Baxter's influence on Ripper lore

[Joshua Rogan]

Now Eddowes killer traced around her navel

As did Chapman's killer.

[Michael W Richards]

.

The fact that the colon was cut and the bladder halved could nevertheless have been the result of meaningful cutting, if the killer was simply intent on getting the uterus. I am no medico myself, but I suppose that Phillips may have reasoned that these cuts were accepted by the killer as part of the process to cut the uterus out as quickly as possible. It was not as if he had to be wary about not damaging the body.

This is my thinking too Fisherman, acceptable collateral damage because this time out he wanted to complete what he started in Bucks Row. the backyard was better, but some 17 people lived in that house and there were windows surrounding the yard that looked into the yard. This was not going to be a cake walk. Some damage on the way to the goal was acceptable under those circumstances.

Now Eddowes killer traced around her navel, he tried to cut off her nose and likely in the process cut her cheeks, he sectioned her colon so that feces was spilled, he put that section between her body and arm, he cut and tore her apron,...seems to me that there was a lot done that was totally unnecessary and not geared towards obtaining anything specific. This guy felt he had time to make these superfluous moves. Based on that assumption, I don't think Lawende saw her with her killer. If he did there was only around 9 minutes available to get her into the square and then do all these things.

I also do think that the police surrounding that immediate area had it, in effect, cordoned off. It might have been in conjunction with a tip that the Post Office was going to be robbed.

[DJA]

Well, what I am saying is what you allow for - things may well have been left out by the Morning Advertiser too, just as we know that other papers did.
We know from the sources that Phillips was impressed by the abdominal flap cutting and even more impressed of the incisions performed to excise the uterus.
If, as you say, Baxter took his cue from Phillips when saying that there were no meaningless cuts, then we are left with a killer who according to Phillips cut totally deliberately throughout and who showed anatomical insights with every cut, the pinnacle being the cut/s that excised the uterus.

Personally, I think such a thing could very well lead a medico to conclude that the killer was medically skilled, not least since he adds some words about how he thinks that the killer would have evinced even greater skill if he had not been in haste.

The inference becomes one of an anatomically skilled man who only gave a less skilled impression on account of doing a super-quick hysterectomy.

Both Chapman and Eddowes were cut around the navel.

Jack was a skilled and experienced operator.

[Abby Normal]

Methinks I've wasted my time here.
Hey... what's new?

no you haven't. trust me. : )

[Hunter]

Methinks I've wasted my time here.
Hey... what's new?

[Fisherman]

Of course, the thing to keep in mind here is not whether the Chapman murder evidenced skill on behalf of the killer - it is whether PHILLIPS thought and claimed it did.

These are two different questions.

[Sam Flynn]

At the time of the Chapman murder, there was no precedent to fall back on for analysis.

That is an important point, Hunter. Even an experienced police surgeon like Phillips is unlikely to have seen anything like Chapman's murder before. If so, the novelty of the situation might have led him to be rather more impressed than he might otherwise have been - at least in terms of the killer's anatomical knowledge.

[Hunter]

Indeed, Phillips never mentioned clumsy butchery, but his description of the wounds might indicate otherwise. Chapman's colon was partially cut, and the killer only succeeded in removing a portion of her bladder. Add to that the asymmetric portions of flesh - three flaps! - by which her abdomen was opened, and things don't appear quite as neat as Baxter's "no meaningless cuts" might indicate. If anything, the killer made a more "competent" job of eviscerating Eddowes in Mitre Square; neat(ish) single incision down the midline, removal of kidney and uterus whilst leaving the bladder entirely unharmed.

Hi Gareth,
Well in general, I agree. I believe that if this was the work of a serial murderer, an Ed Gein type person could easily pull this off - a self taught laymen with an obsession that turned into gruesome activity. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight now, don't we?

At the time of the Chapman murder, there was no precedent to fall back on for analysis. That murder was the precedent and they were trying to make logical sense out of the motive. Thus, Phillips determined that the motive was to obtain the uterus and Baxter fleshed it out with his Burke and Hare theory along with the extemporaneous cuts being a ruse. I doubt either Phillips or Baxter had even read Krafft-Ebbing as Bond most certainly had done. And we can see, as the the series continued and Baxter's theory unraveled, why Bond was called in by Anderson to assist.

Even with the Eddowes murder, we see both Phillips and Baxter believing that a copycat was involved rather than admitting that the prognosis about Chapman could be all wrong. Pride will do that to people...and in Baxter's case, one's very job may be on the line. Hell, most folks around here dig in their heels instead of admitting they may be wrong, even after their case becomes untenable. And we still see people locked into the anatomical knowledge/skill debate because of what I believe is a misreading of the evidence and a lack of understanding how the case developed. Having a suspect who fits the bill in one way or the other doesn't help much either.

