Example of a serial killer

[Sam Flynn]

"No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more"

Beware of that quote. It's often taken to be an official statement by someone who examined Chapman's body, and is usually attributed to George Bagster Phillips, but it is in fact merely an editorial/opinion-piece in The Lancet.

[Takod]

Beware of that quote. It's often taken to be an official statement by someone who examined Chapman's body, and is usually attributed to George Bagster Phillips, but it is in fact merely an editorial/opinion-piece in The Lancet.

Woah! So it's got no relation at all to anyone who had even seen the body?

[Sam Flynn]

Woah! So it's got no relation at all to anyone who had even seen the body?

Indeed. However, there were some detailed press reports available from which much of the information cou have been obtained, albeit not one of them mentioned the "single sweep of a knife". That smacks of artistic licence, and has more than a whiff of melodrama about it.

[Fisherman]

Woah! So it's got no relation at all to anyone who had even seen the body?

Actually, Gareth Williams (Sam Flynn) does not know that the phrasing is an invention on the Lancets behalf. He thinks it is, but going as far as to elevate it into fact would be very dangerous. Phillips may have used the exact phrasing for all we know. We have the Daily Telegraphs recording from the inquest, for example, and in it, it says:

"Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.
[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge."

So Phillips tells us that anatomical knowledge was indicated by the killers work, and he moreover says that he would have expected to see more examples of it, had the killer not been in a haste when cutting. We therefore know that the ground is in place for Phillips to have said what the Lancet quotes him as saying. Moreover, the Lancet was not exactly a sensationalist evening paper, it was - and is - a qualified medical journal of extensive repute.

When saying that the Lancet may well be correct and ad verbatim, I would not go as far as Gareth does when claiming as a fact that he is right on the errand - but I would recommend a significant pinch of salt to swallow that "fact" down with.
Myself, I spit it out.

[Fisherman]

We may then add what Phillips said as he was recalled on the inquest day:
"I am of opinion that the length of the weapon with which the incisions were inflicted was at least five to six inches in length - probably more - and must have been very sharp. The manner in which they had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge.
The Coroner: Can you give any idea how long it would take to perform the incisions found on the body?
Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour."

So Phillips was very impressed with what he saw as a combination of anatomical knowledge and great speed on the killers behalf. And that rhymes totally with the Lancet´s wording about how the killer was able to procure the uterus and its appendages with "one sweep of the knife"; anatomical insight coupled with great speed.

Keep in mind that the Lancets article was published late in September, long after the legal procedures. It is not the kind of article that we see in the daily newspapers, but instead more of a weighing together of the material, commenting on its many aspects. This is the passage in its full wording:

"The revolting tale of the Whitechapel murder has been further embellished by the astounding statements which the coroner deemed fit to make public in his summing up of the case of of the unfortunate woman Chapman. The public have supped full of horrors, and now there is added thereto a suggestion which, in spite of its plausibility, is almost too horrible to be credited. It seems, on the face of it, to dispel all previous theories and explanations of a series of crimes which are happily almost unique in our annals. It supplies a motive for the deed, which has been compared to that of Burke and Hare, but which, in fiendish greed and disregard for the sanctity of human life, almost surpasses the villainies of those miscreants. In presence of this suggestion it is futile to discuss any other hypothesis until this has been thoroughly probed. Mr. Wynne Baxter did not withhold any of the information which came to him from an unexpected source on the day of the publication ofMr. Phillips' evidence respecting the mutilations of the body. It will be remembered that at his first examination, Mr. Phillips did not enter into these details. He acted on his own responsibility in stating only such facts as should enable the coroner's jury to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the cause of death; whilst he took care to inform the police authorities of all those facts which might give them any clue as to the object the murderer had in view, and thus lead to his detection. However, when the coroner insisted upon Mr. Phillips being recalled to add these further facts to his previous evidence, he stated that the mutilation of the body was of such a character as could only have been effected by a practised hand. It was appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert--of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife, which must therefore, as Mr. Phillips pointed out, have been at least five inches long."

There is ample possibility that the reporter (who would reasonably have been versed in medical issues) may have heard Phillips utter the phrasing at a later stage than the inquest, and in that respect, Gareth may be correct - maybe Phillips did not say these words at the inquest per se. But is it reasonable to suggest that a medical journal would invent things on behalf of a medico who was very likely to read the article in retrospect? Or at all?

I don´t think so. Although I would not claim for a fact to know it. I only know it is unlikely in my eyes.

Every time this subject has been brought up, it has caused an infected debate. I can do without it, and so I will say no more but instead leave you to decide for yourself what to think.

[Michael W Richards]

There is one thing that can be used emprically to support the overall opinion of skills demonstrated with Annies murder...after her murder medical students, medical teaching hospitals and universities and general practioners were looked into. At no other time in the Canonical series do the investigators look for suspects with that kind of training and those kinds of knife skills, or in a specific field.

[Sam Flynn]

Don't forget that it was during Annie's inquest that Wynne Baxter - the coroner, and not a medic himself - insisted on peddling his own screwball theories about organs being "harvested" and sold for medical purposes. To this end, Baxter's summing-up put the degree of expertise far higher than Dr Bagster Phillips attributed to the killer; Phillips talks of "indications" of anatomical knowledge (not "considerable anatomical skill") and states that a slaughterman's knife could have been used. However, Baxter's summing-up goes well beyond this:

"The injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it.

