Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Baxter's influence on Ripper lore

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Hunter View Post
    "Roughly" may be the key here. As I've mentioned before, I was involved in a doe deer harvest survey which counted on hunters to bring in the uterus to check for fertilization. An illustrated pamphlet had been provided beforehand. Most of these hunters had field dressed deer before. Nevertheless, many mistakenly brought in the bladder, or at best, cut out a wedge that included the upper vagina and the bladder along with the uterus, much like what was done to Annie Chapman. A few did it right.
    Trying to think as a psychopath might here:-

    If the killer learned in similar fashion to the men described above, it might be that he had no idea which organ(s) he had removed - until he read about it in the newspapers. If he thus learned that he had taken something other than what he wanted, he would presumably take a different organ on the next occasion until, by process of elimination, he actually got what he was after. In the case of the Kelly murder he (assuming the same killer was involved) removed pretty much everything. In her case only was the heart described as 'absent'. Perhaps (playing devil's advocate here) he had no anatomical knowledge whatsoever. The ability to use a knife skilfully doesn't IMHO necessarily indicate anatomical knowledge and vice versa.
    Last edited by Bridewell; 12-17-2017, 03:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Hunter View Post
    Nevertheless, many mistakenly brought in the bladder, or at best, cut out a wedge that included the upper vagina and the bladder along with the uterus, much like what was done to Annie Chapman. A few did it right.
    A splendid illustration of what I think applied in the case of the Ripper. It is quite possible that he simply "got lucky" with Chapman, alhough (NB) not to the point of puncturing her colon and hacking through her bladder. The other evisceration murders might be seen as no less "lucky" in their own way. Whatever the degree of "luck" involved, there was little apparent "knowledge" on display, beyond that which a layman might easily acquire.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hunter
    replied
    "Roughly" may be the key here. As I've mentioned before, I was involved in a doe deer harvest survey which counted on hunters to bring in the uterus to check for fertilization. An illustrated pamphlet had been provided beforehand. Most of these hunters had field dressed deer before. Nevertheless, many mistakenly brought in the bladder, or at best, cut out a wedge that included the upper vagina and the bladder along with the uterus, much like what was done to Annie Chapman. A few did it right.

    As mentioned before, an Ed Gein type person who has a peculiar fetish enough to research his proclivity, but not the skill to be consistent, can very well explain why the extraction of the uteri varried​ in the instances it was done... let alone the environment at the time. With only the one example at the time, it is easy to see why the conclusions were reached after the Chapman murder and something different applied after the murder and mutilations if Catherine Eddowes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Since some wish to play down the skill sets seen with Annie murder, and ONLY her murder...."No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.
    Those are the words of the Lancet journalist, who almost certainly did not examine the body personally and whose aim was to write good copy, not to forensically document a post-mortem. We should stick to what we can reasonably accurately attribute to the man on the scene, Dr Bagster Phillips. Unfortunately, his contribution can only be found in the press reports, but even there enough detail is preserved of his testimony for us to realise that the scene was one of utter carnage. Phillips might have attributed some "anatomical knowledge" to the killer, but most people have sufficient "anatomical knowledge" to know roughly where to find the womb.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hunter
    replied
    "They" only had this one murder for precedent, which, ironically was far different in abdominal mutilations that the previous, which "they" nevertheless linked together. The continuation of the series and subsequent evidence caused the police to change and broaden their profile of the murderer while Baxter could only save face by digging himself into a deeper hole.

    Despite it being only a few days between Baxter's assumptions at his summary on the Chapman murder and the double event, Baxter was already being called out by professionals on his theory as well as the fact that only one medico was involved in the examination (notice that didn't happen again). And lo-and-behold it seems they differred a little on the prowess of the killer of Kate Eddowes. If other medicos had been involved in the Chapman investigation opinions may have been different or at least changed as the series continued and more evidence came to light. Oh wait...that did happen as Percy Clark, who was Phillips' assistent said as much in 1910, as I illustrated in an earlier post.

    The constant mistake I see here in analysing the physical evidence is isolating each incidence without considering a rapidly evolving series of events along with an investigation forced to act in a reactionary mode until the dust settled a bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Since some wish to play down the skill sets seen with Annie murder, and ONLY her murder...."No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge. "

    There is no quote anywhere that suggests the above in any other Canonical killing, so either this mans skills suddenly vanished, or someone less skilled did the other murders. Since they only believed that Annie was killed by someone with that prowess, that might indicate something to those who wish to play down this fact in order to marry inconsistent sloppy knife work with skilled use of a blade, just so they can have series by a single man. If that makes you feel safe, so be it. But its hardly what the evidence reads like.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    1. Er....that's exactly what Annie's killer DID do - Inquest, Dr Phillips, Echo 19th Sept;
    "The large intestine remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely
    ".