Ironically (and this is just my opinion based on what later transpired) Phillips may have recanted on his considerable anatomical knowledge assumption when he witnessed the carnage at Miller's Court. While he gave no more press interviews after the one on Sept. 26 at the Working Lads Institute, (I believe the claim by the Star following the Mylett case was a fabrication) his assistant, Percy Clark certainly did.

In a 1910 exclusive with the ELO Clark stated that despite earlier beliefs that the murderer may have possessed great knowledge or skill that was later found not to be the case. Just as his mentor, he did not believe all of the murders were necessarily committed by the same hand, because also just like his former boss, he thought a deranged copycat could be motivated. But he almost certainly linked Chapman and Kelly, even going so far as to show a photo of the latter's murder scene to the reporter. There's no reason to think that Phillips did not share these same assertions. He had to notice Kelly's abdominal flaps removed in much the same way as Chapman's and of course the uterus was extracted too. But by now, it had to be obvious that something much more deranged was involved...and Clark spells that out here too.

It's almost like Ripperology has kept poor ol' Phillips in a Chapman murder time warp without even the hope or intelligence to maybe evolve a little as the series progressed.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, Phillips never mentioned clumsy butchery, but his description of the wounds might indicate otherwise. Chapman's colon was partially cut, and the killer only succeeded in removing a portion of her bladder. Add to that the asymmetric portions of flesh - three flaps! - by which her abdomen was opened, and things don't appear quite as neat as Baxter's "no meaningless cuts" might indicate. If anything, the killer made a more "competent" job of eviscerating Eddowes in Mitre Square; neat(ish) single incision down the midline, removal of kidney and uterus whilst leaving the bladder entirely unharmed.

There were four flaps, Gareth. Only three were left behind. A portion was missing when they put the three flaps in place.

The fact that the colon was cut and the bladder halved could nevertheless have been the result of meaningful cutting, if the killer was simply intent on getting the uterus. I am no medico myself, but I suppose that Phillips may have reasoned that these cuts were accepted by the killer as part of the process to cut the uterus out as quickly as possible. It was not as if he had to be wary about not damaging the body.
Making sure that the bladder was either left in itīs entirety in the body or taken out in the same entirety together with the uterus, would - if I guess correctly - have required more work and time. Once you do not care about leaving anything but the uterus undamaged, that will allow for a lot more speed.
So it may look careless and clumsy, but it may equally be part of the quickest way of getting to the goal Phillips perceived.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

While there still may have been something left out, the Morning Advertizer was the one publication that printed Phillips' description of the mutilations. The others didn't (the Lancet if course being a medical journal.)

No, I don't think Mr. Phillips ever indicated any clumsy butchery here. In fact, as his testimony in the Morning Advertizer indicates, he was impressed that the intestines had not been cut when the abdominal incisions were made.

When Baxter, in his Sept. 26 summary, mentioned 'there were no meaningless cuts,' he was taking his cue from Phillips' description.

Well, what I am saying is what you allow for - things may well have been left out by the Morning Advertiser too, just as we know that other papers did.
We know from the sources that Phillips was impressed by the abdominal flap cutting and even more impressed of the incisions performed to excise the uterus.
If, as you say, Baxter took his cue from Phillips when saying that there were no meaningless cuts, then we are left with a killer who according to Phillips cut totally deliberately throughout and who showed anatomical insights with every cut, the pinnacle being the cut/s that excised the uterus.

Personally, I think such a thing could very well lead a medico to conclude that the killer was medically skilled, not least since he adds some words about how he thinks that the killer would have evinced even greater skill if he had not been in haste.

The inference becomes one of an anatomically skilled man who only gave a less skilled impression on account of doing a super-quick hysterectomy.

[DJA]

Then why did Baxter, in his summing-up, state that the killer "must have been someone accustomed to the post-mortem room"? It could well be argued that Baxter was putting his own agenda across with more emphasis than Phillips' more balanced answers permitted.

Oddly you quoted your own post and attributed it to me.
Not an unusual tactic from yourself.



"It is, therefore, a great misfortune that nearly three weeks have elapsed without the chief actor in this awful tragedy having been discovered. Surely, it is not too much even yet to hope that the ingenuity of our detective force will succeed in unearthing this monster. It is not as if there were no clue to the character of the criminal or the cause of his crime. His object is clearly divulged. His anatomical skill carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for his knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at post-mortems, or by frequenting the post-mortem room. Thus the class in which search must be made, although a large one, is limited. Moreover it must have been a man who was from home, if not all night, at least during the early hours of Sept. 8. "

Both CV murders so far were committed between the London Hospital and Phillips' home in Spital Square.
Now which "prosector" do we know that was highly skilled and walked that route regularly!
Hint ..... on his way home to Finsbury Square,right next door to where his mentor Sir William Withey Gull once resided.

