person
had a motive or not. Who is the person that
decides whether somebody is mentally competent to stand trial or not?
Speaker 2 (36:26):
Whose job is that it couldn't possibly have been the coroner?
And I mean again, the coroner is the one who's
going to have this attributed to him because it's in
his records, it's his inquest that found it. But he's
from outside the community. He's not going to know. It's
going to be the jury, and the jury is representing
the community. I know it seems wrong to say that
(36:48):
this is a community decision, because that's a really big
grouping we're putting out there, But the coroner's inquest is
representing that community, and it's going to have to be
a group decision. Of the things that I do argue
in the book is I think that often that time
before the coroner showed up was a really critical time,
and particularly for some of these situations, I think that
(37:11):
that's when they made up their minds what they were
going to say, and you know, got everybody on board.
That is the hard part with a community decision. You know,
you all have to sort of be on the same page,
or at the very least the in questury does. So
I think, you know, using that time before the coroner
showed up to talk some of this through, it was
(37:32):
probably a very critical moment.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
Well. And it might seem from the outside like this
is people getting their stories straight, and that this is
perhaps people who are misrepresenting the truth, not telling the
whole truth. But when we think about it, when a
jury is sequestered, they are still making a decision about
what happened, and they're doing it together, so it's not
all that far off.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
It really isn't. And actually, in some ways, this medieval
situation was probably better because one of the problem with
being sequestered is when you're sitting there thinking, oh, wait,
I don't remember exactly what happened there, you have to
go and ask for some sort of record and read it,
Whereas in this situation they can stop and say, hey, Jane,
do you remember what happened here? You know, everybody else
(38:16):
in the community is around and accessible. So I think
it's much easier for them to make the decision because
all the evidence that they have is there at their fingertips.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
Right, And it's not as if they're not going to
have Bill who's saying something different, and they'll have to
weigh both of those opinions together, so there is dissent
and there is discussion, and so you know, justice may
actually be served in the end, whether it looks like
ours or not.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
Well, and on top of that, I think we always
have to ask what we're talking about when we say
the word justice and this is you know, what are
we looking for from the law enforcement system? Are we
looking for punishment or are we looking to get back
to normal? Are we looking to restore the peace that
(39:03):
was in a community? Are we looking to make sure
that there's nobody who is angry at anybody else and
everybody's just kind of happy that the right solution has
been found. And I think that's critical because if we're
totally thinking the legal system system should be putative, well
then okay, we're probably going to be unhappy with the
medieval system often. But if we are looking at it's
(39:26):
about reconciliation between unhappy parties, it's about restoring the peace. Well,
I think they actually did a very good job.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
Yeah, I would agree with you. And I think that
if you standed a whole bunch of people on a
desert island, their idea of justice would not look like
it does in the city that they're currently from, for example. Now,
there is one thing that I forgot to ask earlier,
So this is coming sort of out of left field,
but I think it's really important. And one of the
people who was consulted sometimes for their own witness testimony
(39:56):
is the priest, and that is again something that is
unexpected today. Now the priest knows everybody's business. Are they
allowed to talk about it?
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Well, really difficult situation there, Yeah, probably not, but we
know they often did. I mean one of the biggest
complaints people had about their priests and visitations is that,
you know, they were constantly going to the alehouse and
telling everybody what so and so said in confession. So
know that the seal of Confession was just not respected
(40:31):
in the way that it is today. I mean, how
many times have we seen the movie where you know,
the plot line is the priest knows exactly what happened,
but he can't say a word. I don't really think
that dilemma existed in the same way in the period
and the joy he is Catholicism is a religion of forgiveness.
You get forgiven over and over and over again. So
(40:54):
if he does break the seal, oh well he's going
to be forgiven. And it seems pretty clear that priests
did play a role in all of this. I know
we often are thinking, ah, priests couldn't be jurors. They
seem to have shown up on a lot of jury lists,
and actually, since writing that book, I've found more and
more and more pre sitting on juries. I think that
(41:17):
people liked having priests there because, first of all, they
knew everyone in the community. You know, they knew what
was going on, They know the CD side, they know
all the people that you might have to worry about.
Oh so and so he's a good suspect. I have
you thought of talking to him? I mean, I can
see a lot of situations like that. They're also often literate,
(41:37):
which means if any written documents, for example, need to
be checked, they're the perfect guys to send to, you know,
the guild houses, say hey, let's look at the last
you know, records we had of who had to fight
with whom, and how that may actually have been something
that precipitated this homicide. So I think that there's a
good reason to make sure that the local parish priest
(42:01):
was involved whenever you could.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Yeah, I'm just kind of imagining him being like, well,
I can't really tell you, but if you guess that,
it's not a problem for me and justice will be
served in the end exactly.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
Well, that's the thing. I mean, they live in those
communities it does really make a difference. They know who's
going to be a problem. I mean, especially like who's
more attentive to the disciplinary issues of a community nobody.
The priest is the guy who's in charge. He knows
what's going on from confession, he knows who's most likely
(42:39):
to be harboring bad feelings against someone. So, I mean,
all of this makes them the ideal person to get involved,
not necessarily sitting on the jury at all times, but
at the very least they got to show up to
that inquest. They're going to be asked some questions.
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Well, and in a time when you don't have church
and states separated, a priest is a go person to
have there as well, because if you're trying to make
a decision about what your ruling is going to be,
you need to ask the priest what the fallout is.
And I think this is a really important part of
medieval justice. If I say this is suicide, what's going
to happen to that person's spirit? If I say this
(43:17):
is murder, what's going to happen to mine? If I'm wrong?
So I think that the priest is an important person
to have around in this kind of inquest.
Speaker 2 (43:26):
Now, and I think all of that is really critical.
And one of those decisions as well that we're talking
about here is I do think that both jurors and
judges were not super keen to convict in part because
they worried that in sentencing someone to be executed, that
they were committing murder. So if they were going to
(43:48):
be involved in anything like that, I think that they
wanted to make sure that the person who was going
to be executed, quite frankly, as somebody who really really
deserved it. They were somebody who was repeatedly committing criminal
acts and could not be trusted to reform themselves. You know,
they'd already even given a second, maybe even a third chance.