    Keen incision is a specific term, nothing of the sort is used with Kates wound descriptions.


    2. Due mostly to Baxter and his theory. I believe Phillips only ever suggested some knowledge of anatomy, not necessarily human, rather than surgical skill - Echo, same issue;
    "Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that
    the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy."

    The fact is that in September, immediately following this murder, inquiries were sent out to medical training facilities and colleges, as well as hospitals....neither of which employ or house butchers.


    Meaningless does not equate to unnecessary.

    No? The definition of the word does.
    Its a fact Jon that they sought medical grade skills in September, no single quote undoes that fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    Thanks Jon,
    Llewellyn's autopsy comments on Nichols' wounds I find confusing and somewhat contradictory, not even mentioning a central wound. But most of the papers agree (seemingly independently) that one wound went from vagina to breastbone. Sadly no reports I am aware of mention whether this wound went around, through or anywhere near the navel, but it sounds pretty central to me.
    Hi JR

    In case you haven`t read it, I recommend Tom Wescott`s dissertation, "Old Wounds -Re-examining the Bucks Row Murder".
    I don`t think it will help with the navel thing but it`s worth a gander.

    http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...ld-wounds.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The cut colon segment was from the descending colon on the left of the body. The intestines smeared over with faecal matter were the small intestines which had been pulled out of the body prior to the organs being removed.
    I think it included the descending colon, but as that is probably less than a foot long, also included other parts. We know one cut was at or near the Sigmoid Flexure (adjacent to the uterus), two feet from there would be about the centre of the Transverse Colon, which is directly behind the abdominal wall at this point. We know the pancreas (more or less behind the TC) sustained a cut at "the left side of the spinal column" so it's certainly possible that this was collateral from the TC cut, but whether this was deliberate or was itself collateral from the abdominal incisions (as were the stabs to the liver) is debatable. However, Robert's point that the small intestines were smeared with fecal matter does suggest that the TC was at least nicked before they were removed (unless the smearing was deliberate, which seems less likely to me).

    So I think the cutting out of the colon section is consistent with both accidental damage and deliberate removal. But at this remove in time, only the killer can say which.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
    I believe both Nichols and McKenzie had a similarly long gash as Eddowes, although not quite as central to the body as in Eddowes case
    Thanks Jon,
    Llewellyn's autopsy comments on Nichols' wounds I find confusing and somewhat contradictory, not even mentioning a central wound. But most of the papers agree (seemingly independently) that one wound went from vagina to breastbone. Sadly no reports I am aware of mention whether this wound went around, through or anywhere near the navel, but it sounds pretty central to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Not something someone skilled enough to create the impression he had medical grade surgical skills would likely do...as was assumed of Annies killer.
    Er....that's exactly what Annie's killer DID do - Inquest, Dr Phillips, Echo 19th Sept;
    "The large intestine remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely"

    The premise that they were looking for a surgically trained man lasted for the first few weeks after Annies murder.
    Due mostly to Baxter and his theory. I believe Phillips only ever suggested some knowledge of anatomy, not necessarily human, rather than surgical skill - Echo, same issue;
    "Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy."


    And the quote that " there were no meaningless cuts" should address the idea that there were any Josh.
    Meaningless does not equate to unnecessary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    Unfortunately, I don't think the other case reports are detailed enough to conclude that this was unique to Eddowes, only that it was uniquely mentioned (and illustrated).
    Hi JR

    I believe both Nichols and McKenzie had a similarly long gash as Eddowes, although not quite as central to the body as in Eddowes case

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    Got rather confused as to which victim was being discussed.

    The descending colon taken out of Eddowes would have been cut when extracting the kidney.
    Most probably (and/or the uterus).

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    [QUOTE=Sam Flynn;437023]
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    Do you reckon the colon might have been damaged when Jack was removing the small intestines!/QUOTE]
    Not that part of the colon which was cut out, as it lies at the far end of the alimentary tract to the innards that were pulled out and stretched across her body. Furthermore, the colon is too thick to tear accidentally.
    Got rather confused as to which victim was being discussed.

    The descending colon taken out of Eddowes would have been cut when extracting the kidney.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    [QUOTE=DJA;437019]Do you reckon the colon might have been damaged when Jack was removing the small intestines!/QUOTE]
    Not that part of the colon which was cut out, as it lies at the far end of the alimentary tract to the innards that were pulled out and stretched across her body. Furthermore, the colon is too thick to tear accidentally.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X