Sept. 29, 1888 LANCET: Chapman, Baxter & Organ Specimens

[Archaic]

This is a rather lengthy article which I found quite interesting. It discusses the Chapman murder, Wynn Baxter, and the story of the American wishing to buy female organ specimens.

Best regards, Archaic

PS: Hope the scan is decent enough that you can enlarge it & read it alright; I was unable to upload a larger image.

[Phil Carter]

Archaic,

I found that very interesting indeed! It being a cross between Baxter and Phillips' work, and a reliable interpretation based from a medical viewpoint.
Well done!

best wishes

Phil

[Archaic]

Thanks, Phil.

Is the text clear enough to read without too much trouble?

I swear, poring through these old journals is wearing out my poor eyeballs.

Cheers, Archaic

[Phil Carter]

Thanks, Phil.

Is the text clear enough to read without too much trouble?

I swear, poring through these old journals is wearing out my poor eyeballs.

Cheers, Archaic

Hello Archaic,

A little straining...but ok... I take it one paragraph at a time..lol (MY old eyeballs have these sheets of glass in front of them, hanging from my nose..lol)

best wishes

Phil

[Mike Covell]

Hi Arch, the date on the Lancet states Sept 29th 1888 not 22nd. Is this a typo on your part?

The article is similar in parts to the British Medical Journal's article on the Whitechapel Murders that appeared in the October 22nd 1888 issue. There was also another article on the murders in the same issue, covering the main points of Dr. George Baxter Phillips.

[Celesta]

It's alright, Archy. It's readable but small. Might be easier to print it and read it, for me, anyway. I've seen something similar but don't know if this is the same thing I saw. Someone'll recognize it, if it's been here before. Good work.

[perrymason]

I find it interesting that for the most part in the coverage of his Inquest remarks Baxter is derided by peers and colleagues and is charged with heightening the paranoia and irrational fears that were flying about at the time.......but none were able to set aside the story he claimed he heard as being a false one. In fact, it is later corroborated by one of the 2 teaching facilities supposedly approached.

I think its important to keep in mind that no-one proved the story itself as false in any way....it happened....now, whether what Baxter suggests is based upon the progression of the mutilations and the specific nature of the interest shown by the killer...or whether he is trying to play Sherlock Holmes and solve the case himself...isnt really important.

The important fact here is that the story was very likely true....and the incident happened the year prior to the murder of Polly and Annie.....which in Annies case, she was assumed by the attending physician to be killed for her uterus.

Best regards all.

[Mike Covell]

At the bottom corner of your internet browser you should have a magnifying glass with a list of percentages listed, by clicking on them you can zoom in and out, making the image smaller and bigger.

Here is the banner with the date on Arch, showing it as the 29th not 22nd.

[Archaic]

re: Typo In Date

Hi, Mike, how are you?

You are correct, I must have mistyped the date. Thank you for pointing it out.

My apologies to everyone about the typo; I'll see if it's possible to edit it.

I've been reading so many of these old articles, many of which have inky, faint or blurry type, that my eyes are getting exhausted, and apparently being bleary-eyed doesn't do my typing skills any favors!

Again, thank you very much for letting me know.

Best regards, Archaic

PS: Hope that your Dad's treatments are coming along alright & that your family is doing well.

[Mike Covell]

Dads responding well to his chemo thanks Arch.

I know what you mean about the text, the BMJ's are pretty clear, but the Hull Press reports are awful in parts, especially when it gets to the Great Baccarat Scandal and the trial of Deeming!

[Archaic]

BMJ's, Baccarat, Electrocutions & Phonographs

Hi, Mike, I just asked Stephen how I go about changing the errant '9' to a '2'.

Yes, the BMJ's are usually pretty legible, but I'm handling all sorts of old books and journals, some of them rather obscure and not very well printed- the tiny cramped type is doing my eyeballs in. There are a number that I had to transcribe in order to post them, because the article is too hard to read as an attachment. (Whenever i have to do that I will try to post the article itself too). I have a bunch more coming.

Speaking of the Baccarat Scandal, boy have I come across a lot of references to that!
Also experiments in Electrocution, loads of articles describing the hideous symptoms of Venereal Disease, and last night I saw an article heralding Edison's experiments with Phonographs- which were hailed as a boon to modern doctors! Had to do with playing back their own case-notes to them via wax cylinders. Yep, nothing like a little hi-tech modern convenience.

Very glad to hear your Dad is doing well.

Best regards, Archaic

[nicole]

Hi all,

What is MOST remarkable about the article is the date. It was published on the 29th Sept and within a few hours another two women were dead. Extraordinary coincidence?? As for the content of the article and the idea that these women were murdered solely for their organs, it has always sounded very plausible to me. As William of Ockham suggests...If it looks like a duck and qucks like a duck, then it's a duck!!

Nicky

[Sam Flynn]

What is MOST remarkable about the article is the date. It was published on the 29th Sept and within a few hours another two women were dead.

Ah, but it could have been written a couple of days previously, Nicole. Baxter's story was covered by the Times on the morning of the 27th September, and one might have expected the Lancet (then, as now, a weekly journal) to have responded pretty quickly, given the nature of the story.

It says something about Victorian sensibilities that the Lancet makes much more of the amount of money allegedly offered, than of the inherent absurdity of the rest of Baxter's loopy tale.

[Archaic]

It says something about Victorian sensibilities that the Lancet makes much more of the amount of money allegedly offered, than of the inherent absurdity of the rest of Baxter's loopy tale.

Hi, Sam, I noticed that the Lancet seemed to focus on the monetary amounts too.

I have no idea what an "appropriate" monetary amount would be for the purchase of human uterui in the 1880's.

-Maybe the article's author felt that he did?

Cheers, B

[Archaic]

Sept. 29, 1888 BMJ Article re: Chapman Inquest & Uterine Specimens

Hi, folks.

Here is the corresponding article as published in the British Medical Journal on the same day, September 29, 1888.

I enjoy seeing these articles as they originally appeared and thought others might too, so decided to include it here.

The story about the American wishing to purchase uteri appears to have been received with a great deal of skepticism at the BMJ;
notice the last sentence in particular.

Best regards, Archaic