Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[John G]

John G: This is what Phillip Harrison had to say about Chapman's evisceration:

"To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of the blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully even by today's methods especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum." (Marriott, 2013)

But Harrison did not see the result, did he? He speaks of the "uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries" and says nothing about half a bladder, for example. So he seems to be speaking of a surgically motivated operation, whereas the Chapman cut was something quite different.
Phillips said that one cut took the organs out (no matter whether he used the word "sweep" or not, this was what happened), and he was duly impressed by the knifework. We can make up stories today about near impossibilities, but we do not know the course of the knife that was used other than to some extent. Maybe it´s time for you to realize that if it WAS a hard thing to do, then that in itself can be why Phillips opined that a medical man would have been at work.

Of course, as you now concede, we do not even know that Dr Phillips made the statement; it's only what he was presumably reported as saying in The Lancet.

Not really, no - it was what he presumably had written in his report and read out aloud at the inquest. And he was not "presumably reported" as having said it - he was reported as having said it. You can skip the "presumably" and read the Lancet. It helps.
I cannot conclusively prove what was said. I can only conclude that the reasonable wording was the quoted one, since it tallied with the cutting work. That´s what I "concede", John. Nothing else.

As for Dr Galloway, I would suggest he was attempting to dig himself out of a very big hole, after initially implying that the perpetrator was a medical professional.

Suggest away. It is quite clear that it was the cutting work that impressed him, and not how the cutter lived up to the demands of careful surgery. To make my case, that is all that matters.

And, as Dr Biggs pointed out, in respect of the Rainham Torso:

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

Isn´t it interesting that a doctor who has supplied nothing but generalized views should warn against generalisations, John? This time over, he is correct, though - if a butcher could hone his skills to perfection, then so could a surgeon.

But what does it matter? We know that what was done to the Rainham victim was not something a surgeon did in his everyday work. We have no indications of anything at all that could have been done by a surgeon only. All we have is a thoroughly impressed Galloway, who VERY clearly stated that it was the cutting per se that impressed him.
Once again, that is what it takes to make my point and case: The Rainham victim was cut in a very skilled manner, just as there was cutting work on Chapman that looked extremely skilled to another doctor (Phillips).
That ties the two cases together - we have two cases where medicos were extremely impressed with the cutting work.

You know what, John? That is a point vofavour of a shared identity. And that´s BEFORE we allow the abdominal flaps to clinch the matter. Wriggle as yu may, the connection is established as a near certainty.

No it isn't. That's an absurd claim. Just because Dr Galloway was impressed with the way the Rainham victim was dismembered, and Dr Phillips impressed with the way Chapman was eviscerated, doesn't imply the same person was responsible. And Dr Bond certainly didn't agree with Dr Phillips' assessment. And Dr Hebbert seemed to think that the Rainham victim could have been dismembered by any common or garden butcher or hunter. So much for your master knifeman theory!

And why do you keep going on above abdominal flaps for? It's not even a medical term!

Was Dr Phillips reported as having made the "one sweep of the knife comment?" Where's your source for this?

[Fisherman]

John G: Now, now let's not get personal, or I might have to question why you have attacked the integrity of Lechmere-as others have done-who may well be an innocent man, and that my dear Fish is far more serious.

Question away, John - I have all the answers. Not that I see what Lechmere´s candidacy has to do with how you want to question Phillips as a medico on no evidence at all, but maybe you have a rational explanation to offer. Or not.

As regards Eddowes, Dr Sequeira didn't share Dr Brown's opinion as to the skill of the perpetrator: "He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill." Presumably, therefore, you are brought into question if you challenge his opinion. As you are if you have wrongfully accused an innocent man of being a serial killer.

I am not the one picking and choosing between the medicos in order to find myself a man to accuse of having done a bad job or misled the public. You are. I find that the medicos are entitled to their opinions even if they differ from each other - there will have been different experiences, different knowledge, different convictions that governed their thinking.

