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

[Archaic]

re: Any Corroboration of 'Uterine Specimen' Story?

Hi, Mike.
Yes, I'm asking if anybody ever in any way mentioned the story of the strange American wishing to give an enormous amount of cash for human uteri BEFORE the Chapman murder and the gruesome theft of Annie's uterus.

The story was supposed to have taken place "some months ago", so that's plenty of time for the word to have gone around among the medical community.

After all, the request was regarded as highly unusual, and the monetary amount named was quite extraordinary,
but the story was not yet associated with the commission of a crime at that time, so there was no reason to not repeat it.

In fact, a tale like that it would have made entertaining gossip over brandy & cigars and might even have been written up in one of the journals
as an "oddity" worth sharing. (I've read enough of these LVP journals to know that they love to discuss & comment on everything.)

Let's suppose for a moment that the story about a man wishing to purchase a number of uterine specimens for outrageous amounts of money were perfectly true:
it seems very strange to me that the event described had purportedly taken place "some months earlier", yet NO ONE so much as chatted about it until AFTER Annie was lying there dead minus her uterus.

The doctors associated with the various journals must have wondered about this point too; it's just common sense. The lack of any prior mention of the story must therefore have been factored into the very dubious view they took of Baxter's story.

If Baxter perhaps kept a diary or wrote a letter to someone before the Chapman murder mentioning this "Uterine Specimen" story, I'd love to see it.

What I cannot understand is why no one seems to have ever asked the Sub-Curator to personally corroborate the story.
It's certainly the first thing I would have done.

Best regards, Archaic

Note: The phrase "some months ago" occurs in the Sept 29th 1888 report of The Lancet:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3579

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

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.

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?

Let’s try this again.

You may have noticed that in my last post I was quoting. These quotes were not my words or based on my opinions but are those of a very reliable contemporary source: the British Medical Journal, 6th of October, 1888. The Journal actually looked into Coroner Baxter’s claims only days after Baxter made them and this is what it found:

“To deal first with the personal questions involved, we may say that the theory started by the coroner – not altogether without justification on the information conveyed to him – that the work of the assassin was carried out under the impulse of pseudo scientific mania, is exploded by the first attempt at serious investigation. It is true that inquiries were made at one or two medical schools early last year by a foreign physician, who was spending some time in London, as to the possibility of securing certain parts of the body for the purpose of scientific investigation. No large sum, however, was offered. The person in question was a physician of the highest respectability and exceedingly well accredited to this country by the best authorities in his own, and he left London fully eighteen months ago. There was never any real foundation for the hypothesis, and the information communicated which was not at all of the nature which the public has been led to believe, was due to the erroneous interpretation by a minor official of a question which he had overheard, and to which a negative reply was given. The theory may at once be dismissed, and is, we believe, no longer entertained even by its author.”

A few important points to remember.

Baxter’s theory was “exploded by the first attempt at serious investigation.”
No mention is made of the American medical man wanting a large, or steady, supply of uteri.
“No large sum, however, was offered.”
“The person in question was a physician of the highest respectability and exceedingly well accredited to this country by the best authorities in his own…” i.e. it wasn’t Tumblety.
The American medical man had left London a year and a half before the murders even started.
The story told to Baxter “was due to the erroneous interpretation by a minor official of a question which he had overheard, and to which a negative reply was given.” i.e. the source was mistaken.
They believed that even Baxter no longer believed the story.

As to the question of what these specimens might actually cost in 1888 I can offer this from the Atlanta Constitution, 5 October, 1888. It is datelined New York, 4 October, and is part of an interview with Dr. William A. Hammond, who was considered one of the United States’ leading neurologists, and a man very much interested in the Whitechapel Murders:

“The fact of an American offering hundreds of dollars for anatomical specimens is absurd, is it not?”
“To the last degree. I see the coroner dwelt on it in charging the jury. The specimens referred to can be purchased in this city in unlimited quantities for $1.”

This would translate to 48 pence, or 4 shillings for “unlimited quantities.”

Wolf.

[Archaic]

Thank you for explaining, Wolf.

I did see that in your previous post you were quoting something, but as there were only a couple of sentences without a source & date being given,
I wasn't sure where it fit into all this.

Now that you have explained everything more fully, I agree with you that Baxter's claims do not stand up to any serious scrutiny.

