Is the Annie Chapman murder different?

[APerno]

Is the Annie Chapman murder different?

Nichols and Eddowes were ‘mutilated,’ disembowel and their viscera thrown about, as was Chapman’s, but Annie Chapman’s uterus was also ‘removed.’

Was something more going on here; is there any credence to the reports that an American scientist/publisher was looking for a uterus, (that was not yet preserved with spirits,) and was offering 20 pounds sterling, that may have economically motivated a copycat killer? (Sugden, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper,)

Like Nichols and Eddowes, parts of Chapman’s intestines and stomach were lying next to the her, but unlike Nichols and Eddowes her uterus was removed intact, and taken away, in such a manner that the act (thanks to Dr. Phillips,) created the ‘he must have had some surgical knowledge’ theory/folklore.

There seem to me three possibilities as to what may have occurred.

First, the Ripper did indeed have his third (or second) victim with Annie Chapman, disemboweled her as he had/would the others, and took from her a trophy, as he did with Eddowes (kidney) and Kelly (heart).

That seems the simplest logic and being the simplest logic should be given first credence as to what happened.

But could it have been, that the mutilation of the intestines and stomach were done at the murder scene by the Ripper, and then the uterus was removed later, for economic gain by another hand, while Annie Chapman laid unattended (or attended only by easily bribed day labors) awaiting the medical examiner?

Or thirdly, could it have right from the start been a murder for gain, a copycat killer economically motivated, seeing an opportunity to enrich himself by 20 pounds, passing off the murder as another Ripper victim?

What bothers me most about the removal of the uterus, was that it was a uterus and its appendages that the American sought, and that the murderer saw to it that the uterus remained intact, while not caring that he mutilated both the bladder and vagina. Or as Dr. Phillips stated: “the conclusion I came to was that the whole object . . . was to obtain possession of a certain portion of the body.”

Do uteri make good trophies? I know that is strange question ask. All trophies taken by serial killers are of a disgusting and illogical nature to a normal person, but a kidney and/or heart seem to be of a different nature than a uterus. A kidney or heart displayed in a glass container would have a demonic and frightening look about them, (I have seen enough, maybe too many, horror movies and can visualize the effect) but would a uterus be even recognizable by most of society? Wouldn’t only a person with some medical knowledge ‘appreciate’ such a trophy?

I have a hard time seeing a uterus as a trophy.

Anthony

“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn't.” Mark Twain

[Damaso Marte]

It is often stated on this forum that Nichols's mutilations were skillful and very similar to Chapman's. I'd love for this notion to be challenged: I for one don't think Nichol's mutilations were extensive enough to judge their "skill" in comparison to Nichols and Eddowes.

[Wickerman]

It is often stated on this forum that Nichols's mutilations were skillful and very similar to Chapman's. I'd love for this notion to be challenged: I for one don't think Nichol's mutilations were extensive enough to judge their "skill" in comparison to Nichols and Eddowes.

A lot of claims are made on this forum, but I would say you're right in you're conclusion.

Regards, Jon S.

P.S. you did mean "in comparison to Chapman and Eddowes" right?

[lynn cates]

Nichols

Hello Anthony. You might wish to rethink the Nichols case just a bit. Nothing was removed.

The "uterus for gain" theory was thoroughly debunked in the days after the inquest.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello Damaso.

"I'd love for this notion to be challenged: I for one don't think Nichol's mutilations were extensive enough to judge their "skill" in comparison to Nichols and Eddowes."

Actually, a single cut can show the distinction. A skillful knife person will make a "clean" cut; a tyro will not.

Cheers.
LC

[APerno]

Hello Anthony. You might wish to rethink the Nichols case just a bit. Nothing was removed.

The "uterus for gain" theory was thoroughly debunked in the days after the inquest.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,

You are correct; no parts of Mary Ann Nichols were removed from, or displayed next to, the body, my error. Not directly relevant to my point, but it is important that I not make such miss-statements. Thank you for the correction.

The only ‘debunking’ I have been able to find is from Sugden’s The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, Revised Paperback Edition, 1998, page 134.

There Sugden offers the following: “Nevertheless, a week later the British Medical Journal, perhaps with the repudiation of the profession in mind, did its best to bury the whole story:

It is true that enquiries were made . . . There was never any real foundation for the hypothesis, . . . was due to the erroneous interpretations by a minor official . . . This theory may be dismissed, . . .” ETC. [Excerpt British Medical Journal]

I suspect the minor official mentioned was either Baxter or Phillips.

If this is the debunking you are referring to, I would argue, just as Sugden does, that the Journal had a motive to consider the issued debunked, and should not be taken as definitive.

