Oct.15, 1888 Med Article: Madness, Tumblety & Organ Theft Theories

[Celesta]

Chris Scot also made a nice post on Tait.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1358&highlight=Dr.+Tait

[perrymason]

One point that is often forgotten regarding the suppositions made by Baxter and Phillips and the press articles.....Baxter did drop his Inquest suppositions after receiving a lot of push back from the medical community on them, and no investigator other than Abberline as I recall gave the theory much credence....but of the 2 institutions that were mentioned as having been contacted by an American physician interested in uteri samples for his research papers, one flatly denied it, and one corroborated the story.

People think the Burke and Hare rationale went out the window with the enactment of laws that allowed med students access to cadavers for study legitimately....but they forget or dont realize that the demand for organs and cadavers had grown immensely in the years just prior to the killings because science and medicine were being united at that time, and since the students got organs or cadavers from executions or unclaimed bodies in a workhouse, that means that many researchers would not have legitimate avenues to explore to obtain some samples.

Few people even thought of leaving their remains to medical study at that time, and most religions prominent in London required that the deceased be buried intact, whenever possible. To defile a corpse by cutting it into pieces to study almost assured that the deceased's soul would not arise to nirvana, heaven,... whatever the name of their afterlife residence.

In the first 2 murders, which is all that Baxter and Phillips comments were about, .... murder to acquire organs is very definitely still on the table.

Best regards all.

[Howard Brown]

murder to acquire organs is very definitely still on the table--- Mike

Mike:

Speaking for myself, I'm not forgetting the laws passed in Britain decades before the WM....I think others are overlooking the fact that unless people were kidnapped, Shanghaied, or went walkabout, there are no murders where organs were missing on victims contemporaneously of the WM...murders which could be said to be cases where organs were the objective.

Can you, in all your inquiries into LVP murder cases, find one example of a person who was murdered and where the organs were taken after Burke and Hare ?

Considering the rise in London's population, wouldn't there be numerous cases of this sort of murder followed by evisceration and organ theft? Why only in 1888 ?...unless of course you find one I've somehow overlooked.

In all likelihood, while resurrection men weren't completely rendered obsolete by the laws passed years before,their expertise was pushing a shovel, not murder. In fact, theft for organs suggests second party complicity, hence conspiracy. With all the risks the killer was taking in each murder ( Nichols,Chapman, Eddowes ), what idiot would continue to recieve ill gotten gain such as was being extricated ? What price uteri ?

I'm curious as to why Baxter would even mention something along those lines at an Inquest in front of the Press, getting the natives restless with that frankly irresponsible statement. Baxter, in my view, should have said that to the police, if at all, and not to the media. To me, it was either said in the midst of some emotional reaction to the brutality of the Chapman murder....or some showboating.

[mklhawley]

I'm sorry, I think I'm missing something. Could someone please list all Americans known to be at Whitechapel in 1888 with a bizarre habit of collecting Uterus specimens besides Tumblety?

"This is no more absurd than the theory which attributes the murders to an American who is collecting specimens for a museum."

To me, this clearly suggests Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a possible suspect even before his arrests and the Batty St. Lodger incident. It certainly supports Stewart Evens' ideas.

Sincerely,

Mike

[perrymason]

murder to acquire organs is very definitely still on the table--- Mike

Mike:

Speaking for myself, I'm not forgetting the laws passed in Britain decades before the WM....I think others are overlooking the fact that unless people were kidnapped, Shanghaied, or went walkabout, there are no murders where organs were missing on victims contemporaneously of the WM...murders which could be said to be cases where organs were the objective.

Can you, in all your inquiries into LVP murder cases, find one example of a person who was murdered and where the organs were taken after Burke and Hare ?

Considering the rise in London's population, wouldn't there be numerous cases of this sort of murder followed by evisceration and organ theft? Why only in 1888 ?...unless of course you find one I've somehow overlooked.

In all likelihood, while resurrection men weren't completely rendered obsolete by the laws passed years before,their expertise was pushing a shovel, not murder. In fact, theft for organs suggests second party complicity, hence conspiracy. With all the risks the killer was taking in each murder ( Nichols,Chapman, Eddowes ), what idiot would continue to recieve ill gotten gain such as was being extricated ? What price uteri ?

I'm curious as to why Baxter would even mention something along those lines at an Inquest in front of the Press, getting the natives restless with that frankly irresponsible statement. Baxter, in my view, should have said that to the police, if at all, and not to the media. To me, it was either said in the midst of some emotional reaction to the brutality of the Chapman murder....or some showboating.

Hi Howard,

I accept your concerns about the feasibility as valid, but I dont imagine that people of the temperament displayed in the killings we most readily associate with Jack the Ripper were "common" amongst killers of any particular era....so that no other supposed "organ thefts" in the period that extended from the enactment of the new laws...which was the mid forties I believe....to the period where we do see that activity...1888....isnt enough in my opinion to warrant dismissing the possibility that some of the murders that Fall may have had that goal. In fact one is stated by the Coroner to have likely been a murder committed so the killer could obtain what he took from the victim.

