Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Sam Flynn]

See what you mean - of course it was not a "clean" sweep in that respect. What I think Phillips pointed to was an uninterrupted, unhesitating sweep of the knife

As I just posted, Fish, I wonder how much of that "clean sweep of the knife" came from Phillips and how much came from a "clean sweep of the journalist's pen". Interestingly, and I'd never noticed this before, the reports in the Echo and some other papers have this to say:

"It was evident, continued the witness [Phillips], that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine, were the result of the same excising power."

I've no idea what precisely was meant by "the same excising power", but it seems too wacky a phrase to have been made up. Anyhow, if this is a verbatim report (as opposed to the précis report in the Lancet), perhaps "the same excising power" is what Phillips really said. The more melodramatic - and memorable - phrase "clean sweep of the knife" could well have been the invention of an enterprising journalist after all.

[John G]

Indeed, John - although I've often wondered how much Dr Phillips himself is represented in that article, and how much of it was journalistic spin. The plain fact of the matter is that the Lancet does paint a somewhat cleaner picture of the evisceration than Dr Phillips' own testimony conveys.

Hello Sam,

Yes, I agree. And, of course, Dr Phillips' original medical report/notes hasn't survived so, alas, we have no definitive answer.

[Fisherman]

As I just posted, Fish, I wonder how much of that "clean sweep of the knife" came from Phillips and how much came from a "clean sweep of the journalist's pen". Interestingly, and I'd never noticed this before, the reports in the Echo and some other papers have this to say:

"It was evident, continued the witness [Phillips], that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine, were the result of the same excising power."

I've no idea what precisely was meant by "the same excising power", but it seems too wacky a phrase to have been made up. Anyhow, if this is a verbatim report (as opposed to the précis report in the Lancet), perhaps "the same excising power" is what Phillips really said. The more melodramatic - and memorable - phrase "clean sweep of the knife" could well have been the invention of an enterprising journalist after all.

I think that is a very risky suggestion, to be frank. And I also think that the killer had a thing for colons (Eddowes, Jackson and the Rainham torso - and now Chapman), so I read the reports in a very different manner.

To add, the Echo article you refer to also included this passage by Phillips:
"The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge; but the incision of certain viscera conveyed to my kind a greater anatomical knowledge."

More enterprising journalism? Or?

A further elucidation comes via the Morning Advertiser:
"Dr. Phillips then requested that the evidence given by him on the former occasion might be read over, and, this having been done, he said the abdominal wall had been removed in three parts - two from the anterior part. There was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. On adjusting these three flaps it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting. The womb itself and two thirds of the bladder were absent from the body and could nowhere be traced. It was apparent that these absent portions, together with the division of the large intestine, were the result of the same incising cut, and hence his opinion that the length of the weapon was at least five or six inches, and probably more. The wounds generally confirmed him in his opinion that the instrument must have been of a very sharp character. The removal of the abdominal wall indicated certain anatomical knowledge, as did the cutting in three portions of the abdominal wall, and the non cutting of the intestine. Also the way in which the womb was removed showed this in a more marked degree."

So that is how "the same excising power" translates - it was the same cut that did it.

Overall, I think that time eroded the implications offered by Phillips - it was just as obvious that no surgeon would have done it, as was the case with the Rainham torso, where Galloway took the exact same course. First, he said it was clearly the work of a surgeon or anatomist, and then he realized that no matter how skilful the knife work was, the cutting as such was totally non-surgical.
Another common - and extremely specific - denominator for the Riper and the Torso man, therefore: Both were deemed by medicos to be surgeons, but time and some afterthought hollowed the idea.

[Sam Flynn]

I think that is a very risky suggestion, to be frank.

I don't believe what I suggested was risky, Fish. A journalist from the Lancet finding a more punchy alternative to "the same excising power" is by no means difficult to imagine. On the other hand, if Phillips really had said "one sweep of a knife", why on earth would any journalist change it to the weaker, and rather more opaque phrase "the same excising power"?

Chances are that the original phrase, as uttered by Dr Phillips, was something like "the same excising power", and this was changed by a Lancet journalist with a greater sense of poetry and/or drama; it was therefore the Lancet, not Phillips, that was likely responsible for this immortal ripperological soundbite.

Don't worry, Fish - for clarity, I'm only questioning the origin of the phrase "one sweep of the knife"; not Phillips' suggestion that a single incision was responsible for removing the uterus and (two-thirds of) the bladder. So, nothing "risky" in my suggestion after all.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I don't believe what I suggested was risky, Fish. A journalist from the Lancet finding a more punchy alternative to "the same excising power" is by no means difficult to imagine. On the other hand, if Phillips really had said "one sweep of a knife", why on earth would any journalist change it to the weaker, and rather more opaque phrase "the same excising power"?