The bit you posted at the end from the Atlanta Constitution saying that such organ specimens can be purchased in "unlimited quantities" for a matter of shillings really puts things in their proper perspective!

Well done.

Thanks and best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

As to the question of what these specimens might actually cost in 1888 I can offer this from the Atlanta Constitution, 5 October, 1888. It is datelined New York, 4 October, and is part of an interview with Dr. William A. Hammond, who was considered one of the United States’ leading neurologists, and a man very much interested in the Whitechapel Murders:

“The fact of an American offering hundreds of dollars for anatomical specimens is absurd, is it not?”
“To the last degree. I see the coroner dwelt on it in charging the jury. The specimens referred to can be purchased in this city in unlimited quantities for $1.”

This would translate to 48 pence, or 4 shillings for “unlimited quantities.”

Wolf.

That does suggest that at that time in Atlanta the purchase price for something of that nature would be small...if Dr Hammond was actually abreast of such things there.

Im not trying to push the theory Wolf...Im trying to have it not be ignored as it was put forward by some of the men responsible for such determinations.

My best regards

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Two quick things Michael.

According to the findings of the British Medical Journal, as I posted, there was no truth to the story told by Baxter. The Coroner was given incorrect information. Perhaps, therefore, this myth should be ignored rather than kept alive for no purpose other than to mislead the unwary.

Second, also as I posted, the Hammond interview was datelined "New York," the city where Hammond lived and worked as Professor of Nervous and Mental Diseases at Bellevue Medical College and at the University of the City of New York as well as being a guest lecturer at the Post Graduate Medical School of New York. He certainly would have been abreast of such things in his own city.

Wolf.

[perrymason]

Two quick things Michael.

According to the findings of the British Medical Journal, as I posted, there was no truth to the story told by Baxter. The Coroner was given incorrect information. Perhaps, therefore, this myth should be ignored rather than kept alive for no purpose other than to mislead the unwary.

Second, also as I posted, the Hammond interview was datelined "New York," the city where Hammond lived and worked as Professor of Nervous and Mental Diseases at Bellevue Medical College and at the University of the City of New York as well as being a guest lecturer at the Post Graduate Medical School of New York. He certainly would have been abreast of such things in his own city.

Wolf.

Second point first, my bad...I read it as Atlanta obviously.

On the first point Wolf, Im sure that you know as well as I that there is an interview that was published with one of the 2 teaching hospitals mentioned as having been approached, and in that story they confirmed that such an incident occurred. They downplayed the sum offered, and the notion that they would have anything to do with that sort of request, and in terms of the profession, thats essentially what I take away from the BMJ article. They understandably wanted distance from these comments.

Its quite clear to me that at an early point in the investigations senior men thought that the killer could be a med student, and Im sure they inquired and explored a lot along those lines. Understandable that the governing body for Physicians would want those stories and suspect theories squashed.

My best as always Wolf

[Archaic]

London "Organ Specimen Prices" Reported In Oct 1, 1888 Pall Mall Gazette

Hi, everyone.
I just found the following passage in the Pall Mall Gazette, October 1, 1888:

"The only practical thing to be done is to keep a sharp look out, and to dismiss once and for all the coroner's theory as to the motive of the murder.

The coroner seems to have been the innocent victim of a somewhat stupid hoax. If he had made inquiries of the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum he would have discovered that the figure named is a quite preposterous and impossible price for the missing portion of the human body. It is best to set the plain facts plainly forth, and the following letter of prices current containing latest quotations for various parts of the human body suffices to blow the coroner's theory into the air:-

The following are the prices which we are paying at present of anatomical subjects:-

For one corpse……………………………………………………. £3 5 0
For one thorax……………………………………………………. 0 5 0
For one arm, one leg, one head on neck and
One abdomen net………………………………………………. 0 15 0

These prices refer to pickled dissecting-room subjects.

The organ removed by the murderer can be had for the asking at any post-mortem room twelve hours after death.

This being so, what comes of the coroner's theory that the murders were committed in order to secure the bonus of £20 offered by a mythical American for the organ in question?

The first thing to be done in order to get on the right track is to get off a wrong one. Now that the coroner's clue turns out to be no clue, we may perhaps, by diligent searching, come upon a clue that will lead us to a real criminal. At present everybody, the police as much as any one else, seems to be completely at sea. "

Best regards, Archaic

[mklhawley]

Hi Archaic!