But, of course, Dr Brown may have been correct. After all, he seemed to think that Eddowes murderer was a medical student, which obviously puts Lechmere in the clear.

How very moronic. Just a few posts back you agreed that various medicos may have had various thoughts about what constituted a sign of expertise. And here you are, thinking that what Brown believed would somehow be written in stone - and that it would put Lechmere in the clear.
That wet dream of yours won´t go away, will it?

[Fisherman]

No it isn't. That's an absurd claim. Just because Dr Galloway was impressed with the way the Rainham victim was dismembered, and Dr Phillips impressed with the way Chapman was eviscerated, doesn't imply the same person was responsible. And Dr Bond certainly didn't agree with Dr Phillips' assessment. And Dr Hebbert seemed to think that the Rainham victim could have been dismembered by any common or garden butcher or hunter.

And why do you keep going on above abdominal flaps for? It's not even a medical term!

There is a lot more than the correlation between Galloway and Phillips, and you know that quite well.
Hey, John - cutting a swastika into a forehead is not a medical term either, but when it happens to two victims, it is neverthless evidence of a connection. So much for "medical terms" - and for your "argument". Get off them high horses - or learn to ride.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;404759]

Something which has always given me cause for concern with the opinions of Dr Phillips is his estimation of the time taken to perform the mutilations on Chapman, as given at the inquest:

"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. "

There are several areas of concern here for me:

1. His initial claim that it would take at least 15minutes to perform the mutilations he saw.

This is greatly at odds with the views of almost any other expert who has been consulted, the mutilations in the Eddowes case are far more extensive, yet no one suggested this took 15 minutes.

2. The variation in this first guess and the second figure is extreme. quarter of an hour to nearly an hour.

Hi Steve,

There is no reason for concern here. This is a typical problem with sources produced by newspapers. They are often inconsistent and contradictory.

These issues have always lead me to suspect that Phillips really had little idea at all how long the attack may have taken.

I am sure that Phillips did have a good idea about it. It was the journalists, who were not trained within the medical science, who misinterpreted him. It is visible in the text.

It also seems to possibly demonstrate yet again, that the comments given by medics involved in the case should not be taken automatically at face value.

Nothing is to be automatically taken at face value and that is why we use internal and external source criticism. It is obvious that the journalists wanted to create excitement around the murder. They sold the papers. The words of the doctor therefore are not in good hands. His words are twisted and interpreted to get the best out of the information for the journalists, the editor and the owner(s) of the newpaper.

THAT IS WHY original inquest papers written by a clerk, at the inquest, is a much more reliable type of source.

That, sadly enough, is also why Fisherman and others speculate in speculations, when they do not have the original inquest source written down by trusted professionals with no interest in speculation.

Overall this appears to back up much of what the other expert Biggs says with regards to the available medical sources.

If Biggs said something which supports that the doctor´s in 1888 did not know what they were doing, it is just for ONE reason: Biggs is NOT an historian and he does NOT understand source hierarchies and source critiscism.

And also, do not forget that Fisherman is a journalist. He knows everything about what I say here. And still, he goes on and makes people think that what he says is "the truth" instead of the twisted speculations from newspapers that he is handling.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Hi Steve,

There is no reason for concern here. This is a typical problem with sources produced by newspapers. They are often inconsistent and contradictory.



I am sure that Phillips did have a good idea about it. It was the journalists, who were not trained within the medical science, who misinterpreted him. It is visible in the text.



Nothing is to be automatically taken at face value and that is why we use internal and external source criticism. It is obvious that the journalists wanted to create excitement around the murder. They sold the papers. The words of the doctor therefore are not in good hands. His words are twisted and interpreted to get the best out of the information for the journalists, the editor and the owner(s) of the newpaper.

THAT IS WHY original inquest papers written by a clerk, at the inquest, is a much more reliable type of source.

