No announcement yet.

Dr George Foy's View

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dr George Foy's View

    I don't recall seeing this opinion before in the Press Reports

    The Scotsman
    2 October 1888

    Dr George Foy, a well known Dublin anatomist, in a letter to the Freeman's Journal, places some facts before the public that he thinks invalidates the London Coroner's conclusions as to the object of the Whitechapel murders. Dr Foy says:-
    "The fact that the uterus was removed from the body of each victim is taken to imply that the organ was the sole object of the murder, and that the crime was committed to obtain it. Every anatomist must know that a large percentage of the dead bodies brought to the anatomy rooms are those of the unfortunate class, and that the organ is plentiful. From considerable experience as an anatomy lecturer, I can say I never knew of any demand for it as a pathological specimen that was not easily met. To excise the organ in its entirety does require some anatomical knowledge, but not more than any anatomy porter possesses. As for the crime, we find it carried out with a reckless devilry worthy of a monomaniac, but not to be found associated with the cool villainy that characterises the criminal for pecuniary gain. Any person familiar with the working of the Anatomy Acts knows perfectly well that no specimen of any portion of the human body could be offered for sale without the seller being subjected to a searching examination into all the details of the case, and he would run the risk, if his statements were not satisfactory, of being handed over to the police. The Whitechapel murderer silenced his victim by a method of choking, or pressing the lower jaw up against the upper one, the method of a bully, but not such as a skilful anatomist would adopt, who of necessity should know that a fine slit with a small knife would deprive the person of all power of sound. The victims' throats were cut, allowing the large vessels of the neck to pour out blood to the risk of besmearing the criminal, a danger which he need not have incurred had he known - as an anatomist would have - how to destroy life. But is not the fact important in pointing out the ruthless determination and blind rage of the deep dyed ruffian who has thus dared to carry on his crimes with an apparent contempt for all law, human and divine?"

  • #2
    What JtR could do with uterus?
    A) sell for money as specimen
    B) make a "thieves' candle"
    C) eat it
    D) leave it as a trophy
    E) prepare strange paramedic examination
    F) prepare strange ritual, maybe occult

    Something else? (Except "thow it away"?)

    By the way, the word "ruffian" is dangerous. It always smells like "3 ruffians". Unnecessarily.


    • #3
      to me, the amazing part of the report would be : "...that the uterus was removed from the body of each victim."
      Does it mean that the doctor believed Nichols to have been mutilated in such a way?
      And since there is no reference to the kidney, should this article have been written before the double event?
      Very interesting, anyway.

      David (broken-English poster)

      ps: Chris Scott...nothing new about Grainger ? The more I miss information about this one, the more I see him as a very possible ripper...