(44:11):
At this point, there's nothing else that could be done.
That's where you reserve execution. And you know, in those
situations you hope that God would agree with you.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Well, I think that is so true because whenever I'm
pushing back against the idea that people are just getting
executed left and right, you know, you're saying they're not
mostly getting executed. And I think it's because people are
concerned with their immortal souls. Because it is a big
decision to take someone's life, and of course they're going
to be hesitant to do that, which is another reason
(44:42):
why they would be so concerned with forensics in the
first place.
Speaker 2 (44:46):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (44:47):
Yeah, Yeah, we're vibing again and I could talk with
you about this forever. And the book is truly excellent
for people who are interested not only in medieval thinking
through things like justice, but all so how the law
in England works. And so even though this isn't your
most recent book, I do hope people will pick it
up and read it. Thank you so much for being
(45:09):
on here. This has just been so much fun. We
should totally do it again sometime.
Speaker 2 (45:13):
I completely agree like Lisa, I absolutely love your podcast.
I listen to it frequently, and honestly, it's a great
way I find introduce me to people whose work I
haven't read but really should.
Speaker 1 (45:26):
Well that's perfect because other people can now be introduced
to your work, and it all goes around. I do
love this medieval community. Thanks Sarah so much for being here.
Speaker 2 (45:36):
You're welcome.
Speaker 1 (45:38):
To find out more about Sarah's work, you can visit
her faculty page at Ohio State University. The book we
discussed today is Forensic Medicine and Death investigation in medieval England.
Before we go, here's Peter from Medievalist dot net to
tell us what's on the website. What's going on?
Speaker 3 (45:56):
Peter, Hey, Hey, So we are taking a look at
this week at the inquisition, and we found out that
they're not so good.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
Well, yes, I think they're probably not so good. Yes
I think we can agree on that.
Speaker 3 (46:09):
But it's good as an effective right, So we ent
this a trito scholars. They wrote out to me and asked, hey,
we want to play an article on medieval stat talked
about our research, and I'm going to give you their names.
Give you a shout out to them. Jose Louis Estevez.
They were Salovovich and Stoyan Skorov who did this research
(46:30):
looking at an Italian village called Gianvo, and there was
an inquisition held there in thirteen thirty five. They're going
after the Waldensians. Bad group, right, bad group of heretics.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
I guess if you're a part of the inquisition, you
might think so. Okay.
Speaker 3 (46:45):
So the bishop, the local lord, they did everything asked,
you know, did the tortures, stuff like that. But when
they looked at the outcomes of it, they found that
they rapidly got diminishing results even as they were torture people,
because they would only name off people that were already
known suspects, or individuals previously denounced, or those had fled
(47:08):
the village long ago. So there was a lot of
flaws in this inquisition just how they go about doing
their jobs. You know, they weren't very good at it,
and it were especially poor at interviewing women. So it
was very fascinating and says you know a lot of
why these so called heretics and heresy continued on in
places in Europe for like centuries.
Speaker 1 (47:29):
Yeah. I mean, if people are going to believe stuff,
it's going to be very hard to get them to
not believe that anymore, even under threat, even under torture.
Speaker 3 (47:37):
Yeah, you play the inquisition right. So we have that piece,
plus a new episode of bone Blade is now out.
Michael and Kelly took the summer off and they've come
back and they basically just talking about what they did
over the summer.
Speaker 1 (47:50):
I love that because they usually do interesting stuff over
the summer.
Speaker 3 (47:54):
Indeed, indeed there's a lot of castle hopping in Europe.
So we have that plus your Mara daois looks at
Lullabies and Music for Children in the Middle Ages and
Ayush Lazikhani except two Moon Goddesses and how they got
depicted in Medieval times wonderful.
Speaker 2 (48:11):
Well.
Speaker 1 (48:11):
Thanks Peter for stopping by and telling us what's on
the website. Thanks, Thank you, as always to all of
you for supporting my work by listening, sharing, letting the
ads play through, or becoming patrons on patreon dot com.
Patrons are my heroes because without you, none of this
would be possible, so thank you. To find out more
(48:34):
or to become a patron, please visit patreon dot com
slash Medievalists for everything from murder to mordor follow medievalist
dot net on Instagram at medievalist net or blue Sky
at Medievalists. You can find me Danielle Sabalski across social
media at five min Medievalist or five minute Medievalist, and
(48:54):
you can find my books at all your favorite bookstores.
Our music is by Kristian Overton. Thanks for listening and
have yourself an amazing day.
Hi, everyone, and welcome to episode three hundred and seven
of the Medieval Podcast. I'm your host Danielle Sebalski. Everybody
loves a good Who'd done it? Sifting through clues and
(00:23):
witness testimony trying to find the truth at the heart
of a murder mystery. So it's not surprising that some
of the most beloved fictional medieval characters are those who
are thrust into detective work. But the question is how
did real medieval people investigate crimes? What do they look
for and how did they decide if a person's death
was an unfortunate accident or foul play. This week, I
(00:48):
spoke with doctor Sarah Butler about forensic medicine and death
investigation in the medieval world. Sarah is professor and King
George the Third Chair in British History, as well as
being the director of the Center for Historical Research at
Ohio State University. She's also the author of several books,
including Divorce in Medieval England, From One to Two, Persons
(01:09):
at Law, The Language of Abuse, Merit of Violence in
Later Medieval England, and most recently, Pain Penance and protest
Pain foute adieux in Medieval England. Today though, we're looking
at one of Sarah's earlier works, Forensic Medicine and Death
Investigation in Medieval England. Our conversation on how death investigation
(01:31):
was conducted, who was involved, and how we know about
medieval forensics is coming up right after this. Well, thank
you Sarah for being on the podcast. I've wanted to
talk to you about this book for Ages, and here
we are. We're finally making it work. It's so nice
to meet you.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Welcome well, and I'm absolutely delighted to be here and
as well to finally have a chance to meet you.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Yeah, I mean we are vibing already. People can't see you,
but your lipstick is on point today, just so they
know that's my hard. We have a professional in the
studio today, so we're going to be talking about forensics.
We're gonna be talking about the process of investigating debt.
So we need to start at the beginning with the coroner.
