Dr. George Bagster Phillips

[Natalie Severn]

I have always had the impression from reading through Dr Phillip"s reports,that he was a very reliable,thorough and experienced surgeon,so I agree with Tom here.
Regarding the doctor"s possible bewilderment[Dr Phillips and Dr Bond?] over one man being able to kill and mutilate Mary Kelly so fiendishly and get away without being seen,its clear this was an ending of some kind when he lost it and went over to the other side completely.Also there can be no question after reading Dr Phillips reports that either the Ripper varied his use of the knife or there were two killers.I dont find it that difficult to accept there was a lone killer since the Ripper was probably operating under varying degrees of frenzy and growing confidence.Buty did Dr Phillips see it that way at that time? If he saw different knife patterning maybe he saw different killers at work and he may have been right.But to me the Ripper seems tohave been an amazingly cool killer, bec ause he seems to have been able to stop his attack instantly and suppress his wildest urges when necessary,as with Liz Stride.It also looks like he had to do this over Polly Nicholls and Kate Eddowes ,when in both cases he needed to concentrate on his exit strategy between the two sets of patrolling policemen when they were about to make their reappearance.He simply seems to have stopped and disappeared fast.

[Tom_Wescott]

Natalie,

Dr. Phillips thought Eddowes to be the sloppy work of a copycat. The murder of Chapman left him in awe of the killer's bravado and expertise. So why did he accept Kelly as a Ripper victim and not the work of the sloppy copycat? What did he see that impressed him that we don't know about? That's what I'd like to know.

But just for the record, since I"ve seen it discussed here, Phillips does not seem to have thought the Ripper had an accomplice in the murders.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Tom,
the only thing I can think of is that Phillips saw the "signature" of the Ripper in the way the Ripper had "organised" the pieces of flesh, like he was preparing a "show".There were "over-flow" items on a table.But the victim"s breast was "cushioning" her head and on one side of her foot was to be found her other breast.The liver was also "cushioning" the space between her feet.On one side of her trunk her spleen and the other her intestines,providing a comforting wedge.The head was turned on the left cheek.The arms bent at the elbow and one leg at a right angle with the body............the neat arrangement of all this possibly resembled the corpse of Annie Chapman rather than Catherine Eddowes----to Dr Phillip"s way of seeing it.Also,though it was a gross display of blood and gore it was all of a "piece" with his very mad "neat" little touches in amongst the carnage.Something very mad about the whole display .But ofcourse we cant quite see in in the 3D way he did.
I suspect Kate Eddowes was a bit of a "rushed job" compared with Mary Kelly or Annie Chapman.

As for Liz Stride.It was something about the method of attack,the speedy despatch,with a throat cut that indicated knowledge of swift sure use of the knife, blood spurt direction and strangulation technique that seems to have impressed him in her murder.

[Tom_Wescott]

Natalie,

I suspect it wasn't the organization of the body parts that impressed Phillips, because anyone could have read that in the press about Chapman's belongings. It must have been something medical that informed him he was dealing with the killer of Chapman. My guess is that it was the method in which the heart was extracted. As far as Stride goes, Phillips just recognized that her killer knew how to use a knife and cut a throat. He never did put himself on record (at that time) as saying she was killed by the same man who killed Chapman. The impression I get is that Phillips was willing to accept that all 5 women were probably killed by the same man, but he wasn't as certain about some as others.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Tom,
Yes,I remember reading about the extraction of the heart and that it was fairly difficult to actually extract the heart in the way he had done.It appeared to have been done via the diaghram .I must look it up.
But in the Source book it states that Phillips did put himself on record about the Rose Mylett death via another person,
"The murderer he [Dr Phillips] says,"must be a man who has studied the theory of strangulation for he evidently knew where to place the cord so as to immediately bring his victim under control.It would be necessary to place the cord in the right place."
In another section there is a discussion of the absence of noise being difficult to account for.Dr Phillips suggested [regarding the Berner street murder]...the reason there was no cry was [possibly] that the victim,before being laid down ,was rendered by partial strangulation incapable of crying out."......
......."In Mitre Square, Catherine Eddowes was first laid down on the ground and her throat was afterwards cut.If she had been suddenly seized,as the victim of Clarke"s Yard had been seized [ie as Rose Mylett had been seized]. and thus forced upon the ground,there would not necessarily be post mortem indications of the fact."
.........he goes on.........
"He also recalled at once the fact of strangulation in the Hanbury Street case.With respect to the other murders ,Dr Phillips points out that the retraction of the skin following immediately upon severance of the throat would immediately destroy marks of the cord supposing it to have been first used"..........
Its quite an interesting piece of reporting. [from The Star 24th December 1888].This was found in Swanson"s file of 18 January 1889.....it was attached to a letter indicating a dispute between Dr Bond and Dr phillips regarding whether or not he had had the consent of Dr Phillips to examine Mary Kelly"s corpse.Swanson is at pains to point out that Dr Bond did not give evidence to the coroner.