Since you are actively posting, I have decided to post this for you:

Bridgeport Morning News, 8 October, 1888.

STILL UNCAPTURED.

The Whitechapel Fiend Not Yet in the Hands of the Police.

LONDON IS TERRORIZED.

The Mysterious American Physician Identified…

LONDON, Oct. 7. – The horrors of Whitechapel are no blacker than they were a week ago, but the terror in the district and public excitement are not a whit decreased. The maniac murderer is still in the district, and no one knows when he will select another victim for his merciless mutilation. It is learned from a Scotland Yard man engaged in working on the case that the mysterious American who was here a few months ago offering money for specimens of the parts taken from the bodies of the victims has been discovered. He is a reputable physician of Philadelphia with a large practice, who was over here preparing a medical work on specific diseases. He went to the King’s college and Middlesex hospitals, asked for specimens and merely said that he was willing to pay well, if he could not get them otherwise. The statement that he offered $100 each, or named any other large sum, seems to have been a delusion of the coroner. These facts have been given to the police by an eminent London physician, who saw a great deal of the Philadelphia doctor when he was here, but he would not divulge the information on a written guarantee from Gen. Sir Charles Warren that neither his name nor the name of the physician in question should be given to the public. He said that the doctor had gone back to America, and that his mission here was purely of a legitimate nature…


The question you had awhile ago why Scotland Yard seemed uninterested in the sub-curator may have been answered. This seems to answer that question.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Archaic]

"Delusion of the Coroner"

Hello Mike, and thank you very much for that article.

I like the phrase "delusion of the coroner." The medical journals were a bit more circumspect than this newspaper. I assume it's from Bridgeport, Connecticut?

Any idea if there was really a "written guarantee" of some kind from Sir Charles Warren?

Best regards, Archaic

[Wickerman]

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

That is/was a good question.
If I recall correctly, the inquest on Nichols murder, 2nd sitting, from The Times, Sept. 18. included a statement by Llewellyn that he had returned to the body, "and again examined the deceased" then stated "No part of the viscera was missing".

The question we might ask is, does this mean he did not check for missing organs in the initial post mortem?, the answer must be that he did not.

Therefore, how many other murdered victims prior to Nichols, even back through 1887, were NOT checked for missing organs?

What indeed was the formal procedure for a post mortem?
Which begs the question, did the extent of any post mortem depend on the preconceptions as to the cause of death of the presiding Surgeon?

[Jonathan H]

This is what George Sims wrote in 'Lloyds Weekly' Sept. 1907 under his own name: 'My Criminal Museum -- Who was Jack the Ripper?'


'There are two theories with regard to the identity of the Ripper. One has everything in its favour, and is now generally accepted by the high authorities who had the details of the various investigations gathered together and systematically inquired into ...'

' ... The other theory in support of which I have some curious information, puts the crime down to a young American medical student who was in London during the whole time of the murders, and who, according to statements of certain highly-respectable people who knew him, made on two occasions an endeavour to obtain a certain internal organ, which for his purpose had to be removed from, as he put it, '"the almost living body."

'Dr. Wynne Baxter, the coroner, in his summing up to the jury in the case of Annie Chapman, pointed out the significance of the fact that this internal organ had been removed.'

'But against this theory put forward by those who uphold it with remarkable details and some startling evidence in support of their contention, there is this one great fact. The American was alive and well and leading the life of an ordinary citizen long after the Ripper murders came to an end.'

(Emphases added)

No I do not think that the American asking for uteri samples was Tumblety, nor that he was the Barry St. lodger (which seems to have been an innocent German) but I do believe that this account by Sims is a 'scrambled egg' served up his helpful pal Macnagten.

The retired Jack Littlechild read this, or something like this, by Sims, and it so perplexed and bothered him that he initiated correspondence with the Great Criminologist, who was also his social superior.

Sims replied that the fiend was most likely 'Dr D' (now if a minor comic writer like Frank Richardson knew Druitt's name, eg. 'Dr Bluitt', then Sims certainly did too) without giving the full name. He may have added what he always did about the 'Drowned Doctor' after 1902: affluent, under-employed, no family, the subject of a frantic police hunt, an asylum veteran.

Yet this top suspect was also, allegedly, an English gentleman who drowned himself in the Thames. And the alternate theory of an American medico who lived on for years afterwards is supposedly somebody else ...?