One thing that Tony Williams book does do is show the very active Medical research that was taking place in London at the time, and highlighting that some of it concerned organs of re-generation. And the dissecting rooms in teaching facilities were crammed with students....Ive done some study on Victorian era Med Students, and in most cases as many as 10 or 12 students might get access to just a single corpse for dissection and study.

All that is needed to accept this as a premise is to accept that Baxter and Phillips likely interpreted the wound data correctly, and that someone existed who was cruel and cold enough to attempt to take samples from living women who were helpless and homeless and for the most part shunned by proper society......which would include Physicians.

The 20L figure isnt the relevant factor I dont believe...although if true, that in and of itself would ensure that some local thugs would consider the act for that reward....But I feel the real factors to consider is what starving, oppressed, homeless people might do in order to survive.

Like perhaps taking a contract offer from someone like Dr T for example.

People kill to survive daily....the gory manner in which they sometimes do it isnt really the point. Its pent up anger, hostility, desperation and all things human that drive some horrifying acts.

A normal sane man might cut his own arm off with a pen knife to free himself from being pinned by a giant boulder, (true story), .....might a starving desperate one with mouths to feed kill and cut a street woman open to steal something he can sell?

Im not saying that this is the motive behind both Polly and Annies murder...I am saying that this theory was offered by one man who saw more dead Canonicals than anyone else and a Coroner involved in many of the same cases. And that in no other Ripper crime is there anything that suggests similar motives...as no other physician makes that kind of remark about anything he observed after Annie Chapman. In other words, we have no reason to suggest that Kate was killed for her kidney and partial uterus, or Mary so the killer could have her heart. And I am saying that to find someone in the East End at that time who would be willing to do violence or even kill to survive their hard life wouldnt be a monumental task. Even robberies ended with stabbing and cuts...up the potential reward for the action...and who knows what people will agree to do.

Remember the scene in Magic Christian with Ringo Starr, where they fill a vat with sewage and human waste in a public square and then spray $100 bills in the gunk....you know what happens. Need trumps Morals or Ethics in many cases.

My best regards as always HB

[jmenges]

Could someone please list all Americans known to be at Whitechapel in 1888 with a bizarre habit of collecting Uterus specimens besides Tumblety?

Dr. Prince Albert Morrow.

JM

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

This is no more absurd than the theory which attributes the murders to an American who is collecting specimens for a museum.

The American written about above is Coroner Baxter’s American doctor – the man from Philadelphia – who, Baxter stated, had written a medical book and was looking for uteri specimens so that he could supply a sample with each copy. This was not Tumblety nor was it correct.

The American doctor was, as stated, from Philadelphia, which Tumblety was not. He also didn’t want samples to be supplied with copies of his book but rather wanted “certain parts of the body for the purpose of scientific investigation.” No large sum of money was discussed for this. This American was also described as being “a physician of the highest respectability and exceedingly well accredited to this country by the best authorities in his own,” which certainly didn’t pertain to Tumblety. It should also be noted that this American had left London eighteen months earlier.

The confusion here seems to stem from this bit: “an American who is collecting specimens for a museum,” (which in itself seems to be a garbling from the fact that Baxter said the American was asking for specimens from Pathological museums). Tumblety did not own a collection of uteri, let alone have a museum full of them. This myth comes from one disreputable source (a conman and convicted perjurer) who has been shown to have got his facts concerning Tumblety all wrong.

Archaic

I can’t actually find the article. It appeared in either Ripper Notes or Ripperologist six to eight years ago.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

I've recently been researching Colonel Dunham and I've found exactly what Wolf is saying. The evidence certainly shows Dunham was a conman and cheat. In court, Falsus in Uno mandates that we take this into account and for good reason.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Archaic]

More Articles

Hi, folks; glad you are finding the article interesting.

(Wolf, thank you for looking for that article; I appreciate it.)

I posted a handful of other articles & more are coming.

Here is a link to September 29, 1888 medical articles from the Lancet & the BMJ; I decided to keep them on the same thread for the sake of simplicity as they share both date and range of topics -but they aren't identical.

Sept. 29 Med Articles: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3579

Last night I put up this Nov. 1,1888 Medical Times and Register article which discusses "the nature of the mutilations", burking, Baxter, someone wishing to purchase uterine specimens, Phillips, murders in Texas, etc.

Nov. 1 Med Times:http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3589

Also a scan of the Sept. 22, 1888 BMJ article concerning the Chapman inquest. It is more single-subject than the other articles so I put it on the Chapman thread.; thought some people might like to see it as it appeared on the journal page.

Sept. 22, 1888 BMJ:http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3587

And if my poor tired eyeballs don't fall out of my head, I'll put up more. I'm not very handy at scanning & cropping & all that jazz yet,
but I'm learning, and it's starting to go a little faster.

>> Just want to say that now I have an INCREASED APPRECIATION for all of you who for years have worked hard scouring the archives & newspapers for interesting documents & articles to share, because it's exhausting!! So THANK YOU everybody!