Best

[Tom_Wescott]

Good work there, Nats. Seems you've looked into the matter quite a bit. In the case of Stride, Dr. Phillips ruled out strangulation which is why he could not explain how the Ripper maneuvered her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Good work there, Nats. Seems you've looked into the matter quite a bit. In the case of Stride, Dr. Phillips ruled out strangulation which is why he could not explain how the Ripper maneuvered her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I never realised this Tom.So the medical thinking on the murder is what?

[paul emmett]

But just for the record, since I"ve seen it discussed here, Phillips does not seem to have thought the Ripper had an accomplice in the murders.

Hi, Tom. Why do you say this, and then what do you do with the ECHO article quoted earlier as saying that Phillips was the main instigator of the pardon?

Hi, Norma. Weren't Phillips and Bond often at odds? Nice point re strangulation.
Also if Phillips thought that different wound patterns--or whatever--suggested two killers, he couldn't have offered a pardon to one of them. So perhaps he did think that the wounds were different, but that can't help us with the pardon, right?

Aren't two links between MJK and AC, the body position, which has been noted, and the flaps?

[Tom_Wescott]

Dr. Phillips had initially reached an erroneous theory that the Ripper grabbed Stride by the shoulders and pushed her to the ground and that there had been a minor struggle. At the time he reached this conclusion he was not aware that Dr. Blackwell and not the Ripper had been responsible for knocking the cachous loose from Stride's hand, causing the scene to look as though there'd been some struggle. As for how she was silenced, he has no idea. There was no sign of poison, or head trauma, or strangulation. He points out that there may indeed have been noise made by Stride, but no one heard it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi, Tom. Why do you say this, and then what do you do with the ECHO article quoted earlier as saying that Phillips was the main instigator of the pardon?

I say this because no pardon was offered to anyone helping in the commission of the crime. Phillips and everyone else agreed that the Ripper left Millers Court quite bloody. From this they inferred he didn't have far to go and that he may lodge or live with someone who might have an idea of his guilt. The pardon was simply to a) Assure anyone with second-hand knowledge that they will not get in trouble, and b) to assuade an angry public accusing the police of inactivity.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Thats what I recall now, Tom.I did read your article where you explained this and was impressed by your thinking on it as you know.
I think the point was made then that she may have cried out but that the noise of the singing upstairs in the Berner Club was quite loud and may have drowned her cries.


Paul,
There is always the possibility the Ripper could have performed the murders naked, wiped himself as best he could and then put his clothes back on.

Nats

[paul emmett]

I agree about Tom's article, I agree about a potentially naked JTR, and I certianly agree that Phillips didn't seem to think that there were two killers. But I'm not so sure about the reasons for a pardon--upset public and bloody guy coming home to someone--causing the powers to be to make what someone earlier referred to as a complete U-turn here to a pardon. People had been pushing those reasons before MJK, without much success.

And even if they were making a U, wouldn't a reward, or better yet a pardon AND a reward, be more pacific and productive?

[Tom_Wescott]

Thats what I recall now, Tom.I did read your article where you explained this and was impressed by your thinking on it as you know.

I agree about Tom's article

Thank you for the kind words about my essay. I don't recall having written it though so could you please tell me which one you're referring to?

But I'm not so sure about the reasons for a pardon--upset public and bloody guy coming home to someone--causing the powers to be to make what someone earlier referred to as a complete U-turn here to a pardon. People had been pushing those reasons before MJK, without much success.

Exactly, and now a young girl was killed IN HER HOUSE on Lord Mayor's day. Prior to this people believed that they'd be safe if they were indoors by a certain hour. Now the Ripper had upped the ante and a new panic started. The pardon was underwhelming, but it was something. The answers as to why are there in the reports.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Paul,
Warren was pretty desperate to have the Home Office agree to a reward but Matthews couldnt do it----couldnt lose face---
Nats

[perrymason]

On the issue of the pardon, I believe its speed to paper was primarily a case of the co-mingling of the cumulative pressures and Sarah Lewis's sighting. The pardon was offered to an accomplice who "at any rate, after the fact" assisted the murderer in some fashion.

As mentioned by a Senior Official "certain circumstances" warranted the action in this case, which made its issuance a priority, and I believe that on November 10 the only witness account that would have had that kind of influence on that position is Sarah Lewis, who saw someone watching a soon to be discovered murder site. Its the only case of the 5 that had a potential look-out seen.

Best regards.