I do not think the Lancet was a sensationalist paper, Gareth. I find it quite possible that BOTH things were said. And it is equally possible that the Lancet reporter spoke exclusively to Phillips, since the Lancet is and was written on medical matters.

Chances are that the original phrase, as uttered by Dr Phillips, was something like "the same excising power", and this was changed by a Lancet journalist with a greater sense of poetry and/or drama; it was therefore the Lancet, not Phillips, that was likely responsible for this immortal ripperological soundbite.

"Chances are" ... Yes, but the recorded phrasing is.

Don't worry, Fish - for clarity, I'm only questioning the origin of the phrase "one sweep of the knife"; not Phillips' suggestion that a single incision was responsible for removing the uterus and (two-thirds of) the bladder. So, nothing "risky" in my suggestion after all.

It is always risky to make these kinds of suggestions, I find. It has a tendency to wring the facts out of history´s hand and put it in the hands of those who want a different story than the one reported. In your case, there was always a story of thinking the wounds in the case less specific than the reports sometimes tell us. You invariably speak for a series of rough, messy cuts with no precision or much afterthought. To that end, it would be convenient if the phrase "one sweep of the knife" went away.
No offense, Gareth, but I find that must be weighed in. I am oftentimes met by the suggestion that I alter things to fit my "agenda", so you are in good company...

[Sam Flynn]

Don't worry, Fish - for clarity, I'm only questioning the origin of the phrase "one sweep of the knife"

It is always risky to make these kinds of suggestions, I find. It has a tendency to wring the facts out of history´s hand

Eh? I'm trying to get closer to what one of the key witnesses might (or might not) have actually said. That's not risky, and it's far from being ahistorical... quite the contrary, it is precisely the sort of thing we, as purported historians of this case, should be doing.

I do not think the Lancet was a sensationalist paper, Gareth.

The Lancet wasn't even a paper, never mind a sensationalist one; it was (and is) a medical journal. But it did have elegant writers in the Victorian era, and scientific journals back then certainly weren't immune from flowery prose. (This remained true well into the 20th century.)

I find it quite possible that BOTH things were said.

If that were true, you can bet your bottom dollar that the popular press would have leapt on the more punchy "one sweep of the knife" quote, and ditched the crappy "same excising power" bit.

And it is equally possible that the Lancet reporter spoke exclusively to Phillips

There's nothing to suggest that this happened, and there's no reason to suppose from the Lancet article that the writer was privy to any more information than the other journalists who attended the inquest.

[John G]

I think that is a very risky suggestion, to be frank. And I also think that the killer had a thing for colons (Eddowes, Jackson and the Rainham torso - and now Chapman), so I read the reports in a very different manner.

To add, the Echo article you refer to also included this passage by Phillips:
"The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge; but the incision of certain viscera conveyed to my kind a greater anatomical knowledge."

More enterprising journalism? Or?

A further elucidation comes via the Morning Advertiser:
"Dr. Phillips then requested that the evidence given by him on the former occasion might be read over, and, this having been done, he said the abdominal wall had been removed in three parts - two from the anterior part. There was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. On adjusting these three flaps it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting. The womb itself and two thirds of the bladder were absent from the body and could nowhere be traced. It was apparent that these absent portions, together with the division of the large intestine, were the result of the same incising cut, and hence his opinion that the length of the weapon was at least five or six inches, and probably more. The wounds generally confirmed him in his opinion that the instrument must have been of a very sharp character. The removal of the abdominal wall indicated certain anatomical knowledge, as did the cutting in three portions of the abdominal wall, and the non cutting of the intestine. Also the way in which the womb was removed showed this in a more marked degree."

So that is how "the same excising power" translates - it was the same cut that did it.

Overall, I think that time eroded the implications offered by Phillips - it was just as obvious that no surgeon would have done it, as was the case with the Rainham torso, where Galloway took the exact same course. First, he said it was clearly the work of a surgeon or anatomist, and then he realized that no matter how skilful the knife work was, the cutting as such was totally non-surgical.
Another common - and extremely specific - denominator for the Riper and the Torso man, therefore: Both were deemed by medicos to be surgeons, but time and some afterthought hollowed the idea.

Dr Galloway said that the perpetrator had "a thorough knowledge of surgery", which would tend to rule out Lechmere.