[DJA]

So you think Phillips was saying "yes, it must have been a post mortem knife, as no ordinary medical case would contain such an instrument" ?

Yes,not even "the ordinary post-mortem case".

That is quite a statement from Phillips,as it implies someone with access to highly sophisticated equipment is carrying such a knife around the streets.

[Sam Flynn]

No, I don't think Mr. Phillips ever indicated any clumsy butchery here.

Indeed, Phillips never mentioned clumsy butchery, but his description of the wounds might indicate otherwise. Chapman's colon was partially cut, and the killer only succeeded in removing a portion of her bladder. Add to that the asymmetric portions of flesh - three flaps! - by which her abdomen was opened, and things don't appear quite as neat as Baxter's "no meaningless cuts" might indicate. If anything, the killer made a more "competent" job of eviscerating Eddowes in Mitre Square; neat(ish) single incision down the midline, removal of kidney and uterus whilst leaving the bladder entirely unharmed.

[Hunter]

Hi Christer,

While there still may have been something left out, the Morning Advertizer was the one publication that printed Phillips' description of the mutilations. The others didn't (the Lancet if course being a medical journal.)

No, I don't think Mr. Phillips ever indicated any clumsy butchery here. In fact, as his testimony in the Morning Advertizer indicates, he was impressed that the intestines had not been cut when the abdominal incisions were made.

When Baxter, in his Sept. 26 summary, mentioned 'there were no meaningless cuts,' he was taking his cue from Phillips' description.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,
I think he regretted the interview because of the controversy that followed, especially when the backlash from the medical community came. While Phillips did state that the killer had 'certain anatomical knowledge' he stopped short of ascribing it in the way Baxter would conclude in his summary. I suspect he considered such a backlash from his colleagues if he had gone further.

He described a weapon just like a surgical knife. Then when specifically asked, backed off by saying it would not be in such a kit. But when asked about a slaughterer's knife, he said yes, but ground down, which is more like the surgical knife...the slaughterer's knife being more rigid and thicker at the hilt. What he was describing (and this is something you and I can relate to) was akin to what we now call a fillet knife - long, thin and very sharp. Phillips emphasized how sharp the murder weapon must have been.

As I've mentioned, Phillips had just come back from Gateshead on the final day of the Chapman inquest and apparently arrived late during Baxter's summary as a reporter there filled him in on it before asking the doctor some questions. The Beadmore/Beetmore murder was center stage at that time and I'm sure the reporter was initially there to ask Phillips about that. But with Baxter's amazing revelation, the focus had been shifted.

Ironically, Baxter justified his insistence in prying the details of the mutilations out of Phillips by the results he got from communications that fostered his organs for sale theory, while Phillips, when learning of it, did just the opposite and justified his reticence to disclose the information.

I don't have enough time to elaborate further right now, as there are a few more details, but anyone who is interested might check the Sept. 27th issue of the Morning Advertizer

Thanks, Cris!

And in the MA, we find these two passages:

"Dr. Phillips attended the inquest for the purpose of answering any further questions which might be put ot him with the view of elucidating the mystery, but he arrived while the coroner was summing up, and thus had no opportunity. When apprised of the startling statements in the coroner's summing up he said he considered it a very important communication, and the public would now see his reason for not wishing in the first place to give a description of the injuries. He attached great importance to the applications which had been made to the pathological museums, and he felt strongly the advisability of following the information up, as a probable clue. With reference to the murder and mutilation in Gateshead, he stated that it was evidently not done by the same hand as the Whitechapel murder, that at Gateshead being simply a clumsy piece of butchery."

So Phillips recommended a follow-up of the "applications which had been made to the pathological museums" as a "probable clue". Meaning that what he had seen in Chapmans abdomen fit well with somebody having extracted the uterus on the American doctorīs account. And apparently, the Chapman murder was NOT a clumsy piece of butchery, but something quite different. And that is elucidated by the next passage:

"The whole facts summarised amount to this - that the murderer was no ordinary criminal; that, on the contrary, he was a man of considerable anatomical attainments; that he had a definite object in view, and was not, probably, indulging a mere lust for blood; and that he is a man who could only have obtained the knowledge his cruel work showed he possessed from assisting at post mortems."

This fits well, of course, with what the Lancet reporter wrote, and I think it is a very good suggestion that he quoted Phillips more or less ad verbatim. As I have pointed out on the other thread, he seems not to have been given to any exaggerations or embellishments at all. Much of what Phillips said was left out by the papers, as has been demonstrated.