(02:19):
So who is this guy? How do they get the job?
What is the job?
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Okay, So I think it's important to note that the
coroner in the Middle Ages is not a medical practitioner.
Corner is also not a lawyer. These are sort of
the images that we get I think when we watch TV.
Really the coroner is just a rich guy and that's
what makes him qualified for the job because he can
(02:46):
afford to do it, He has the time, and he
has the money to travel, and he's either appointed or
elected sort of depending on where he is coming from
and whether or not he's a county foreigner, or if
he is a coroner for a specific borough or a
liberty or something along those lines. These are you know,
(03:07):
sort of independent jurisdictions within England. Basically, his job is
to go out there and deal with any sudden or unexpected,
unnatural deaths and figure out what happened. And he's best
qualified to do it because he doesn't really have anything
else going on in his life.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
So if we're really old school and we're pitching like
Quincy MD, who's got people in his office, he's putting
them on a table because he's a doctor, we're not
talking about the same thing. We're talking about a guy
whose job is completely different and does have some detective
work involved, which I'm super excited to get into. But
one of the distinctions that you make that's really important
(03:49):
in the book is a coroner is not the same
as a sheriff, So tell us who the sheriff is.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Okay, so one really big difference here, So sheriffs first
of all, After like the twelveth I think it's the
twelve seventy inquests of sheriffs, the position of sheriff becomes
a yearly appointment because the sheriffs are so important in
the shire the county that everybody is worried about them
being corrupt. So one of the ways to prevent that
(04:18):
is by saying, okay, it's a year appointment, so how
much damage can you do in a year? And I
think that is something that really helps, because the sheriff
is the guy who is the most important King's official
in the county. His job, from what I can tell,
his job is to sit there every day with a
basket of rits from the king, opening each one of
(04:41):
them up and then telling his bailiffs to head out
and do these things that he needs to do. He
spends a lot of time assembling in quests, which is,
you know, just basically finding juries to take care of problems.
But it's a busy job. So the coroner in some
way was kind of created as a bit of a
(05:02):
check on the sheriff, but the sheriff is also supposed
to be a check on the coroner. I mean, I'm
sort of assuming the two were probably good buddies a
lot of the time because they had to do a
lot of work together, and you don't find too many
situations where you know, coroners are riting out sheriffs or
vice versa, so they had to find a way to
work together. But they'd end up being two quite different positions,
(05:23):
in part because the sheriff is there for a year
at a time, and you find people are often sheriffs
successively in different counties, and they will go back and
be a sheriff multiple times in the same county. So
sometimes it's you know, people do that a bit, but
often corners are former sheriffs, so they know what's going
on the coronership though it's a life appointment. So I
(05:48):
think what most people are doing is they're doing different
offices out there, corner bailiff constable, things like this or sorry,
sheriff bailiff constant well, and the hope that eventually they'll
get that plum position of a corner and then they
can just do that until they die. But yeah, it
(06:09):
requires a lot of working together, I think. And it's
the same group of men who are filling these positions generally.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Yes, well, and it's important to figure out how they
get to have the knowledge to do these jobs because,
as you say, they're not medical practitioners. Corners are not
medical practitioners. They're also not lawyers. So how do they
learn how to do the job?
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Yeah, you learn it by being in one of those
families that's constantly working in the fields. I kind of
think of this as sort of like a medieval blue bloods.
You know, Oh dad's a coroner. Oh my brother is
a sheriff. Uncle Joe has been working as a baila
for the last couple of years. You're in one of
those families that does this work, so you know what happens,
(06:55):
you know what's going on. It does seem to be
the same families who dominate over and over in these positions, right.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
And there's one more aspect that I think we need
to clarify before we get to the fun stuff, and
that is it's also a position that deals with finances.
So one of the lines that you have in the
book is that death, what did you say, Death is
highly profitable for the king. So what does this mean?
Speaker 2 (07:18):
It is? And actually that's one of the things that
I was most surprised by when I first entered this field.
I remember, actually in the first year of my PhD,
my doctoral advisor Cynthia Neville, saying something to me about,
you know, the profits of justice, and I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Oh,
justice is not supposed to be profitable, and she said, oh,
that is such a modern way of faking, and it
(07:42):
is really important to look at things that way. So
I will say that a lot of justice in this
period I don't think is actually all that profitable, but
criminal justice sure was. It was one of those areas
where the king made away like a bandit, which you know,
there's a real irony to that. Yeah, So I mean
the king could make a lot of money off of death,
(08:03):
in particular, because if somebody is dead and another person
is responsible for it, then that other person is going
to be considered a felon and have all of their goods,
both landed property and movables confiscated to the king. And
I realized that often we end up with felons who
(08:25):
don't own that much, but some did own a lot,
and that was useful. But on top of that, accidental
deaths are also another situation where the king made money
because if a person is run over by a cart,
for example, well there's always a possibility that the cart
and all of its goods, whatever it was holding, might
(08:46):
actually be confiscated to the king. Now, a lot of
people will sit back and say, it should only be
the part of the cart that moves, i e. That
should be held responsible as a murderer. So maybe the
cart wheels, but we find quite a puce of situations
where everything is confiscated. On top of that, there are
a lot of procedural faults we discover that end up
(09:08):
leading to the finding of communities that also make the
king money. This is, you know, somebody forgot to raise
the hue and cry the four nearest vills close to
the person where that person died. They're supposed to show
up for the coroner's inquest. If they don't, or it
just even one of them forgets, they're going to get fined.
It's all of these tiny little finds out there that
(09:31):
ad up so really it ends up being very profitable
for the king.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Right And so one of the points that you really
really stress in the book is that this does not
mean that the coroner is corrupt. It means that what
he's trying to record, the purpose of the job is
different than what it might be today.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Right, And this really shapes the records, which I think
is one of the most important points, particularly when you
compare these records to what's going on in the continent
the content. When you have a death, sometimes the records
you can have, like you know, fifty folios about it
with all these witness depositions and stuff like that. But
it's a different system there, and the records serve a
(10:12):
different purpose the corrin's roles. They're really about the king
wanting to know, Hey, where's my money, what's going on
with it? I mean often there is way more when
it comes to an inventory of the possessions of the
accused than anything else. Like none of the investigative process
is there. So when you're the historian who's using these records,
(10:36):
you spend a lot of time sort of looking between
the lines to try and figure out what actually happened.
