Theories on Rose being a Ripper victim

[Howard Brown]

Dear SPE:

I certainly am not an Anderson apologist, but do see bias in other area(s)towards SRA, most notably that several individuals infer or toy with the idea that he was an anti-Semite, when even Mentor didn't come close to suggesting that at any point in his rebuttal to SRA and no evidence exists of him being one either. To clarify myself,just because SRA is very worthy of scrutinization in several areas, he's being completely taken apart in other areas by innuendo & faulty perception and I don't think that in the scheme of things its productive to do so.

Chris:

I know you didn't publicly state she was murdered, but from the tone of a previous post,I had assumed you had leaned in that direction.

I would like to see where Debs found the reference to Bond examining the stomach...and if she posts it elsewhere in another place, I'll be sure to post it here.

[auspirograph]

S R A

Howard,

SRA is an American acronym appearing in the early 1980's referring to Satanic Ritual Abuse, not to be confused with Anderson bias. It is a fascinating theory on your part but I think Anderson's religious preferences were a little more mundane and conservative than that.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

An interesting consideration for sure but there's a problem with that due to one of the few things the police surgeons examining the general Ripper victims did agree on. They considered that the second cut was an attempt to decapitate the head from the body of the victim after the first severed the carotid artery. The considered medical opinion on cause of death.

Hi, Auspirograph.
I don't see how a deep cut through the neck, down to the vertabrae, can be seen to argue against the use of a ligature?
Can you explain?

Further to this, the Ripper doctors were in general agreement that the severing of the artery was caused by a knife and is the main issue that keeps Elizabeth Stride in the picture.

It was caused by a knife, what are you saying?
The murders of Coles and Stride are more similar to each other, and quite different from those of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.

Apart from the marks found on the neck of Rose Mylett, there doesn't appear to be any other evidence for a Whitechapel murderer using a garrot.

Of course, thats the point!
Dr Brownfield suggested the killer (may have) sliced their necks through the ligature mark to eliminate the mark, destroying the evidence.

[Wickerman]

Auto..
The flow of logic goes something like this..

Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes all died within earshot of the general public, in some cases within feet, yet not a sound, a whimper, scream, or anything was heard. Doctors were mystified, and stated as much that they cannot account for the lack of noise, how were these women attacked in almost total silence?

Now, Chapman showed distinct signs of being strangled, this is a solution that would explain the fact no-one heard any screams from her, and the other two victims.
Except, there are no finger marks around Chapman's neck (or Nichols, or Eddowes). Also, Chapman had scratch marks on the side of her neck, "running in a contrary direction to the cut". This means the scratches run vertical because the cut ran horizontal.
Fingernail scratches may well be visible when the victim is being strangled by something very thin, not a broad hand and fingers which would likely cover the neck anyway. How do you scratch your neck when someone has their hand around it? - you can't, not easily. You can dig your fingernails into your skin but thats not what was testified. The doctor saw scratches (which assumes some length).
So, how could they have been strangled if there were no apparent signs of pressure (no fingermarks) to the windpipe or to their jugglar veins?

But, rendered unconscious they were, because all the doctors agreed their throats were cut while the victims laid on the ground.
No victim is going to willingly lay down to have their throat cut, ergo, they must have been subdued in some way that has not left any evidence, no drugs, no fingermarks.

A cord of some kind would not only render the voicebox inoperable, it would also allow the attacker to stand behind the victim, where he cannot be injured by hands, fingers, or the legs of the victim as she struggles and looses consciousness. A cord requires less effort than using the hands, leaves very little evidence by way of marks (no thumb or finger bruises), and the little mark it does leave can be easily eliminated by the use of a knife.

There's no proof, this is all conjecture, but conjecture to some degree based on logic, practical application and the existence of a cut to the neck that is secondary in nature, no visible reason for the second cut, the victim is already dead! (by the first cut to the jugglar). The second cut is viewed as more of an act of mutilation, at least thats how it was interpreted, but this was long before Brownfields suggestion that the cut may have had a true purpose.

[auspirograph]

Hi, Auspirograph.
I don't see how a deep cut through the neck, down to the vertabrae, can be seen to argue against the use of a ligature?
Can you explain?



It was caused by a knife, what are you saying?
The murders of Coles and Stride are more similar to each other, and quite different from those of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.



Of course, thats the point!
Dr Brownfield suggested the killer (may have) sliced their necks through the ligature mark to eliminate the mark, destroying the evidence.