If you know of any other challenges to the theory, and have the time to spare please refer them to me.

Anthony

[lynn cates]

Bmj

Hello Anthony. Thanks. The BMJ piece Sugden quotes is also found in the "A-Z." The minor official would have been some medical person who misunderstood the American doctor's wishes. And the incident happened a good while before the fact.

Of course, to be fair, Baxter seems to have suggested that the assailant may have killed hoping that the offer was still good. He became the butt of some humour on this one.

Cris Malone and Gareth Williams are quite knowledgeable about this. Cris posts as "Hunter." You might chat him up?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hi Lynn, Anthony...

Lynn, you are correct about the fact that, "The minor official would have been some medical person who misunderstood the American doctor's wishes. And the incident happened a good while before the fact." It was some 18 months before, I believe.

Wynn Baxter dropped his bombshell idea during his summary at the final session of the Chapman inquest on Wednesday the 29th. At first, most of the press - including the Times- were receptive of Baxter's theory. This inquest - along with the Nichols proceedings - had dragged along for some considerable time and Baxter felt hard pressed to validate his methods by coming up with something conclusive and revealing. Well, he put himself in the limelight alright.

Two days later, Sir James Risdon Bennett, a prominent physician in his own right, wrote a scathing response to the London Times which appeared in their September 28th edition. He asserted that ascribing such a motive for the procurement of an organ in this way was absurd, and complained that “discredit has unjustly been thrown on the medical profession.” Bennett’s letter made the other major publications as well. Bennett was a catalyst for a firestorm of criticism against Baxter from political and medical quarters, and provoked the press to investigate where Baxter got his information. They determined that it was the product of a rumor mill "arising from the students' gossip.”

The Sept. 29 edition of the Lancet said this:
The whole tale is almost past belief; and if, as we think, it can be shown to have grown in transmission, it will not only shatter the theory that cupidity was the motive of the crime, but will bring into question the discretion of the officer of the law who could accept such a statement and give it such wide publicity. The pleas that the interests of justice will be furthered thereby cannot be sustained. Such information as was given to the coroner would have been far more appropriately placed at the disposal of the Home Office and the police; for the clue, if there is one, was for them to follow up. In our opinion a grave error in judgment was made by the coroner's informant in this respect.

And then, that very night the "double event" took place right in the middle of this controversy and all of it got intertwined into the discussion about the medical evidence in these new cases... which is another story in itself. But Wynn Baxter's credibility was shaken as a result, and Bagster Phillips never talked to the press again about these murders.

[lynn cates]

Baxter

Hello Cris. Thanks for that. I recall Baxter took a good pranging but could not recall the details.

If the organ was the target, then all those other cuts were a waste of time.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

If the organ was the target, then all those other cuts were a waste of time.

We wouldn't be trying to infuse rational thoughts in an irrational mind, would we?


Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

F B I

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Well, if one takes the FBI profile seriously about an organised . . . or was it disorganised killer? Perhaps it was both--on alternating days? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[APerno]

Hi Lynn, Anthony...

Lynn, you are correct about the fact that, "The minor official would have been some medical person who misunderstood the American doctor's wishes. And the incident happened a good while before the fact." It was some 18 months before, I believe.

Wynn Baxter dropped his bombshell idea during his summary at the final session of the Chapman inquest on Wednesday the 29th. At first, most of the press - including the Times- were receptive of Baxter's theory. This inquest - along with the Nichols proceedings - had dragged along for some considerable time and Baxter felt hard pressed to validate his methods by coming up with something conclusive and revealing. Well, he put himself in the limelight alright.

Two days later, Sir James Risdon Bennett, a prominent physician in his own right, wrote a scathing response to the London Times which appeared in their September 28th edition. He asserted that ascribing such a motive for the procurement of an organ in this way was absurd, and complained that “discredit has unjustly been thrown on the medical profession.” Bennett’s letter made the other major publications as well. Bennett was a catalyst for a firestorm of criticism against Baxter from political and medical quarters, and provoked the press to investigate where Baxter got his information. They determined that it was the product of a rumor mill "arising from the students' gossip.”

The Sept. 29 edition of the Lancet said this:
The whole tale is almost past belief; and if, as we think, it can be shown to have grown in transmission, it will not only shatter the theory that cupidity was the motive of the crime, but will bring into question the discretion of the officer of the law who could accept such a statement and give it such wide publicity. The pleas that the interests of justice will be furthered thereby cannot be sustained. Such information as was given to the coroner would have been far more appropriately placed at the disposal of the Home Office and the police; for the clue, if there is one, was for them to follow up. In our opinion a grave error in judgment was made by the coroner's informant in this respect.