And yes, it is important not to think, oh, the
coroner only cares about money. It's the records, it's it's
not the coroner.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Yes, And I mean, what does he need to write
down if it's all already in his head. He's already
got that. He just needs something that's going to prompt
him to remember the details if he's asked about it later,
right exactly.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
And that's the thing. I mean, he's going to be
at the trial. It's part of his job. So really
the record is okay, quick little mnemonic device? What happened?
Oh yeah, I remember that one. So it's not that
important to have everything down on paper. It's really hard
for us sometimes to look back at it because again,
we have expectations that are not being met. But I
(11:27):
think we have to remember they're not us.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Yes, they're not us. And while we've spent a bunch
of time shaping this, I think it's so important that
we do that because when we go through the procedure,
we need to remember that they're not us. So yeah,
we need to just set this up first. Okay, so
let's get into the fun stuff. I'm just like a
farmer in a field and I'm walking out to my
(11:52):
field and I find a body. What do I do?
Speaker 2 (11:56):
Will you scream? That's required by law. It's called the
hue and cry. You have to run and scream, but
run and scream with purpose. You are alerting all of
your neighbors, and your neighbors once they hear the human cry,
they're expected to come out and join that procession. The
point is you are alerting the authorities and the four
(12:18):
nearest vills because you want everybody to know that a
murder has taken place, because for all you know, the
murderer might still be in the area and this hole
running around and screaming might flush the person out. There's
also you know, everybody's supposed to join. Hey, when you
look back later and start thinking, hu, is there anyone
(12:40):
who didn't join the human cry, that's a great opportunity
to think, could there be a reason person the murderer?
I mean, there's a lot going on with this process.
It's about alerting people, disseminating the news so everybody knows,
and everybody knows quickly. But it's also, hey, something terrible
has happened. Start thinking, is there anybody you know who
(13:02):
might be responsible? Was there any suspicious behavior going on?
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Yes? And I mean it does a bunch of things,
like it establishes the time when this body was found
and we have to remember there's no police force. So
if you raise the human cry and somebody is running away,
they can be apprehended. They might not otherwise be So yeah,
this is a very important part of the process.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
It is, It definitely is. And then you know, hopefully
through this whole process, word will be sent out to
the coroner, and the coroner hopefully we'll get there quickly.
Now there are four corners for every county. Sometimes they
work alone, sometimes they work in pairs. The goal is
to get them there as quickly as possible. It isn't
(13:46):
always possible for them to be there quickly. Sometimes it
takes a little bit of time. The one important point, though,
is there has to be I mean, I use the
term seen integrity because that's the term that gets used today.
It's not a medieval term, but it's clearly what they
were striving for. Don't touch the body, you know, you
want that body left in place because they want to
(14:09):
examine the body. I mean, the body is definitely going
to be undressed before they get there because they need
to see the body naked. But it would be nice
to keep that body without any you know, further bruising
or anything. Happening to it afterwards as a result of mismanagement.
So they have to guard the body until the coroner
(14:31):
gets there.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
That's right, and it's not exactly don't move it, as
you're saying, why would they have to remove the clothes
from the body, maybe even before the corner gets there.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Yeah, so clothing in this period is really expensive. People
don't own that many clothes, and because of this, clothing
actually ends up having value and is used for paying taxes.
This is something we don't think about. It is clear
that in some areas the clothes were actually used to
pay the coroner, which I still think is just weird
(15:02):
and wonderful. But if not, they were going to end
up being used to pay your local priest who's going
to perform the burial. So it's a form of payment
more than anything else. And you know, you have to
make sure that those clothes then aren't going to be stolen.
So I think that the family would probably want to
(15:23):
remove the clothes just to secure them and make sure
that nothing happens before they're needed.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Yes. Well, and there's another reason that you need to
touch the body, and that is to establish are they
really dead? Because this is not super easy.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
It isn't super easy. I know that when you read
like treatises in this period, they do talk about pulse
and things like that, but I'm sure if you've ever
tried to take somebody else's pulse before, you know, sometimes
it can be kind of heart and you know, if
a person isn't breathing all that well, etc. It can
be really difficult. And they do the idea of putting
(15:57):
things in front of a person's lips to see if
any wind is coming out, and that seems to be
the major priority. But on top of that, I think
they're probably also going to look at the body and
see do we have any wounds that look like mortal wounds,
just to make sure this guy's really dead.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Right, yes, because there are times when it is hard
to tell. They don't have a mirror to play against
the face. They might have a thread that might work,
but without you say in the book, without a stavscope,
you might not be able to tell the heart's beating.
Like it's a lot harder to tell than we might imagine.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Well, and if you ever read miracle stories from this period,
the number of people who are miraculously to return to
life after prayers to a saint suggest to me that
they really weren't very good at this. Sorry not to
not to destroy people's faith here, but I think some
of those people just may not have been dead.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Yes, well, I mean I love it. We can call
it a miracle and maybe a miss take at the
same time, they don't have to be mutually exclusive, right, exactly,
all right? So the coroner shows up, what's the first
thing that they do? What do they start doing?
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Well, actually, I think even before the coroner gets there,
a corner works with a jury, and the jury was
probably assembled and ready and waiting by the time the
coroner arrived. Now, they're not supposed to get to work
until the coroner shows up, but it seems pretty clear
that once the coroner's there, they're already there. They have
(17:32):
been chosen from the locality, and they already have been
talking to people and have some good ideas of what's
going on. So the coroner's inquest. They're a funding group.
In a lot of ways. This is definitely a group
of jurors, but not jurors in the way we see
jurors in the modern era. Today, we have this idea
that jurors should be impartial and have you know, evidence
(17:53):
fed to them that is not at all the idea
of a jury in the Middle Ages. In the Middle
Age were supposed to be witnesses of sorts, not eyewitnesses.
But you know, the idea that because they're from the area,
they know what's going on, because they know the people,
they can talk to the people. It seems like too
(18:15):
often these jurors are people who might be from the
same profession as the person who died, so you know,
not necessarily family or friends, but you know, colleagues of sorts.