Well, if the second cut to the neck down to the vertebrae of the Ripper victims was established as having been made with a knife, then there's no reason to credibly suppose or evidence to indicate that it was made by the killer to eliminate a garrotte mark, as was found and suggested with Mylett is there?

The second cuts could well have been made to ensure that the carotid artery was severed and to allow for the further mutilations. If correct, then the Ripper likely had no certain human anatomical knowledge.

I would agree with you that it is an important point and if the Ripper did attempt to eliminate garrotte marks with the second cut, then it cautiously indicates that Mylett was also a Ripper victim, or at least that she was regarded as such due to similiar neck wounds as Stride and the other victims that could explain Anderson's resistance to the inquest verdict.

Regarding unconsciousness by strangulation in the Ripper victims, medical evidence indicated physical signs on the bodies with enough associated bruising but no indications of the use of a ligature, cord or garrotte.

[Stewart P Evans]

Again

"I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided that it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac. And the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the 'Jack the Ripper' scare, no one would have thought of suggesting it was a homicide." - Sir Robert Anderson, The Lighter Side of My Official Life, 1910.

Sorry to repeat this again, but, it seems, it needs to be read and understood. Whatever spin anyone may try to put on these words of Anderson, whatever personal interpretation might be placed upon them, whatever suggestions may be made, nothing alters their meaning. The Poplar Crime (Mylett) was pronounced a murder by all the medical men involved (apart from Bond) and was found to be a murder at the inquest. It remained on police files as an unsolved murder from that day on. Anderson knew this. Yet in 1910 he led his readers to believe that it was a death from natural causes but that there had been some suggestion at the time that it was a homicide.

For goodness sake, the death of Mylett was found by both the medical men and an inquest jury to be a murder. Anderson's words are indisputably misleading, wrong, deceptive, mistaken - call it what you will - but they still cast grave doubt on taking his word for granted as being true or accurate. Yet still the pro-Andersonites argue against this.

[Stewart P Evans]

Emphasise

And just to emphasise the above point, here it is in black and white from his book -

[Stewart P Evans]

Bond

Further to my post above, even Bond initially agreed with the other doctors that it was a case of homicide. Anderson did not like this and in a 'long conference' (on 24 December) pressed his 'difficulties and objections' and referred them to Monro. However, the same afternoon, after Anderson's 'long conference' with him, Bond returned to the mortuary 'to make a more careful examination of the woman's neck'. Bond returned to Anderson to tell him that "he had entirely altered his view of the case, and was satisfied that though death was due to strangulation, it was produced accidentally and not by homicidal violence." This beggars belief and it flew in the face of the conclusions of all the other medical men. It even makes one wonder what sway Anderson held over Bond to influence him in this way. (reference MEPO 3/143, page 5 of Anderson's report of 11 January 1889).

[Suzi]

Just as a by the by

Anderson-What a beautiful hand-quite unlike how I would have imagined it to be.
Interestingly- he refers to Bond as Mr...would that be- as is the case today with reference to one of the Specialist/Consultant classes? (Sorry if this has been discussed before)

Suz x

[Stewart P Evans]

Further Posts

When I have the time I shall be making further posts to explain the forensic implications of the what occurred in the Mylett case and, hopefully, put right some misleading comments that have been made on another thread discussing this case. It is apparent that some commentators need to appreciate the police and medical protocols involved as well as not drawing rash conclusions from ill-informed and biased reasoning.

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for providing that,SPE. As an owner of Scotland Yard Investigates, I have made the suggestion on another Anderson related issue here that people should read your views on Anderson in Chapter 16.

Let me ask you this,since we are on the subject of Mylett's death:

On this site, there is a "primer' in which it mentions Wynne Baxter's views on whether or not Mylett's death was accidental or not. If this information was also found in the Linford/O'Flaherty/Savage series of articles in Ripperologist from two years ago or so on The Coronial System, I didn't see it...or overlooked it.

In Scotland Yard Investigates, you or Mr. Rumbelow stated that Baxter was inclined to accept the natural causes theory on page 245. Yet, the primer on this site states that Baxter was having none of the "nonsense" that Mylett's death was an accidental one.

Which is correct? That Baxter did lean towards accidental death or that he didn't ?