The condescension and the fragmented Tumbleyesque elements of the 'Drowned Doctor' provoked an impeccably polite, yet devastating backhander from Littlechild who revealed both the real chief's suspect's name -- a combination of the alleged 'two theories' at the Yard -- and the author of the original 'Jack' letter.

I think Littlechild thought that this mishmash was via Major Griffiths, but originating from the ego-driven Anderson trying to recast a debacle as a near-triumph -- which it wasn't.

[Wickerman]

It is learned from a Scotland Yard man engaged in working on the case that the mysterious American who was here a few months ago offering money for specimens of the parts taken from the bodies of the victims has been discovered. He is a reputable physician of Philadelphia with a large practice, who was over here preparing a medical work on specific diseases. He went to the King’s college and Middlesex hospitals, asked for specimens and merely said that he was willing to pay well, if he could not get them otherwise.

Given the supposed availability of organs suggested by the Pall Mall Gazette (above, #37), I find it strange that there has never been a statement explaining why this foreign physician was refused something that was readily available to any member of the medical profession.
If he had such reputable credentials, why was he refused, and where, and to whom, did he turn next?
Was there something else to this story the authorities were not releasing?

[Archaic]

Tumbletyesque

Hi Wickerman and Jonathan. Thank you for your posts.

Wickerman, I have some information on Post Mortem Procedures that I intended to post, so I'll try to locate it and get it posted.

Jonathan, I just wanted to say that I enjoyed your article about Melville Macnaghten and George Sims in the most recent issue of the 'Examiner'.

I'll respond to some of the points in your posts soon; I'm too tired to think straight right now.

"Tumbletyesque", that's a great word... it deserves to be in the dictionary.

I'm going to try to use it in normal conversation and see what happens.

(By 'normal conversation', I refer to those occasional but sometimes necessary verbal interactions with non-Ripperologists. )

Best regards,
Archaic

[Errata]

Some things that may or may not be useful in dissecting this angle.

The eminent Dr. Lawson Tait, despite being an expert in ovectomies and writing books on the diseases of women, was not a gynecologist, and he'd slap your face for suggesting it. It just wasn't a medical specialty then (I mean it was, but a humiliating one). My dad has some of his books and letters and the man is clearly horrified that he was considered an expert in "women's medicine". If I recall he said something like "As if I am nothing but a midwife"

And here is why. Ovectomies were considered dangerous procedures. Hysterectomies were not. A family physician could and did perform hysterectomies. Never mind the fatalities for each procedure were the same. But ovectomies were noble because it was considered a way of treating a disease or condition and still leave the woman able to bear children. Hysterectomies were still considered a valid method of attitude adjustment.

This might actually be the most important bit, but as always, judge it as you will. Evidently no organ taken from any of the victims was suitable for medical specimens. When excising a uterus for study, there are two methods of cutting. The first would be considered a total hysterectomy. Vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries all removed as one system. The second would be what is today considered a standard hysterectomy, which removes the uterus just above the cervix, leaving the vagina intact. These two ways were standard, so a guy with a pickled uterus in France was looking at essentially the same thing as a guy with a pickled uterus in New York.

None of the organs were taken that way. None of them could be used as a medical specimen without some sort of gross deformity that would classify it as a curiosity, and a: I'm struggling to think of something about a uterus that could be so deformed and b: amazing luck he happened to kill two women with freak uteri. Clearly he couldn't know that going in. If he was a medical professional looking for a study organ, he would know to go the standardized route. If he was trying to sell them to a medical professional, they would have been rejected, and then why try it again without learning the right way to do it?

and that's all I got.

[mklhawley]

I agree Archaic. Jonathan's and Wickerman's posts are very intriguing. For me a few things do not seem to fit. It seems the Coroner must have been approached by the sub-curator, the very person in personal contact with the individual requesting the specimen. How can one mistaken a story with an eminent physician having a large practice requesting specimens 18 months ago with a story of a medical student requesting a specimen just a few months ago? Just as Jonathan has reported by Sims, the American medical student story explained he was in the Whitechapel district during the time of the murders and the Phily doc claimed not to be. The coroner was quite specific about the 20 pounds, but the Phily doc denied this. Also, if Scotland Yard was indeed satisfied with the eminent Phily explanation, then why were they still quite interested in an American and his hat (recall Tumblety's interview)? hmmm.

Mike