Nov.1, 1888 Medical Times: Mutilations, Uterine Specimens, Burking, Baxter, etc

[Archaic]

Nov. 1, 1888 Medical Times and Register Article:
'The Whitechapel Murders: The Nature of the Mutilations'.

This article covers a number of topics, including: the mutilations, the 'Burking' theory, the story of the American seeking to purchase human uteri in order to release specimens with copies of his book, murders in Texas, insanity, Phillips, Baxter, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, etc.

Best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

It seems very interesting to me Archaic that they readily discount the notion of organ theft as in Burke and Hare lore due to his lack of interest in organs in a later victim who I assume was Kate Eddowes by the facial wounds....seems they concluded that organ theft wasnt accomplished in Kates case, which is of course inaccurate...which immediately weakens their position on a "mad" non-organ related killer.

Best regards mate....Im gald to see so many articles related to this subject lately....its time we stopped for a moment to wonder whether Baxter and Phillips may have been correct. And if they were.....the assumptions they made about the killer of Polly and Annie are never again mentioned about any subsequent alleged Ripper murder...because in my opinion, the evidence didnt warrant such a conclusion.....its clear that Liz was not killed for any organ, no-one suggests Kate ws killed so she could donate her kidney but Phillips suggests the wounds do not match the skills shown in the first 2 murders....and no-on in their right mind would suggest that all that happened to Mary Jane in that room were necessary steps in the removal of her heart.

Its not that Burke and Hare is fanciful....the truth is that none of the following victims showed that their goals were similar to the ones seen in the first 2 murders....so the application of Burke and Hare in a Canonical Group is whats improbable or fanciful....not whats suggested in the 2 first cases.

Cheers Arch

[Archaic]

Hi, Mike. I have many more articles coming. I find them really fascinating because they give us the perspective of those who were actually living through the Whitechapel murders as they unfolded.

I wonder if the members of the medical professionals had a somewhat derisive attitude towards Baxter because he wasn't a Physician, but made what sounded like "medical" pronouncements as opposed to sticking to his legal duties as Coroner? I get the feeling they thought he was stepping on their toes, so to speak.

It's clear that the doctors took a very dim view of Baxter making so many public remarks. Besides believing it to be unwise, they also viewed it as "unseemly". Maybe this is a partly a reflection of their cherished medical ideals of confidentiality, professionalism, conservatism, etc. They seem to not only have disagreed with him, but to have been quite annoyed. I wonder if they already felt this way before the Whitechapel Murders occurred, and their annoyance was increased when Baxter was in the spotlight?

Lots to ponder.

Best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

Hi Arch,

I think the community was familiar with his theatrics and that more than anything caused the backlash....because in the most simple of terms, he had not suggested a storyline that had no potential support in the known facts.

The summation that he makes the remarks during is a long one and it covers all the murders up to that point....some he may not have been informed enough to be commenting on...but it is very strongly suggested by the physical evidence in the case of Annie Chapman that her killers real objectives were tied in with the organ extractions.

Why anyone would do such a thing is a very problematic question on its own, but when there is a possibility that such objectives would be in keeping with what is very clearly a strange offer made by this American quack, we shouldnt ignore that.

All the best Archaic