[Stewart P Evans]

Wynne Baxter

Thanks for providing that,SPE. As an owner of Scotland Yard Investigates, I have made the suggestion on another Anderson related issue here that people should read your views on Anderson in Chapter 16.
Let me ask you this,since we are on the subject of Mylett's death:
On this site, there is a "primer' in which it mentions Wynne Baxter's views on whether or not Mylett's death was accidental or not. If this information was also found in the Linford/O'Flaherty/Savage series of articles in Ripperologist from two years ago or so on The Coronial System, I didn't see it...or overlooked it.
In Scotland Yard Investigates, you or Mr. Rumbelow stated that Baxter was inclined to accept the natural causes theory on page 245. Yet, the primer on this site states that Baxter was having none of the "nonsense" that Mylett's death was an accidental one.
Which is correct? That Baxter did lean towards accidental death or that he didn't ?

How, thank you for that. The references to the Mylett murder used for Scotland Yard Investigates were taken from the official files (as reproduced in The Ultimate Sourcebook). The official file on the Mylett murder, MEPO 3/143, contains some press reports on the murders which were used by Monro. Below is one of them, from the Advertiser, which has been noted by Monro. You will see in this that it states, "Mr. WYNNE BAXTER, the coroner, says "there is no evidence to show that death was the result of violence." In that he follows Dr. BOND. The jury flatly disagree with him, and return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown, being chiefly guided to that conclusion by the evidence of Doctors BROWNFIELD, HARRIS, HIBBERD [sic], and M'KENNA [sic], each of whom is of opinion that the woman was murdered by means of something of the nature of a cord drawn tightly around her neck..."

[Natalie Severn]

"AN ASPERSION UPON JEWS". POLICE THEORY by MENTOR

Howard,
Under the "nom de plume" of MENTOR , Leopold Jacob Greenberg , editor of The Jewish Chronicle, on Friday 4 March 1910 wrote an article headed,
"An Aspersion on Jews,Police Theory again".

But lets first agree on the dictionary meanings of "aspersion" and "theory"

ASPERSION:an unkind or hurtful remark

THEORY:an opinion based on limited information or knowledge

both definitions taken from the Longman Dictionary.


Now you can "re-arrange" his words and their meaning anyway you like, but it seems to me that both the heading of Mentor"s article and its contents, reveal that Mentor was quite appalled by Robert Anderson"s recent allegations in his 1910 series of articles in Blackwoods Magazine, accusing a " low class Polish Jew" of being the ripper and the East end Polish "low class" Jewish community of shielding him.
Mentor"s words in fact ,refute absolutely and uneqivocally,Anderson"s claim calling it a "nonsensical theory" and a "WICKED ASSERTION" to put into PRINT.


Further, in this particular context, Mentor/ Mr Greenberg ,is quite specific about Robert Anderson"s racism.

Robert anderson has, he says,


" cast the odium for this infamy on one of our people".

---[in other words "he has blamed a Jew for the crimes of Jack the Ripper"].


Although it is fair to say that a specific "terminology" of race and ethnicity,as it exists today, had not been defined as such in that period of time time,still less entered general usage,the meaning of his sentence is quite clear.He is saying that Robert Anderson had:

"unfairly singled out a man because of his Jewish ethnicity " .

Look again at the meaning of Mentor"s sentence,[1st para in above article] and again using Longmans Dictionary as definition:

"to cast odium" means "to cast WIDESPREAD HATRED"

and "infamy"="wicked behaviour".

So Mentor,to be precise,is accusing Robert Anderson of using Blackwood"s Magazine to

blame a Jewish man for the crimes of Jack the Ripper and a Polish/Jewish community for allegedly "shielding the Ripper" and of therefore "venturing to "cast widespread hatred [about a Jew and a his Jewish community].


Now Sir Robert did send his profuse apologies to Mentor/Mr Greenberg for giving offence .But his apologies could not be accepted,for though Anderson this time received a fairly graciously worded response from Mentor,Mentor carefully pointed out that Anderson could have ,by such ill advised remarks,rekindled the prejudice "constantly simmering against us".[a remark that was supported by Henry Smith, Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police,in his 1910 autobiography,who called Sir Robert"s assertions "reckless allegations" and and that no one knew or had ever known who the ripper was or where he had lived .