Of course, he later amended his opinion, but that could've simply been the case of the medical profession closing ranks and not wanting to implicate one of their own. In any event, he still concluded thst he knew the "structure of the human frame", which also rules out Lechmere, I'm afraid.

Dr Biggs also commented on Rainham. He opined:

"Generalisations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist couldn't have done such a good job because they're not cutting as regularly as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre." (Marriott, 2013).

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Eh? I'm trying to get closer to what one of the key witnesses might (or might not) have actually said. That's not risky, and it's far from being ahistorical... quite the contrary, it is precisely the sort of thing we, as purported historians of this case, should be doing.

I disagree very much in this case. I believe we should first and foremost accept that what witnesses are reported as saying is what they actually said, unless something points to the contrary. In this case, nothing does. We have information telling us that the same cut (one single cut) that took out the womb, also cut the colon. So if Phillips said that the parts were removed with "one sweep of the knife", he would have reported exactly what happened.

The Lancet wasn't even a paper, never mind a sensationalist one; it was (and is) a medical journal. But it did have elegant writers in the Victorian era, and scientific journals back then certainly weren't immune from flowery prose. (This remained true well into the 20th century.)

In Sweden, a paper is a "tidning" and a journal is also a "tidning", hence my wording. What remains is that it is a literary product less prone to inventive journalism than the evening press. Or so I believe.

If that were true, you can bet your bottom dollar that the popular press would have leapt on the more punchy "one sweep of the knife" quote, and ditched the crappy "same excising power" bit.

Sounds much more reasonable than conclusive.

There's nothing to suggest that this happened, and there's no reason to suppose from the Lancet article that the writer was privy to any more information than the other journalists who attended the inquest.

And there is no reason to suggest that the Lancet journalist invented the wording. Which puts my suggestion on par with yours at any rte. And keep in mind that you yourself seem to think that the wording would have been one the popular press would have liked - so why would the Lancet journalist, as the only one, invent it?
I think it is quite likely that the Lancet journalist may have been familiar with the medical implications than the rest of the reporters, and therefore I think it is quite possible that he may have - for example - have asked Phillips for a clarification after the interview.
But all of this is very likely to descend into a slanging match where neither of us can prove anything (surprise, surprise...) All we can say is that as the womb was cut out, the same cut that did it also cut the colon, giving away that a long blade was used. It is perfectly logical to speak of one sweep of the knife, therefore. A prerequsite for being able to perform the cut as one single sweeping cut would be that the knofe was exceptionally sharp. And indeed, Phillips also establishes that this was so, in this very context.

[Fisherman]

John G: Dr Galloway said that the perpetrator had "a thorough knowledge of surgery", which would tend to rule out Lechmere.

Dr Galloway INITIALLY said this, but he later changed his mind. It is abundantly apparent that what caused the initial wording was the skilled knofe work, and NOT any of the cuts being medically recommendable.

Of course, he later amended his opinion, but that could've simply been the case of the medical profession closing ranks and not wanting to implicate one of their own. In any event, he still concluded thst he knew the "structure of the human frame", which also rules out Lechmere, I'm afraid.

No, it does not. Lechmere may well have been aware of the structure of the human frame.

Dr Biggs also commented on Rainham. He opined:

"Generalisations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist couldn't have done such a good job because they're not cutting as regularly as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre." (Marriott, 2013).

I agree - to an extent. But Galloway had stuck his chin out, and he had done so on account of the skilled cutting he had seen. He therefore needed to amend his position by means of explaining how he could have gone wrong.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: Eh? I'm trying to get closer to what one of the key witnesses might (or might not) have actually said. That's not risky, and it's far from being ahistorical... quite the contrary, it is precisely the sort of thing we, as purported historians of this case, should be doing.

I disagree very much in this case.

Why? It should be self-evident that people who truly care about the facts should try to get at the truth wherever possible. Goodness knows, there has been enough mythmaking and distortion in this case over the past 120-odd years, and we should make every effort to avoid perpetuating any genuine myths that remain.

In this instance, all I'm saying is that the time-honoured soundbite "with one sweep of the knife" seems to have been invented by a journalist. At the very least, there are demonstrably reasonable grounds to question whether this specific phrase originated with Dr Phillips himself. Nowhere is it claimed, not even in the Lancet article, that Dr Phillips uttered these words, so go figure.

Please note - and I've said this already - I am only questioning the authorship of these precise words ("one sweep of the knife"), NOT that Phillips believed that the abdominal organs were removed in one pass.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Why? It should be self-evident that people who truly care about the facts should try to get at the truth wherever possible.