And then, that very night the "double event" took place right in the middle of this controversy and all of it got intertwined into the discussion about the medical evidence in these new cases... which is another story in itself. But Wynn Baxter's credibility was shaken as a result, and Bagster Phillips never talked to the press again about these murders.

Hunter,

Thank you for the reply; and thank you for the second source.

I believe the claim that the American left the London area 18 months earlier came from the medical journal rebuttal I mentioned earlier; and again, this second source comes from, as you say, a ‘prominent physician’ (also the medical profession) so I believe it has to be taken with a grain of salt. They are motivated to want Baxter’s suggestion to be discredited.

Here in the States, this would be like believing anything the NRA says about guns; or what the environmentalists say about global warming; we listen but we really don’t trust them. Their expertise is tarnished by their bias.

I think the best proof, that would blow-up Baxter’s theory, would be to find that the police chose not to peruse the lead.

Which, by the way, is what I suspect happened, but I cannot find any proof as to how the police reacted. I cannot locate any evidence that the police even seriously considered the possibility. It seems that the entire theory was Baxter’s (based on Phillips) alone and nothing more

Please understand I am not trying to sell the theory; I was just laying out possibilities regarding the Annie Chapman murder.

But I also feel obligated to historically challenge any debunking of the theory that comes from the medical profession. I do not see why either of these sources, we have located, should be accepted at face value.

What is also interesting about both these sources is that they don’t so much as challenge the theory, as they both indulge in character assassination of the ‘public officials’ involved. I believe that is revealing; that is to me, like hearing the NRA say “those liberals,” or the environmentalists saying “those corporations.” When I hear that kind of rhetoric, I want to lean back and ask, ‘who is talking to me about this?”

Anthony

“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn't.” Mark Twain

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hunter,

Thank you for the reply; and thank you for the second source.

I believe the claim that the American left the London area 18 months earlier came from the medical journal rebuttal I mentioned earlier; and again, this second source comes from, as you say, a ‘prominent physician’ (also the medical profession) so I believe it has to be taken with a grain of salt. They are motivated to want Baxter’s suggestion to be discredited.

Here in the States, this would be like believing anything the NRA says about guns; or what the environmentalists say about global warming; we listen but we really don’t trust them. Their expertise is tarnished by their bias.

I think the best proof, that would blow-up Baxter’s theory, would be to find that the police chose not to peruse the lead.

Which, by the way, is what I suspect happened, but I cannot find any proof as to how the police reacted. I cannot locate any evidence that the police even seriously considered the possibility. It seems that the entire theory was Baxter’s (based on Phillips) alone and nothing more

Please understand I am not trying to sell the theory; I was just laying out possibilities regarding the Annie Chapman murder.

But I also feel obligated to historically challenge any debunking of the theory that comes from the medical profession. I do not see why either of these sources, we have located, should be accepted at face value.

What is also interesting about both these sources is that they don’t so much as challenge the theory, as they both indulge in character assassination of the ‘public officials’ involved. I believe that is revealing; that is to me, like hearing the NRA say “those liberals,” or the environmentalists saying “those corporations.” When I hear that kind of rhetoric, I want to lean back and ask, ‘who is talking to me about this?”

Anthony

“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn't.” Mark Twain

What was this American's name if you don't mind my asking? This fellow sounds interesting

Mr Holmes

[lynn cates]

refutation

Hello Anthony. Baxter was perhaps influenced by Phillips insofar as the latter seemed struck by the method of organ removal. However, I'm not sure he EVER personally subscribed to Baxter's theory.

It seems to me that the best refutation of the theory lies not in persons or pursuits of police, but rather the difficulty entailed by having to describe the many wounds inflicted on Annie but which seem irrelevant to uterus extraction.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Baxter explained the other mutilations as a 'ruse' to cover up the real intent to get the victim's uterus, in the hope that its extraction would not be noticed. But this was a supposition by Baxter based on no real evidence. In truth, they just didn't know what was going on at this time.

As far as what the police did with Baxter's theory? The Daily Telegraph wrote this on Sept. 28:
Although many hospital authorities do not attach very great importance to the story, the police have given due attention to the matter. In their view, however, it does not provide a clue which will facilitate the identification of the murderer. [/I]

The police were looking for evidence. A theory is not evidence.

The medical community did feel that it had been impugned by Baxter's accusations. But to discount them because of 'partisanship' is unfounded as far as historical research goes. Anthony is incorrect in his assertion that only character assassination was applied with no challenge to the theory itself. The details about how organ specimens were obtained, and even the monetary value of them was examined and explained, even after the double event. The press checked Baxter's story as well.