No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing part seems overwhelming." (Wynne Baxter)

Bagster Phillips' testimony at no point makes any pronouncements as emphatic as those underlined. They are purely Wynne Baxter's, and the statements all lead to the final sentence italicised above, which in itself leads in the direction of Baxter's pet theory about harvesting uteri for commercial purposes.

[Michael W Richards]

Sam, although the idea of harvesting organs for medical purpose usage is likely not applicable here, it would seem that at least one teaching hospital was able to confirm someone approached them the previous year with an offer to purchase female abdominal organs. My point being.... no matter how screwball the idea might seem, it has some potential validation in that teaching universities statements, and that what may seem improbable may be quite the opposite once investigated further.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Michael

Whatever the validity of the "organs for sale" theory, my main point is that it, along with the above-mentioned pronouncements on the killer's skill, came from Wynne Baxter, a non-medic.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael

Whatever the validity of the "organs for sale" theory, my main point is that it, along with the above-mentioned pronouncements on the killer's skill, came from Wynne Baxter, a non-medic.

From the East London Observer, Sept 22..."On Wednesday the Coroner resumed his inquest respecting the death of Annie Chapman, who was found murdered in a yard in Hanbury-street, Whitechapel, on the 8th inst. Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, who made the post-mortem examination, was recalled, and entered into detailed particulars as to the nature of the mutilations inflicted upon the victim. A portion of the body had been removed, and he inferred that it was to obtain possession of this that the operation had been performed. The manner in which the incision had been made indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge, and the witness could not himself have effected it, even if there had been no struggle, in less than a quarter of an hour."

That seems to have used Phillips own words, and it implies not only did the killer know what he was looking for, but also that he accomplished what he sought to do in what would take Phillips at least 15 minutes to do himself.

[Sam Flynn]

Phillips spoke specifically about "anatomical knowledge", sure, but not "considerable anatomical skill", which came from Baxter. Ditto "it was done by someone who knew what he wanted", "no meaningless cuts", "no unskilled person could have known where to find it", "no mere slaughterer of animals", "it must have been someone accustomed to the post-mortem room", and "the desire to possess the missing part seems overwhelming". Methinks the coroner did protest too much.

[Michael W Richards]

Phillips spoke specifically about "anatomical knowledge", sure, but not "considerable anatomical skill", which came from Baxter. Ditto "it was done by someone who knew what he wanted", "no meaningless cuts", "no unskilled person could have known where to find it", "no mere slaughterer of animals", "it must have been someone accustomed to the post-mortem room", and "the desire to possess the missing part seems overwhelming". Methinks the coroner did protest too much.

Sam, the quote I posted indicated that Phillips believed that the killer cut where he did, and how he did, so as to obtain what was taken. He also said, assuming Phillips himself was skillful with a knife, that he couldn't have done what was done in less than 15 minutes. Lets say Cadosche heard Annies attack at around 5:15 and " no" a few minutes later...as he states, then Annie is alive at around 5:20 and discovered by Davis just before 6am. That leaves us with just over 1/2 hour to do all he did to Annie...the overpowering, the throat cuts, the removal of intestines, the apparent checking of her skirt pockets, the abdominal mutilations and leaving the scene unseen..all in 1/2 hour.

That speaks volumes, there is no need to rely on the embellishments to try and make Phillips appear less convinced the person had knife and anatomy knowledge/skills. Again, the police sought medically trained people after this murder, its clear they agreed with what Im suggesting.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, the quote I posted indicated that Phillips believed that the killer cut where he did, and how he did, so as to obtain what was taken. .

Well, yes, but Baxter over-eggs it, viz "considerable anatomical skill". At times, Baxter even invented stuff that flew in the face of what Phillips said. For one example, "no meaningless cuts", when there were plenty of those; the wasteful cutting of three flaps of flesh to open the abdomen, the cut out piece of navel, two-thirds of the bladder being cut through, the damage to the large intestine. To cap it all, the assertion that the killer was "no mere slaughterer of animals" who "must have been [...] accustomed to the post-mortem room" are Baxter's inventions.

[Michael W Richards]

Well, yes, but Baxter over-eggs it, viz "considerable anatomical skill". At times, Baxter even invented stuff that flew in the face of what Phillips said. For one example, "no meaningless cuts", when there were plenty of those; the wasteful cutting of three flaps of flesh to open the abdomen, the cut out piece of navel, two-thirds of the bladder being cut through, the damage to the large intestine. To cap it all, the assertion that the killer was "no mere slaughterer of animals" who "must have been [...] accustomed to the post-mortem room" are Baxter's inventions.

I think its important to establish this point Sam. There are the comments by Phillips himself, and there are enhancements shall we say from Baxter...but the facts are that the Police immediately focused their search for potential suspects on medically trained people. I don't believe that an Investigation pursued leads that only Baxter suggested in his own theory, they must have felt compelled to do so based on the seemingly competent murder of Annie Chapman.

The reason I see this as critical is for use in comparatives. Mary Kelly could have been killed by a mere slaughterhouse worker, for example, and it would be a much different Canonical Group if we can see lesser skill sets. I think Kates murder is a threshold murder, it so mirrors the first 2 murders that its hard to set aside. But I also think lesser skills than the ones shown with Annie were evident there.

[Sam Flynn]

I think that broadly the same level of skills were demonstrated in Chapman's, Eddowes' and Kelly's murder, and that a horse-slaughterer could have committed either or all three. I don't buy Baxter's "no mere horse slaughterer" assertion at all.