It also seems clear that sometimes they would put people
whose knowledge they needed on these jurors. And spending a
(18:37):
lot of time looking over jury list, it became clear
to me that there are some folks who seem to
make it on there a little bit more often than others.
Barbers in particular, seemed to make it on there when
they needed a medical opinion. Now again, I know, we
don't necessarily think of barbers as being medical professionals. They
had the knives, meant they had everything you needed not
(19:00):
only to cut your hair, but to perform a little
bit of surgery. Farmers were usually people who knew all
about anatomy, and there were more plentiful than a lot
of the other medical professionals out there. Doctors and university
trained surgeons. There are very few of them in England
at all. England didn't even have the schools to train
(19:21):
them for that, you had to get training on the continent.
And when we did have physicians, quite frankly, they usually
were foreigners who were working for rich people. Regular people
went to their moms for medicine, or if things got
really dire, to a barber, or to a pharmacist or
someone in an apothecarry someone like that out there. But
(19:44):
it does seem like in really difficult situations they might
need to call in someone like that. But these are
the people then who are going to sit on the
jury and they are going to help the coroner with
the investigation, you know, the corner in charge. But the
corner is also an outsider, so he's sort of relying
(20:04):
on their inside knowledge to get the job done. And
the inquest, every mail over the age of fourteen in
that area and the four closest bills are supposed to
show up to the inquest, and it seems clear that
a lot of the inquest is about asking questions. You know,
they'll divide people up into you know, groups that would
(20:27):
be not necessarily intimidating. So don't put the rich people
and the poor people together. That's not a good idea.
Keep people the same level of society altogether, so they're
not going to feel that they can't answer honestly. So
there's a lot of questioning being asked. But then they're
also going to look at the scene of the crime.
When you look at something like Bracton the legal treatise
(20:50):
from the thirteenth century, it says, you know, look around
for horseprints, cart tracks, see if there's a trail of blood,
ask people if they have any idea what happened, and
then start tracking down that person. They're whereabouts, where were
they the night before? Whose home did they stay at?
You know, are there any known associates. They also want
(21:12):
to ask about that person's family history. Now part of
that is determining that that person is actually English, because
we go back far enough and could say that person
was Norman, then there was a fine that was due.
But I think a big part then is also figuring
out who's this person? Can we find their family, what
can you tell us about them? Do you know, honestly
where they are right now. So a lot of questioning
(21:36):
is going on. They're also looking at the scene and
then finally they're looking to the body as well.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Well I love that, well this entire book, but you
have this part about looking at the actual scene of
the crime because I think that because the legal system
is different, people today might imagine that nobody cared about
forensic nobody can heard about the crime scene. They found
a body and they're like, oh, well, let's bury it,
but this is not what happened.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Yeah, So, I mean the body. They're not doing autopsies.
But the one thing that I always like to point
out to people, we watched way too much TV and
on TV autopsies left, right and center. But autopsies are expensive.
They don't do that many autopsies today either and quick. Frankly,
sometimes when looking at a body, you don't really need
to do an autopsy because you know what killed them.
(22:27):
There's an acts sticking out of your chest. We can
be pretty darn shirt with the acts that killed you.
So I mean, like autopsies aren't always necessary, but this
is it. They are looking at the bodies. The body
is naked, they roll it over to make sure that
they're looking at all parts of the body so that
they can see if there are any sort of smaller
(22:48):
wounds that may be important. They have to figure out
which one was the mortal wound, so which one actually
killed you, Which means so they're looking at, you know,
the with the depths of the wounds. They want to
measure all of this so that they can put it
up against a weapon if they find a bloody weapon somewhere.
(23:08):
But they also want to get a good sense of
does it look like this was enough to kill a person.
That's also really important in those instances where you know,
there was an assault and then a person died maybe
a couple of days later, trying to figure out could
that assault have killed them or did the person maybe
you know, just catch a flu or something and die
(23:29):
because of that. So, I mean they're looking at a
lot of things on those fronts. Bracton again, when you
go back to Bracton practice says look for strangulation marks
around the neck. There's another good Corners manual out there
that suggests if a body was found in the water,
sit on the chest and see if it expels any water.
(23:49):
I mean, I think that these are a lot of
things that we're just assuming they're not really doing, because
if they're not doing autopsies, they're not doing anything. But
that's that's absolutely not the case. They're not doing autopsies,
and I kind of think actually the reason there has
something to do with what Katie Parks has argued, which
is that up north in Europe, they're convinced that it
(24:13):
takes about a year for the soul to leave the body,
so you don't want to mess with the body because
you might be endangering the soul. I actually see that
as something that fits in well with a lot of
the Revenant stories that sort of pop up. So I'm
convinced of that. But no matter why they aren't doing autopsies.
But just because they're not doing autopsies doesn't mean they
(24:34):
don't care about the body. They do, and they realize
that in a lot of ways, the body is kind
of speaking for the dead. Let's listen to it by
paying attention to the body.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Yes, And this is one of the parts I love
messed about the book is you're like, it's systematic, it's logical.
They are recognizing that you could kill a body first
to kill a person throw the body in a lake
or something, and then it wouldn't have any water in
the lungs, which means they understand how drowning works. And
I actually thought that sitting on the body to expel
(25:05):
the water is genius. I wouldn't have thought of that,
but it is probably a really effective way, as effective
as these things get to figure this out, because you
do need to know what happened. Is it accidental? Is
it not accidental? Because there were a lot of drownings
at this time and you want to find out is
it accidental or is it murder because that's a big difference.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Well, it really is, And I mean, this is the
thing I get. It is interesting there were a lot
of drownings. I am always shocked when going through the
coroner's roles. I'm left wondering did nobody teach these people
to swim? It's astounding how many times somebody heads off
to take a bath and never comes back. So, I mean,
this is the thing. When confronted with a lot of
(25:48):
drowning deaths, it would be very easy to just sit
back and say, oh, another person should have learned to
swim but didn't. But they aren't. They are being careful
with all of this to try and figure out what happened. So,
I mean that is something Again, it impresses me. I
think a lot of people tend to think that the
medieval legal system, the law enforcement system in particular, was
(26:10):
very inefficient and you know, corrupt, and they weren't really
worried about catching anyone. I really don't think that's the case.
