Skip to main content

Charlie Chaplin and the Body Snatchers


Most people have heard of Burke and Hare, the two Scottish body-snatchers who turned to murder to increase their profits. I won't recount the entire history of body snatching here, especially as Suzie Lennox at
Digging Up 1800 has such a rich amount of material. In essence, body snatching was a response to tight restrictions on anatomical dissection - very few bodies were available for medical students to practice on, and so some individuals made a handsome profit by raiding graves and selling the corpses to medical schools. The illicit trade prompted a number of ingenious methods and contraptions for preventing grave robbers from gaining access, including the 'mortsafes' pictured below, which feature on Digging Up 1800, along with an explanation of their use. More examples can be found here



In 1832, Parliament passed the Anatomy Act, which required the registration of anybody practicing anatomy and allowed the dissection of bodies which were unclaimed after death. These were usually paupers who had died in hospitals, prisons, or workhouses. Understandably, many people were distressed by this law, but it did do its bit to curb body snatching.

Almost 150 years after the passage of the Act, on Christmas Day 1977, the 88-year-old filmmaker Charlie Chaplin died in Switzerland. His body was interned in a cemetery overlooking Lake Geneva and his widow and children began to grieve.

Three months later, two men dug him up and carried him away. 


Aberdeen Evening Express, 3rd March 1979

The day after the body-snatching, when the cemetery's gravedigger arrived at work, the theft of Mr Chaplin was discovered. Initially, both the police and Chaplin's family were stumped. A police official was quoted in a newspaper as saying

"We don't know whether this is a macabre kidnapping or the work of madmen"

Eventually, Chaplin's wife, Oona, received a ransom demand, which she dismissed as ridiculous, refusing to hand over any money. Chaplin's lawyer also received ransom demands but again nothing was paid. The family waited. The police, meanwhile, used the ransom demands to begin closing the net. 

Police at the desecrated gravesite


Finally, after two and a half months, the police tracked down the culprits and were able to recover Mr Chaplin's remains, which had been reburied about fifteen miles away from the original place of internment. The two perpetrators of the crime were Roman Wardas, a Polish man, and Gantscho Ganev, who was Bulgarian. 

Coventry Evening Telegraph, 17th May 1978

The pair stood trial in the December of 1978, both for "disturbing the peace of the dead" and attempted extortion. By way of explanation for their deeds, Wardas, who had arrived in the country as a refugee, told the court that

"I left my country in order to be free but found it difficult to get steady work in Switzerland"

The court found that Wardas was the mastermind of the whole plot and that Ganev had only limited responsibility. As such, Wardas was sentenced to four and a half years in prison, while Ganev was given an eighteen month suspended sentence. Mr Chaplin's family had his remains reburied, though this time they used a concrete coffin.


Next week, I am going to tell you another story about Charlie Chaplin from the vaults of criminal history - how he got caught up in the Red Scare and was accused of perpetrating "white slavery".





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

'Deeds not Words': The Suffragette Burning of the Bath Hotel

Evaline Hilda Burkitt In April 1914, thirty-seven-year-old Evaline Hilda Burkitt (known by her middle name) and twenty-two-year-old Florence Tunks undertook an arson campaign. First, the pair set fire to two wheat stacks at a farm in Suffolk, causing £340 worth of damage. Next, they burned down the Pavilion at the Britannia Pier in Great Yarmouth. Finally, on 28th April, they attacked the Bath Hotel in Felixstowe. This last fire caused around £35,000 of damage. Nobody was hurt in any of the blazes and indeed the women had never intended for there to be any casualties. Instead, their arson campaign was part of a wider political struggle which by 1914 had developed a level of militancy which was utterly shocking by the standards of the day. Hilda and Florence were Suffragettes and their aims were simple - they would achieve Votes for Women, using Deeds not Words. Westminster Gazette , 30th May 1914 The two women were tried at the Suffolk Assizes in Bury St Edmunds and they reportedly spe...

The Penge Mystery

Harriet Richardson, later Harriet Staunton Harriet Richardson likely had learning difficulties. She had inherited £5000 from a great-aunt, equivalent to around £500,000 in today's money, and lived a comfortable lifestyle with her mother. In 1873, things became rather complicated. Harriet had a cousin named Thomas who had married a widow and gained two step-daughters. The elder step-daughter, Elizabeth, had married a man named Patrick Staunton and Patrick Staunton had a brother, Louis. Elizabeth's younger sister was fifteen-year-old Alice Rhodes and twenty-three year old Louis was in love with her. Thus there were in effect two couples/ pairs of siblings - Patrick and Elizabeth Staunton, and their respective brother and sister, Louis Staunton and Alice Rhodes. But when Louis Staunton met Harriet Richardson through Harriet cousin, Alice Rhodes' step-father, he began to form a plan. Harriet's mother, who had remarried after the death of her husband and now went by the name...

Dodgy Defences Part One: Consent

In 2017, England and Wales celebrated fifty years since the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 1967. The Act brought in a change to the law which had, according to many media reports, decriminalised male homosexuality, and brought in a new era of freedom in which gay men no longer had to fear arrest and prosecution. That is a lie. The decriminalisation was partial, stating that both parties had to be be over the age of twenty-one (the age of consent for heterosexual sex was sixteen), and that all sexual activity had to be conducted in private. I say 'both parties' because the law also stated that "(2) an act which would otherwise be treated for the purposes of this Act as being done in private shall not be so treated if done - (a) when more than two persons take part or are present". This notion of 'in private' was interpreted extremely narrowly, so that two men could also be prosecuted if they had sex in a locked room in a house where other people were prese...