I am not opposed to "getting at the truth", Gareth. What I am against is INVENTING truths.

Goodness knows, there has been enough mythmaking and distortion in this case over the past 120-odd years, and we should make every effort to avoid perpetuating any genuine myths that remain.

Abso-freakin-lutely! But since when is the wording a myth?

In this instance, all I'm saying is that the time-honoured soundbite "with one sweep of the knife" seems to have been invented by a journalist. At the very least, there are demonstrably reasonable grounds to question whether this specific phrase originated with Dr Phillips himself. Nowhere is it claimed, not even in the Lancet article, that Dr Phillips uttered these words, so go figure.

There was always a professional duty not to distort what was claimed into something it didn´t mean.
The wording under discussion comes from Phillips´ report on the wounds on Chapmans body. On this site, it is said:
"The Lancet quoted Phillips on the surgical proficiency of Chapman's killer. 'Obviously', Phillips wrote, 'the work was that of an expert- or 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'. "

So what we are told here is not that a number of reporters listened to Phillips and that one only wrote "one sweep of the knife". Instead it seems that the Lancet quoted ad verbatim from the written report!

The alternative wording, "the same excising power", comes from Phillips´ verbal testimony on the 19:th, whereas the Lancet published their article on the 29:th, apparently not quoting Phillips testimony but instead his written report. So where does that put your comparison?

The Lancet was also published on September 22, and if the inquest was covered by them, there´s where the quotation would have appeared. Instead the wording about one sweep of the knife appears under the heading "The Whitechapel Murders" a week later. It is apparently not the same material.

Please note - and I've said this already - I am only questioning the authorship of these precise words ("one sweep of the knife"), NOT that Phillips believed that the abdominal organs were removed in one pass.

That´s why I am saying that if the practical reality is there, then nothing seems to stand in the way of Phillips having worded himself the way it is claimed.

[Fisherman]

Trying to untangle the "one sweep of the knife" business, which seems hard enough. I have now read the Lancet article of the 29:th, only to find it references the inquest. But it seems the papers to a large degree abstained from quoting Phillips - both the Daily Telegraph and the Times state something like Phillips saying "Very well. I will give you the results of my post-mortem examination. Witness then detailed the terrible wounds which had been inflicted upon the woman, and described the parts of the body which the perpetrator of the murder had carried away with him."
So the part where the "one sweep of the knife" appears is left out. And it remains that it is said that the Lancet quoted from the written report in this instance. It may well be, however that they quoted from Phillips´ own verbal reading out of his report.

[John G]

John G: Dr Galloway said that the perpetrator had "a thorough knowledge of surgery", which would tend to rule out Lechmere.

Dr Galloway INITIALLY said this, but he later changed his mind. It is abundantly apparent that what caused the initial wording was the skilled knofe work, and NOT any of the cuts being medically recommendable.

Of course, he later amended his opinion, but that could've simply been the case of the medical profession closing ranks and not wanting to implicate one of their own. In any event, he still concluded thst he knew the "structure of the human frame", which also rules out Lechmere, I'm afraid.

No, it does not. Lechmere may well have been aware of the structure of the human frame.

Dr Biggs also commented on Rainham. He opined:

"Generalisations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist couldn't have done such a good job because they're not cutting as regularly as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre." (Marriott, 2013).

I agree - to an extent. But Galloway had stuck his chin out, and he had done so on account of the skilled cutting he had seen. He therefore needed to amend his position by means of explaining how he could have gone wrong.

I strongly disagree. "Thorough knowledge of surgery", and knowledge of "the structure of the human frame", clearly points to a medical man.

[Fisherman]

I strongly disagree. "Thorough knowledge of surgery", and knowledge of "the structure of the human frame", clearly points to a medical man.

No, it does not. It points to anybody who for any reason would have been read up on the human frame. The victorian society was one of much curiosity, and there were boks aplenty dealing with anatomical issues, many of them containing illustrations where layers could be lifted, showing the situation of the organs. Equally, there were anatomical museums with waxworks showing the human anatomy. There were lots and lots of opportunities to inform yourself about the human framework. The working class were eager visitors of the anatomical museums. Regardless of how strongly you disagree, this is the plain truth.

To add, I don´t think we can judge Lechmere´s viability by Galloways views only. To begin with, Galloway retracted the surgeon stuff, and as you may be aware, Thomas Bond stated that the killer had no anatomical insights at all. How that "rules out" Lechmere, I fail to see. It´s sheer nonsense to claim so.

[Monty]

Good to see you around Gareth,

Hope all is well with you chap.

Neil
🙂