It does seem to me that they were determined to
resolve these matters whenever they could, because it's about restoring
peace and harmony to a community, and that's not going
to happen. And if everybody is worried that there's a
(26:31):
murderer in the midst who should be.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Punished, yes, and again, when it comes to what's happening
to somebody, say they catch a murderer, they may not
always make sure that they're strung up. They may expel
them from the community, and that's because the priorities are different.
If they're not in the community anymore, then they're not
a danger to the community. It's fine, it's done. And
so we have to pay attention to these cultural differences.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Yeah, this is another one of the elements that I
do end up talking a bit about in the book.
I've written about it elsewhere too. Again, a lot of
people are very scornful. I think about the medieval law
enforcement system because they are very high rates of acquittal.
It is true, most people are acquitted, and you know what,
(27:16):
a lot of those people probably did it. One of
the things that is very different between then and now
is they didn't have gradations and punishment. I mean, the
only punishment that existed for a felony was execution. But
there are a lot of times where people can sit
back and say, yeah, I know so and so killed
so and so, but I'm not really sure he deserves
(27:38):
to die for it. The other part is I think
that often people were sitting there and saying, you know,
basically time served. This guy sat in prison for four
years waiting for his trial. It was miserable, and prison
back then really was much more miserable than it is
today today. We need you, we can do a place
to sleep, We give you electricity and lighting. In this period,
(28:03):
if you wanted any of that, you had to pay
for it, and they were willing to go through the
goods that they had confiscated from you to extract the money.
So you know, if you were particularly cheap. You might
just say I'll forego the Hey, I don't need a candle,
and then hope that your family might come in to
feed you every now and then. But it could be
(28:25):
pretty dire. And you know, if you sat in prison
for four years, A lot of times I think people
get out and say, yeah, that was that was punishment enough.
I'm not sure that we actually need to convict in
order to punish. So I think something that's really important.
People are using the legal system in ways that it
was not designed. But that's not a sign of failure,
(28:47):
it's a sign of adaptation.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
And this is something that I harp on quite a
lot when I'm talking to people about this, is that
there is a difference between law and justice. And when
we are came out of village where you know the people,
you've known them your whole life, you know the circumstances,
and this is the very reason why the jury's worked
as they did, like witnesses and things. It's different. It's different,
and you can see in your book you have a
(29:12):
few examples of people sort of just tweaking the law
a little bit so that justice is served rather than
just the letter of the law.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Exactly. And you know, I mean I think today as well,
people would say there's a big difference between law and justice,
but we often assume it's because, oh, things have progressed
so much that the legaless has gone crazy, It's gone
so far away from its original goal. You know, our
thinking is not actually that different from their thinking in
(29:40):
the Middle Ages. I mean, I love anything they have
to say about lawyers. They have the most terrible poems
about lawyers in this period. You know, they are saying
they're corrupt, all they want is money. They also are
constantly worried about judges out there, and you know, maybe
they're making these decisions for their own goods rather than,
(30:01):
you know, because it's the right thing to do. So
I think it's important to recognize a lot of what
it comes down to is lawmakers very different values than
the people who use the legal system.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Yes, And I mean we do see this today with
jury's deciding to go their own way, no matter what
they're supposed to be doing. And I think this to
sort of speak to that human experience where we want
justice even if it doesn't quite fit the parameters that
we're supposed to be following. And one of the examples
that you give in the book is when it comes
to suicide, So the coroner shows up, finds a body
(30:36):
and realizes, oh, no, this person has killed themselves. What
are some of the things that might happen in that circumstance.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Yeah, so I will say suicide is a really difficult
situation in this period. I actually suspect that often the
community or maybe the family tried their best to sort
of hide the possibility that it might have been suicide,
or a coroner got there. It's actually astounding. There quite
(31:08):
a few instances where bodies are actually buried when the
coroner shows up and he's like, what's going on here?
So the coroner can demand that it be dug up
so he can do an inquest. One could also expect
that it might be a little bit harder at that
point in time to figure out what kills the person.
But no matter what, I think that there is some
(31:30):
concealment that happens at times, granted at other times possibly not.
They did worry that a person who died before their
time was up could be one of those people who
is going to be coming back as a revenant, a wanderer.
So you have to be really careful about that, because
(31:51):
if that person does come back, then they could come
back to take revenge on their community. So we also
have the popular tradition of varying suicides at crossroads and
hoping that if they do pop back up, they'll wander
in the wrong direction and get somebody else's village. So,
(32:12):
I mean, there's a lot of popular ideology going on
about this, but I do think that there are attempts
by juries at times to also talk about things like, well,
you know, maybe this is one of those suicides that
is excusefule. If a person was thought to be mentally
(32:33):
unstable or not in their right mind, then that's one
of those situations where you can sit back and say, yes,
it was a suicide, but it's not the damning kind
of suicide. So I think again there's a lot at
play here to sort of either soften or harden the
verdict if they want to.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Well, I think that it's an essential part of the
whole process where people are discussing what are the motives,
because if someone can't make a decision for themselves for
whatever reason, and often they will say this person was
just so sad they couldn't have done anything else, and
so how can we condemn them? And so thinking about
this in sort of a community situation, it makes complete sense,
(33:19):
even if it looks very different from here.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Yeah, well and it does. And I mean I have
to say today we do take a very different position.
But at the same time, I mean, I live here
in the US, and there are some states in the
US where suicide is still considered to be a felony.