Finally,the sensational claims to which Mentor refers above did not go unnoticed in official quarters.They were the subject of comment in the House of Commons.The Times of20 April 1910 reported that an MP ,Mr MACVEAGH,asked whether Robert anderson had had the sanction of the Home Office or Scotland Yard authorities to make such a public assertion,and if so what steps could betaken with regard to it.
Mr CHURCHILL [WINSTON]replied he had not but that compared to some of his other statements the matter was of minor importance.


Well,compared with Anderson admitting,in 1910 that it was he who had written defamatory articles about the Irish Home Rule MP, Parnell, for The Times newspaper,perhaps Churchill was seeing things more from the Government"s and a National Security point of view!


Best Wishes

[Stewart P Evans]

Strangulation

In assessing the cause of the death of Mylett the exact nature of strangulation should be clear in the reader's mind. For strangulation was the agreed cause of death amongst the medical men who examined her. It is therefore pointless for commentators to draw any firm conclusion as to cause of death as 'there were no signs of a struggle' at the scene and that 'Mylett's features were perfectly placid.' These are observations made at the scene, at the time, based on what was seen. They can only be weighed in this light and are subject to various caveats.

First, the body was seen in the yard in darkness and by only the light of oil lanterns. The doctor attending the scene was Dr. Harris, assistant to the Divisional Surgeon, Dr. Brownfield. His function at this stage was merely to establish that the woman was dead before the police removed the body to the mortuary. He was not there to establish cause of death although, obviously, if he had seen anything of a suspicious nature he would have drawn it to the attention of the police. In Victorian times these initial examinations of the doctors, in order to pronounce death, were quite superficial and Harris did not note anything obvious of a suspicious nature, perhaps assuming that she was a typical derelict who had died in a secluded area from natural causes such as hypothermia or choking on her own vomit. The fact that she was lying in an apparently natural position and with placid features did not alert Harris to anything suspicious. He did not see or note the marks on her neck.

The ground upon which Mylett was lying was commented upon by Anderson who stated that "the slightest struggle would have left its marks on the soft ground of the yard". But Anderson would say that as he was playing down the death and claiming that it was from natural causes. The fact is that in Victorian days the finer points of preserving the nature of the crime scene were not appreciated and the ground around the body would have been well-trodden by the police and doctor attending the scene with little thought given to any marks that may have become visible when daylight dawned. Such initial impressions formed at the scene of a sudden death were often changed by the results of a proper examination of the body.

Yet these initial impressions, incredibly, led Anderson to his initial, and enduring, conclusion that "there was no proof of murder" and that "the facts and circumstances were inconsistent with such an hypothesis." And, building his conclusion on this shaky base, he chose to ignore all the medical evidence to the contrary, continuing, "And this is now abundantly confirmed by what has since been learned as to the woman's drunken habits, by the medical evidence of Mr. Bond, and, lastly, by the opinions of Mr. Wontner, and, I think perhaps, I may add by that of the Coroner himself."

The fact that Brownfield had not attended the scene intially is irrelevant to his post mortem examination of the body and his conclusions as to the cause of death. Before conducting the autopsy Brownfield would have been well aware of all the circumstances of the discovery of the body, indeed he would have been briefed by his assistant, Harris, who had been at the scene. But he disagreed with Harris's intial feelings and concluded the woman had been strangled, and Harris modified his opinion after this proper examination. But Anderson was so self-satisfied that he saw fit to disagree with a professional medical man, a Divisional Police surgeon at that, as to the cause of death.

But, most importantly, what has to be borne in mind with regard to this case is the fact that it was becoming another press sensation with criticism of the police and was exacerbated by the fact that here was an apparent break down of communication between the police and their own Divisional Surgeon and an apparent case of murder had been all but overlooked, and had certainly not been properly investigated at the outset. Oh that it could be a case of death from natural causes and thus further criticism of the police be avoided and another unsolved murder would not have to be added to the already lengthy tally of such cases in 1888.

Unlike Anderson, Monro certainly accepted it as a case of murder when he stated, on 23 December 1888, to his concerned Home Office masters, "There is therefore no doubt that the case was one of murder - and a murder of a strange and unusual type."

For his part, the recalcitrant Anderson stated, "...neither the evidence given at the inquest, nor the verdict arrived at, affects the judgment I formed when I personally investigated the case on the 22nd ult:, and that I did not intend to take any further action in the matter."!!! So there it is, Anderson had decided that he did not consider it a case of murder and he was not going to investigate it any further. I think that today he would have lost his job after saying something like that to the Chief Commissioner.

