Dr. George Bagster Phillips

[Sam Flynn]

I also agree with Simon that 2+2=4. Phillips suspected that more than one person was "involved" in the killing of MJK. What could make a doctor think that?

As Phillips thought that the Ripper took at least 15 minutes to "do for" Annie Chapman, and extrapolating from that, perhaps he estimated that Kelly's mutilations would have taken two or more hours to complete - thereby needing a "lookout" to ensure that the coast was clear over such a protracted period of time. The problem with this scenario is why, with Hutchinson seemingly fitting the bill of "lookout" so perfectly, didn't they come down harder on him when he turned up on the evening of the 12th?

Alternatively, perhaps his suspicions revolved around the observation that the killer's arms and clothing would have been soiled with blood, to the extent of being noticeable to anyone with whom he shared lodgings. The accomplice, in this case, would not have been involved in the killing as such, but would instead covering up for someone observed returning home in such a state.

[Natalie Severn]

Some good points Sam. I wonder though if Phillips would have made a visit to the House of Commons,that same night, to see the secretary to the Home Secretary,if that was all that prompted his thinking?It had after all been suggested before that the ripper might have had relatives who were hiding him.
To me it looks like he might have found something more damning in the contents of the bucket he had brought from Millers Court.But your point about the time involved in such an attack rings true.He must have had some nerve!

[paul emmett]

Hello, Norma, Sam.

I agree with Norma on two counts. One, those were good points, Sam. And your own reservation to the first point was confronted earlier in the thread. GH might be taking advantage of the pardon. But, two, I agree again that there seems to be something more here, something different not just in degree but in kind.

And I have a suggestion built, alas, on ideas that I know Sam doesn't agree with, so I am hoping for constructive criticism. I believe Maxwell, and I believe-- what Sam suggested above of Phillips--that the mutilations of MJK took some time. I don't see a frenzied slaughterer. So, that being said, what if Phillips discovered that it wasn't MJK's body in the bed? IF that were the case, I think that since MJK didn't waltz into the station to announce the mutilated corpse in her bed, Phillips would feel that she was complicit in the crime. And since the crime seems like a JTR kill, MJK might well know who JTR is. Hence, the pardon to draw her out.

[Natalie Severn]

These are interesting thoughts Paul,thats for sure.
With regards to Mrs Maxwell, I have always thought she had confused the Mary she saw with Mary Kelly.She had only spoken to this person once or twice and noone who had actually met her, spoke of her as being short and stout.Mary was 5ft 7 ins tall ,which was actually very tall for an East End girl in 1888-the other victims were around five ft tall.She also had long ginger/blonde hair from reports that were given. So it seems likely the two people stating they saw her, Mrs Maxwell and a male neighbour, also stated they saw her at the Britannia Pub, as well as Millers Court.
Stewart Evans was mentioning this yesterday and pointed out not only the likely confusion, but that if it were true,then Mary would have been seen by many others who were up and about at this time-especially in the Britannia,and the court of Millers Court where there was a water pump.The landlordof the Britannia had definitely not seen her about that morning.
Best Wishes
Norma

[paul emmett]

Norma, Thanks for your help. I'm trying to sort this out and you make me look at different things. I have a few random thoughts about Maxwell.

She didn't say she saw MJK in the Britannia; she imagined she'd been there because of Kelly's words and the vomit. If it's someone else in the bed, Kelly has more reasons to vomit than just booze.

Three people claim to have seen MJK in the morning: Maxwell, Lewis(who DID say he saw her in the Britannia), and what one newspaper called an unnamed woman.

Maxwell, called to the inquest, is clearly the most reliable. And as Simon stresses, she was indeed called to the inquest.

If, as you suggest, MJK's hair was striking, wouldn't that make it even more unlikely that Maxwell got her mistaken with someone else?

Maxwell said what MJK was wearing, and her description fits with Cox's of the previous night.

MJK and Blotchy, with their pail of beer, must have been out drinking the night before, yet police could find noone who had seen them either.

The "short" is a problem with Maxwell's description, but I can't find that in either version of the inquest that I have.

They called each other by their first names, and Maxwell wouldn't "buckle" under pressure at the inquest.

[jason_c]

Hi All,

Here's a possible clue to the topic of conversation between Doctor George Bagster Phillips and Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley, Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the House of Commons on the evening of the Millers Court murder [November 9].

On November 10, the day after Phillips' meeting, the following notice was issued. It appeared in The Times, 12 November 1888—

[ATTACH]1805[/ATTACH]

And the following appeared in the Echo, 12 November 1888—

"It is asserted that the Home Secretary's offer of a pardon to any accomplice was mainly at the instigation of Dr. G. B. Phillips, the Divisional Surgeon of the H Division, who pointed out to the authorities at the Home Office the desirability of such a step being taken."

Coincidence? If not, why would Her Majesty's Government take the advice of a Divisional Surgeon on the matter of pardons to accomplices?

Regards,

Simon

Could it be politicians and career policemen all passing the buck?

It has been suggested previously that the pardon was offered simply in desperation after the Kelly murder. The U-turn was publically defended with the excuse that new evidence had indicated an accomplice.

If politicians were uncomfortable with the change in policy I believe the police would have been in the same position. Heads could have rolled.

Up steps George Bagster Phillips to take the edge off any criticism of the authorities. He was quoted earlier as not having a free hand in the inquiry.

[paul emmett]

If politicians were uncomfortable with the change in policy I believe the police would have been in the same position. Heads could have rolled.