So we're not that far off, even if it's an
older law that's still on the books that people wouldn't
(33:42):
actually impost. I think it is important to recognize it's
not that long ago that people were still sitting there
and thinking that anybody who killed themselves was a felon,
i e. An absolutely horrific person who should be cast
out from society. I do think today we are inclined
to think that there probably is some sort of mental
(34:03):
illness and that's why a person committed suicide. Kenny is
interesting in itself. It tells you we are very much
in denial of the possibility that a person could very
rationally minded sit back and think, I just don't want
to be part of this anymore. I'm now exiting. We
have trouble accepting that, whereas in the Middle Ages they
clearly sat back and thought, there's some people who are
(34:24):
doing this rationally. Those people should be punished. There are
other people who are not doing this rationally. It was
a bad idea, and it was one that was made
when they were really should not be held responsible for
their actions. So it's a really different world. But again,
I think that a lot of this sort of goes
in trends in our society and we are at a
(34:46):
point where we don't like the whole people responsible. There
is lots to think about on the subject, and clearly
the medieval world was of a very different mindset than
we are in some respects, but not in all.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
Yes, exactly. And one of the ways I thought was
really interesting was you had a case of a person
who was elderly and they died, and the verdict was
poverty and old age, and that is something that we
don't really like to look at in today's society either,
the systemic problems, whereas the medieval world they're like, this
is what happened, so let's just roll with that, exactly.
Speaker 2 (35:21):
And again it's sort of interesting then to think, what
role do those records actually play. I mean, is it
useful in some ways for that information to make it
back to the king. Oh, your subjects are dying from
poverty and old age. You know, maybe that's a good
thing for him to hear and for him to encourage,
(35:42):
for example, more monasteries to open their doors to the elderly,
no matter how poor they were. And in the medieval period,
if you wanted sort of like a retirement plan, you
could give everything you owned to a monastery and say, hey,
look after me for the rest of my life. Because
you had to have money to do that. What happens
when you're old You don't have the money for that,
(36:03):
and you don't have any kids. The odds are pretty good.
The poverty is what's going to kill you.
Speaker 1 (36:08):
Yes, And again this is the community looking straight at this,
So it's worth asking the question. We're talking about responsibility,
we're talking about systemic issues. Who decides whether the person
had a motive or not. Who is the person that
decides whether somebody is mentally competent to stand trial or not?
Speaker 2 (36:26):
Whose job is that it couldn't possibly have been the coroner?
And I mean again, the coroner is the one who's
going to have this attributed to him because it's in
his records, it's his inquest that found it. But he's
from outside the community. He's not going to know. It's
going to be the jury, and the jury is representing
the community. I know it seems wrong to say that
(36:48):
this is a community decision, because that's a really big
grouping we're putting out there, But the coroner's inquest is
representing that community, and it's going to have to be
a group decision. Of the things that I do argue
in the book is I think that often that time
before the coroner showed up was a really critical time,
and particularly for some of these situations, I think that
(37:11):
that's when they made up their minds what they were
going to say, and you know, got everybody on board.
That is the hard part with a community decision. You know,
you all have to sort of be on the same page,
or at the very least the in questury does. So
I think, you know, using that time before the coroner
showed up to talk some of this through, it was
(37:32):
probably a very critical moment.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
Well. And it might seem from the outside like this
is people getting their stories straight, and that this is
perhaps people who are misrepresenting the truth, not telling the
whole truth. But when we think about it, when a
jury is sequestered, they are still making a decision about
what happened, and they're doing it together, so it's not
all that far off.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
It really isn't. And actually, in some ways, this medieval
situation was probably better because one of the problem with
being sequestered is when you're sitting there thinking, oh, wait,
I don't remember exactly what happened there, you have to
go and ask for some sort of record and read it,
Whereas in this situation they can stop and say, hey, Jane,
do you remember what happened here? You know, everybody else
(38:16):
in the community is around and accessible. So I think
it's much easier for them to make the decision because
all the evidence that they have is there at their fingertips.
Speaker 1 (38:26):
Right, And it's not as if they're not going to
have Bill who's saying something different, and they'll have to
weigh both of those opinions together, so there is dissent
and there is discussion, and so you know, justice may
actually be served in the end, whether it looks like
ours or not.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
Well, and on top of that, I think we always
have to ask what we're talking about when we say
the word justice and this is you know, what are
we looking for from the law enforcement system? Are we
looking for punishment or are we looking to get back
to normal? Are we looking to restore the peace that
(39:03):
was in a community? Are we looking to make sure
that there's nobody who is angry at anybody else and
everybody's just kind of happy that the right solution has
been found. And I think that's critical because if we're
totally thinking the legal system system should be putative, well
then okay, we're probably going to be unhappy with the
medieval system often. But if we are looking at it's
(39:26):
about reconciliation between unhappy parties, it's about restoring the peace. Well,
I think they actually did a very good job.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
Yeah, I would agree with you. And I think that
if you standed a whole bunch of people on a
desert island, their idea of justice would not look like
it does in the city that they're currently from, for example. Now,
there is one thing that I forgot to ask earlier,
So this is coming sort of out of left field,
but I think it's really important. And one of the
people who was consulted sometimes for their own witness testimony
(39:56):
is the priest, and that is again something that is
unexpected today. Now the priest knows everybody's business. Are they
allowed to talk about it?
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Well, really difficult situation there, Yeah, probably not, but we
know they often did. I mean one of the biggest
complaints people had about their priests and visitations is that,
you know, they were constantly going to the alehouse and
telling everybody what so and so said in confession. So
know that the seal of Confession was just not respected
(40:31):
in the way that it is today. I mean, how
many times have we seen the movie where you know,
the plot line is the priest knows exactly what happened,
but he can't say a word. I don't really think
that dilemma existed in the same way in the period
and the joy he is Catholicism is a religion of forgiveness.
You get forgiven over and over and over again. So
(40:54):
if he does break the seal, oh well he's going
to be forgiven. And it seems pretty clear that priests
did play a role in all of this. I know
we often are thinking, ah, priests couldn't be jurors. They
seem to have shown up on a lot of jury lists,
and actually, since writing that book, I've found more and
more and more pre sitting on juries. I think that
(41:17):
people liked having priests there because, first of all, they
knew everyone in the community. You know, they knew what
was going on, They know the CD side, they know
all the people that you might have to worry about.