[Dave O]

Hi Stewart,

Anderson wrote to Munro ". . . not only that there was no proof of murder, but that the facts and circumstances were inconsistent with such any hypothesis. And this is now abundantly confirmed by what has since been learned as to the woman's drunken habits, by the medical evidence of Mr. Bond, and, lastly, by the opinion of Mr. Wontner, and, I think perhaps, I may add by that of the Coroner himself". (Sourcebook, p. 484).

I think a comparison of both Anderson's statement and the article from The East London Advertiser with The Times account of Baxter's summation (10 January 1889) is helpful:

The CORONER, proceeding to sum up, said that there were two points in connexion with the case which were singular, and which required careful attention. The first was that one could not help noticing that if this was a case of strangulation the string that produced the strangulation had not been found, and the second was that there was a medical opinion that this was not a case of homicidal strangulation. Therefore, the case would have to be considered very carefully. With regard to the evidence of identification, it appeared the deceased was about 26 years of age, but the mother did not appear to know whether she was married or not. She may have been married, because she was heard of under different names. One of the witnesses who knew the deceased stated she was more often drunk than sober. Deceased lived at Spitalfields, and it was a curious fact that whenever they had cases of violence in London they were generally associated with Spitalfields. The night before her death the deceased appeared to have left the lodging-house where she lived at about 7:30. She was next seen by the witness Hill at 12:15, when she was undoubtedly under the influence of liquor. She was next seen at about a quarter to 2 o'clock on the morning of the 20th ult. near the George public house, which was some considerable distance from the spot where the body was found. Nothing more was seen of her until the body was found at about 4:30. If the unfortunate woman met her death at the spot where the body was found it might have been done very rapidly, and no serious struggle went on. When the body was found it was in a comparatively natural condition. The usual signs of strangulation, such as protrusion of the tongue and clenching of the hands, were absent, there being nothing at all suggestive of death from violence. It was right to say, as some stress had been laid to the fact, that the police did not discover any mark at the time. The mark was not noticed until the mortuary keeper had the body stripped. The deceased's clothes were not disarranged, so that the violence must have been done with great rapidity. In connexion with the recent so-called Whitechapel murders, there was not the slightest disarrangement of the clothes. It all depended on the suddenness with which the deceased was attacked and the capability of the deceased to resist the attack. The constable who was on the beat stated that he noticed nothing unusual about the body. After Dr. Brownfield and his assistant, duly qualified men, came to the conclusion that this was a case of homicidal strangulation, some one had a suspicion that that evidence was not satisfactory. At all events, they heard that doctor after doctor went down to view the body without his knowledge or sanction as coroner. He did not wish to make that a personal matter, but he had never received such treatment before. Of the five doctors who saw the body, Dr. Bond was the only one who considered the case was not one of murder. Dr. Bond did not see the body until five days after death, and he was, therefore, at a disadvantage. Dr. Bond stated that if this was a case of strangulation he should have expected to find the skin broken, but it was clearly shown, on reference being made to the records of the Indian doctors in the cases of the Thug murders, that there were no marks whatever left. Other eminent authorities agreed with that view. In this case the deceased was completely helpless and would be easily overcome.
In answer to the jury, the CORONER said he did not think any disrespect to him was intended when several doctors were sent to view the body.

Here Baxter seems to disregard Bond's evidence and places more emphasis on the evidence of the other surgeons; it's almost as if the East London Advertiser and Anderson have only paid attention to the beginning of the summation.

I also think it's interesting to note the jury's concern for the dignity of Baxter's office. Baxter is a popularly elected official, and the coroner was often described as "the poor man's magistrate". They do not appear to appreciate any interference with his office. I would also add that the whole notion of the autopsy as a routine feature of the inquest was a reaction to the prettification of death by various establishments earlier in the 19th century (the military, prison officials, etc).

Whatever Anderson's intentiona were in the Mylett case, he seems to be acting somewhat improperly. Once the coroner received the case, and during the course of the inquest, the power to order postmortems (and secondary examinations) was the province of the coroner and jury, and Anderson might have done better to have worked more closely with Wynne Baxter. I mean that section 21 of The Coroner's Act 1887 (which I can send or post), gave coroners and juries the power to order further autopsies if so desired--that particular section repealed and simply restated The Medical Witness Act 1836, so that procedure was over half a century old in 1889. Yet here in the Mylett case it was ignored.

I hope these thoughts are of interest,
Dave