Best regards, Archaic the Bleary-Eyed

[mklhawley]

So with Archaic's first article, it is certainly not out of the question that the colonel could have been making a name for himself by spinning a uterus/tumblety story, because he would have had knowledge of both "An American collecting uterus specimens in the Whitechapel area" and Tumblety being a ripper suspect.

Oh, the plot thickens.


Mike

[perrymason]

I think to be fair Wolf, the most we can say about the incident where an eminent American Physician offered to purchase organs is that in at least some form, that story was corroborated by one of the 2 teaching facilities.

Whether it was 20L or 20d that was offered, or whether it was to accompany research papers, or for experimental use, we cannot say. What has been said by the said facility is that it was not a sum as large as 20L....the equivalent to approx 1500L sterling today, roughly, according to my amigo Sam Flynn.

Even half that amount would be a substantial temptation for desperately poor, rough and surly ghetto dwellers.

My best regards

[Archaic]

Is There A First-Hand Account??

I'm curious as to whether you guys feel that the "man attempting to purchase organs" theory is more believable if the monetary amount named
were not so incredibly high?

Seriously, does anybody know what organ specimens cost in 1888?

I don't personally believe that Tumblety was the Whitechapel Murderer, or that whoever did kill the women and steal their uteri first attempted to purchase human uteri legally, but I'm wondering if the medical professionals who heard this story when it was first going around might have dismissed it out of hand based upon the very high monetary value mentioned? I noticed that they all seem to have responded similarly- that is, with disbelief and even open derision.

I also wonder if it's possible that somebody slightly altered what the pathological curator actually said, because, obviously, a person who would pay an exhorbitant amount of money for a human uterus appears much more likely to have a motive to kill in order to obtain them than does an individual who would pay, say, $5 each.

I would love to know if there was ever a first-hand acknowledgment on the part of the pathological curator
that this event occurred EXACTLY as Baxter reported it, monetary amounts and all.

Does anybody know?

Thanks and best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

I dont believe one exists Archaic, or one has not yet been discovered.

I think for perspective, the suggestion that someone would kill a woman so as to obtain her internal organs is most probably a preposterous idea.....but the evidence in the murder of Annie Chapman suggests that her killer may have done just that. Since no murder prior to Polly's resembles her murder, and since the very next unsolved murder of a woman in that same area and using what appears to be the virtually identical attack and cut methodology that is seen with Polly's murder, it was fair for them to conclude that the goals they felt Annies killer demonstrated by the sequencing and actions he displayed were also likely the same goals that were his objectives in the first "Ripper" murder.

In Pollys case, a failure to accomplish those goals can probably be addressed by a pitiful choice of venue.......her body is "found" by 3 unaffiliated men within a very short time frame, almost literally lying in the street. The next venue was a backyard, less foot traffic ... and organs were cut free and taken.....demonstrating some prowess in the act and learned behavior based on the first venue....and so was deemed a success by the Physician.

Its powerful because these 2 women DID seem to be killed so their abdomens could be cut open...and I agree with the doctor, both were likely 1 killer with similar goals, obtaining organs....and no other Canonical did display that kind of suggestive evidence. Not even the 2 others that also donated organs. At least no-one saw the physical evidence in a manner like was stated in those first 2 murders.

All the best

[Archaic]

re: Baxter's Story

Hi, Mike.

If there isn't a documented corroboration of Baxter's story by the pathologist who supposedly told it to him, is there at least
a record of THE FIRST TIME that Baxter ever told this story about the person wishing to purchase human uteri?

I know it was floating around AFTER Annie Chapman was murdered and her uterus was taken, but was it ever told BEFORE??

Thanks & best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

Hi, Mike.

If there isn't a documented corroboration of Baxter's story by the pathologist who supposedly told it to him, is there at least
a record of THE FIRST TIME that Baxter ever told this story about the person wishing to purchase human uteri?

I know it was floating around AFTER Annie Chapman was murdered and her uterus was taken, but was it ever told BEFORE??

Thanks & best regards, Archaic

I see....you mean unrelated to the Ripper crimes specifically? I dont recall ever having heard that such comments as the ones he made in summation were made concerning another crime involving the theft of organs between the time the American Doctor supposedly made his offer and the comments made at the Inquest into the Chapman murder.....then again, I dont recall reading of another such crime in the years immediately preceding or following the Chapman murder either.

A murder with organ theft was very naturally a rare occurrence, that it happened 4 times in roughly 2 1/2 months is Im sure statistically highly improbable...that it was the work of more than one killer would also be high odds as well.....but despite that, only 2 of the 4 women who had organs taken were assumed by the physician attending to have been murdered so the postmortem extractions could proceed and that he was ultimately seeking organs to remove and take with him....in at least Annies case, it seemed clear to Phillips that the killer sought to obtain the intact organ he removes.

Im not sure why Baxter would have ever drawn a similar conclusion prior to Annie's murder, as to my knowledge he would likely have never encountered a murder victim with a stolen uterus before.


My best regards mate