Oh so and so he's a good suspect. I have
you thought of talking to him? I mean, I can
see a lot of situations like that. They're also often literate,
(41:37):
which means if any written documents, for example, need to
be checked, they're the perfect guys to send to, you know,
the guild houses, say hey, let's look at the last
you know, records we had of who had to fight
with whom, and how that may actually have been something
that precipitated this homicide. So I think that there's a
good reason to make sure that the local parish priest
(42:01):
was involved whenever you could.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Yeah, I'm just kind of imagining him being like, well,
I can't really tell you, but if you guess that,
it's not a problem for me and justice will be
served in the end exactly.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
Well, that's the thing. I mean, they live in those
communities it does really make a difference. They know who's
going to be a problem. I mean, especially like who's
more attentive to the disciplinary issues of a community nobody.
The priest is the guy who's in charge. He knows
what's going on from confession, he knows who's most likely
(42:39):
to be harboring bad feelings against someone. So, I mean,
all of this makes them the ideal person to get involved,
not necessarily sitting on the jury at all times, but
at the very least they got to show up to
that inquest. They're going to be asked some questions.
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Well, and in a time when you don't have church
and states separated, a priest is a go person to
have there as well, because if you're trying to make
a decision about what your ruling is going to be,
you need to ask the priest what the fallout is.
And I think this is a really important part of
medieval justice. If I say this is suicide, what's going
to happen to that person's spirit? If I say this
(43:17):
is murder, what's going to happen to mine? If I'm wrong?
So I think that the priest is an important person
to have around in this kind of inquest.
Speaker 2 (43:26):
Now, and I think all of that is really critical.
And one of those decisions as well that we're talking
about here is I do think that both jurors and
judges were not super keen to convict in part because
they worried that in sentencing someone to be executed, that
they were committing murder. So if they were going to
(43:48):
be involved in anything like that, I think that they
wanted to make sure that the person who was going
to be executed, quite frankly, as somebody who really really
deserved it. They were somebody who was repeatedly committing criminal
acts and could not be trusted to reform themselves. You know,
they'd already even given a second, maybe even a third chance.
(44:11):
At this point, there's nothing else that could be done.
That's where you reserve execution. And you know, in those
situations you hope that God would agree with you.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Well, I think that is so true because whenever I'm
pushing back against the idea that people are just getting
executed left and right, you know, you're saying they're not
mostly getting executed. And I think it's because people are
concerned with their immortal souls. Because it is a big
decision to take someone's life, and of course they're going
to be hesitant to do that, which is another reason
(44:42):
why they would be so concerned with forensics in the
first place.
Speaker 2 (44:46):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (44:47):
Yeah, Yeah, we're vibing again and I could talk with
you about this forever. And the book is truly excellent
for people who are interested not only in medieval thinking
through things like justice, but all so how the law
in England works. And so even though this isn't your
most recent book, I do hope people will pick it
up and read it. Thank you so much for being
(45:09):
on here. This has just been so much fun. We
should totally do it again sometime.
Speaker 2 (45:13):
I completely agree like Lisa, I absolutely love your podcast.
I listen to it frequently, and honestly, it's a great
way I find introduce me to people whose work I
haven't read but really should.
Speaker 1 (45:26):
Well that's perfect because other people can now be introduced
to your work, and it all goes around. I do
love this medieval community. Thanks Sarah so much for being here.
Speaker 2 (45:36):
You're welcome.
Speaker 1 (45:38):
To find out more about Sarah's work, you can visit
her faculty page at Ohio State University. The book we
discussed today is Forensic Medicine and Death investigation in medieval England.
Before we go, here's Peter from Medievalist dot net to
tell us what's on the website. What's going on?
Speaker 3 (45:56):
Peter, Hey, Hey, So we are taking a look at
this week at the inquisition, and we found out that
they're not so good.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
Well, yes, I think they're probably not so good. Yes
I think we can agree on that.
Speaker 3 (46:09):
But it's good as an effective right, So we ent
this a trito scholars. They wrote out to me and asked, hey,
we want to play an article on medieval stat talked
about our research, and I'm going to give you their names.
Give you a shout out to them. Jose Louis Estevez.
They were Salovovich and Stoyan Skorov who did this research
(46:30):
looking at an Italian village called Gianvo, and there was
an inquisition held there in thirteen thirty five. They're going
after the Waldensians. Bad group, right, bad group of heretics.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
I guess if you're a part of the inquisition, you
might think so. Okay.
Speaker 3 (46:45):
So the bishop, the local lord, they did everything asked,
you know, did the tortures, stuff like that. But when
they looked at the outcomes of it, they found that
they rapidly got diminishing results even as they were torture people,
because they would only name off people that were already
known suspects, or individuals previously denounced, or those had fled
(47:08):
the village long ago. So there was a lot of
flaws in this inquisition just how they go about doing
their jobs. You know, they weren't very good at it,
and it were especially poor at interviewing women. So it
was very fascinating and says you know a lot of
why these so called heretics and heresy continued on in
places in Europe for like centuries.
Speaker 1 (47:29):
Yeah. I mean, if people are going to believe stuff,
it's going to be very hard to get them to
not believe that anymore, even under threat, even under torture.
Speaker 3 (47:37):
Yeah, you play the inquisition right. So we have that piece,
plus a new episode of bone Blade is now out.
Michael and Kelly took the summer off and they've come
back and they basically just talking about what they did
over the summer.
Speaker 1 (47:50):
I love that because they usually do interesting stuff over
the summer.
Speaker 3 (47:54):
Indeed, indeed there's a lot of castle hopping in Europe.
So we have that plus your Mara daois looks at
Lullabies and Music for Children in the Middle Ages and
Ayush Lazikhani except two Moon Goddesses and how they got
depicted in Medieval times wonderful.
Speaker 2 (48:11):
Well.
Speaker 1 (48:11):
Thanks Peter for stopping by and telling us what's on
the website. Thanks, Thank you, as always to all of
you for supporting my work by listening, sharing, letting the
ads play through, or becoming patrons on patreon dot com.
Patrons are my heroes because without you, none of this
would be possible, so thank you. To find out more
(48:34):
or to become a patron, please visit patreon dot com
slash Medievalists for everything from murder to mordor follow medievalist
dot net on Instagram at medievalist net or blue Sky
at Medievalists. You can find me Danielle Sabalski across social
media at five min Medievalist or five minute Medievalist, and
(48:54):
you can find my books at all your favorite bookstores.
Our music is by Kristian Overton. Thanks for listening and
have yourself an amazing day.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.