Up steps George Bagster Phillips to take the edge off any criticism of the authorities. He was quoted earlier as not having a free hand in the inquiry.

jason, This doesn't seem to fit with the article Simon posted earlier, which noted that, pledged to secrecy, Phillips wasn't telling the police so much. "Up steps . . .."? Are you saying that Phillips volunteered to take the heat for the pardon?

Simon, you talked of Phillips's "home surgery" earlier. Do we know if he had a home lab where he could examine body parts, say, before his mysterious evening meeting at The House of Commons?

Also, I must confess, I still don't actually understand the quote that Simon began this thread with. Why would Phillips not being a "free agent" ensure that there wouldn't be a new inquest?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

Regarding Phillips not being a free agent, I was merely wondering why that would prevent a new inquest. Not being an authority unto himself, Phillips would do as he was instructed.

Sorry, I know nothing about Phillips' home surgery, but I'll bet it was cleaner and better equipped than those sorry pest-holes known as mortuaries.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Again Paul,I really do not think Mrs Maxwell was correct in the light of the doctors post mortems. I think she confused Mary with someone else .Others would have seen Mary about to confirm her sighting and nobody did except Mr Lewis who said she was a" little dark woman"------and the photos show her to be fair haired or dark blonde, not someone you would describe as having dark hair.And she was 5ft 7ins tall.
Also Joe identified her.He was in no doubt it was his ex partner.Mr McCarthy also identified her and was in no doubt it was Mary Kelly.So I think it was almost certainly[99% likely]to have been Mary Kelly.
Best
Norma

[jason_c]

jason, This doesn't seem to fit with the article Simon posted earlier, which noted that, pledged to secrecy, Phillips wasn't telling the police so much. "Up steps . . .."? Are you saying that Phillips volunteered to take the heat for the pardon?
Simon, you talked of Phillips's "home surgery" earlier. Do we know if he had a home lab where he could examine body parts, say, before his mysterious evening meeting at The House of Commons?

Also, I must confess, I still don't actually understand the quote that Simon began this thread with. Why would Phillips not being a "free agent" ensure that there wouldn't be a new inquest?

Not the heat for the pardon, but the excuse.

Any politician could subsequently claim "on advice given by Dr Phillips we have changed our policy on the pardon". Such lines are still used as cover by politicians today. Dr Phillips had not been able to give such independent advice beforehand as he had not been a "free agent".

Just a plausible scenario.

[paul emmett]

Dr Phillips had not been able to give such independent advice beforehand as he had not been a "free agent".

But now he is?? Jason, Simon, I'm sorry that I'm not getting this free agent thing. Doesn't your first quote, Simon, say that the Attorney General could petition for a new inquest, but here this is unlikely because Phillips, who had a private conference with the coroner, is working for the Home Office and was not a free agent? I still say, Huh? Too many private/secret conversations.

Simon, I'll bet Phillips's home lab was better, and that might explain why he brought the bucket home.

jason, Your scenario IS plausible, but I'm just not sure they would feel enough pressure to make a U-turn here. And if they did, why not a reward? It seems to me they do know something.


Norma, We just disagree; that's all. Three people identified the body as MJK. Hutchinson, who noone seems to believe about anything. McCarthy, who in a newspaper interview said the body was disfigured beyond recognition. Barnett, who, if it's not Kelly, might well be in on it. So the ID'ers don't impress me much. And, this is where we started, all this might explain what Phillips discovered, as well as some of the "peculiarities" you mentioned earlier, like no relatives to ID the body.

[Tom_Wescott]

Phillips exonerated

Here's another press article. This suggests that Phillips may have been treading a fine line between Whitechapel and Whitehall.

ECHO 10-11-88

Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived, Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.

I would caution against taking this report at face value as there are some obvious flaws. The 'report' in question was solicited by Robert Anderson, not Warren, and Dr. Phillips was not involved in its preparation, as we've seen by reading the report itself. This must have been an assumption on the part of the reporter. Furthermore, in the report Bond puts forth his opinion that one man killed all five of the canonical victims. Dr. Phillips believed that only three victims could be ascribed to one killer with any certainty, those being Kelly, Chapman, and either Stride or Nichols. So the reporter is very much in error when he states that Phillips and Bond agreed on every conclusion.

I've never seen any evidence that Dr. Phillips was duplicitous. Although fallible, Phillips seems to have been an above the board guy and a very capable surgeon.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, do we know anything more about what the Doc took home?

I don't know for sure what was in the bucket, except that it sure wasn't KFC. A reporter speculated that it was body parts, and that's probably what it was, but there's no way to be more specific.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

Dr. Phillips believed that only three victims could be ascribed to one killer with any certainty, those being Kelly, Chapman, and either Stride or Nichols.

Just out of curiosity, what is the source for Phillips linking three victims with certainty, and in particular connecting Chapman with Kelly? I've never seen a proper victim tally from Phillips, so any light shed on the issue would be most appreciated.

Best regards,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Ben,

I'm referring to an interview taken with Dr. Phillips' personal assistant where he talked about Phillips' opinion that only three of the victims could be attributed to the same hand with any certainty. That's not saying he altogether ruled out the others, but with any certainty he only attributed three. The assistant made clear that Kelly was one of these victims and Phillips himself made clear that Chapman was as well, and that Eddowes was not. So the only mystery is who is the third victim he beliefved to have been from the same hand? My guess on that would be Nichols. You can read more about this in Evans/Rumbelow's recent book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott