London medical man, October 1889

[Chris]

Does anyone know more about this story, dated at London on 1 October 1889? It was mentioned (briefly) by a number of overseas newspapers, but I can't see anything from British papers in the press reports section.

A tremendous sensation has been created in London by the publication of a statement to the effect that the police have at last succeeded in obtaining a definite clue to the identity of the miscreant who perpetrated the series of horrible murders in Whitechapel and its vicinity.

The statement is to the effect that the Scotland Yard officers are in possession of conclusive evidence that the murderer is no other than a medical man resident in London, and that he committed the murders for the purpose of obtaining morbid specimens.

The arrest of the person referred to if hourly expected, but pending his apprehension the authorities maintain extreme vigilance but a hint accidentally dropped led to the discovery of what is going on, and the publication of the information in the papers this afternoon.

As stated, the affair has caused widespread and intense excitement, and there is great curiosity to know the name of the doctor suspected.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/port_philip_herald/891002.html

[Archaic]

Medical Times Article, Oct. 1888

Hi, Chris. This sounds similar to an article I posted from an American medical journal called 'The Medical Times'. It was dated Oct. 15, 1888 and sounded like an early reference to the Tumblety story as it stated that the doctor suspected was an American and it mentioned Yellow Fever.

Here's a link to that thread: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...ghlight=Lancet

I'm curious about the date of the article you found, which is October 1889 rather than October 1888; do you think there's any chance that it's a typo?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

[Chris]

I'm curious about the date of the article you found, which is October 1889 rather than October 1888; do you think there's any chance that it's a typo?

Yes, I thought of Tumblety too, but it doesn't seem to fit him time-wise (no doubt a Tumblety expert will correct me if I'm wrong).

This does have to be October 1889, not 1888, as the same story is referred to - though with less detail - in a number of articles in New Zealand newspapers in subsequent days.