That, sadly enough, is also why Fisherman and others speculate in speculations, when they do not have the original inquest source written down by trusted professionals with no interest in speculation.



If Biggs said something which supports that the doctor´s in 1888 did not know what they were doing, it is just for ONE reason: Biggs is NOT an historian and he does NOT understand source hierarchies and source critiscism.

And also, do not forget that Fisherman is a journalist. He knows everything about what I say here. And still, he goes on and makes people think that what he says is "the truth" instead of the twisted speculations from newspapers that he is handling.

Regards, Pierre

I don't know why this person still thinks he has any credibility at all, let alone the right to criticise others. The man who thinks the killer tried to murder Kelly and Prater because their addresses and room numbers were both a linguistic pun on, and numerically derived from, the length of the procession of The Lord Mayor's Show. The man who thinks that Juwes was clearly a misrepresentation of Judges. The man who thinks a description of a sailor's cap was really a policeman's cap because the witness on whom he relies "was not a camera" and was therefore prevented from completing his testimony at the inquest. And so on, and so forth, deeper and deeper into the realms of absurd conspiracy theory, buttressed entirely by assumptions that signatories are not who they claim to be, dates in official records are false, and of course by hidden coded messages scattered throughout the media, messages that have remained undeciphered or undetected until this great genius uncovered and decrypted them.

This person is not a historian. It doesn't matter how many times he intones the sacred mantra "internal and external source criticism". Not a historian. Not a scientist.

[Sam Flynn]

And why do you keep going on above abdominal flaps for? It's not even a medical term!

Apologies, but I think Fisherman might have got the phrase from me, John. A few years back, I found that some contemporary newspaper reports gave details of Annie's flaps (not a phrase I use often!) and drew folks' attention to them here. Not a medical term, as Fish points out, but shorthand for "flaps of flesh removed from the abdominal wall".

Was Dr Phillips reported as having made the "one sweep of the knife comment?" Where's your source for this?

I notice Fisherman hasn't answered this, because I don't think he can; not that I blame him. For years, many have assumed that Dr Phillips was the originator of the "one sweep of the knife" comment, but there's no evidence that he was. On the contrary, it seems to have been a neat bit of writing by a Lancet staffer.

[David Orsam]

]. It is obvious that the journalists wanted to create excitement around the murder. They sold the papers. The words of the doctor therefore are not in good hands. His words are twisted and interpreted to get the best out of the information for the journalists, the editor and the owner(s) of the newpaper.

The only thing that's obvious here is that Pierre still does not understand the role of the court reporter. His job was not to sell newspapers but to faithfully report what was said at the inquests. The court reporters for the Times and Telegraph - relied on by the police themselves and the Home Office - were as reliable as one could hope for, allowing for acoustics and errors of hearing.

A historian would, of course, know this.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Apologies, but I think Fisherman might have got the phrase from me, John. A few years back, I found that some contemporary newspaper reports gave details of Annie's flaps (not a phrase I use often!) and drew folks' attention to them here. Not a medical term, as Fish points out, but shorthand for "flaps of flesh removed from the abdominal wall".

My attention was drawn to the flaps by Debra Arif, Gareth.

I notice Fisherman hasn't answered this, because I don't think he can; not that I blame him. For years, many have assumed that Dr Phillips was the originator of the "one sweep of the knife" comment, but there's no evidence that he was. On the contrary, it seems to have been a neat bit of writing by a Lancet staffer.

Phillips clearly quoted from his own report at the inquest, and I can only surmise that the wording came from there. There is nothing at all odd with the phrase, and it can be found in the Lancet, reporting other cases.
It seems pretty evident that the womb and it´s attachments were removed with one sweep of the knife, damaging the colon in the process.
That´s as neat as it gets in my world, perhaps a little less colourful one than yours, Gareth...

[Henry Flower]

The only thing that's obvious here is that Pierre still does not understand the role of the court reporter. His job was not to sell newspapers but to faithfully report what was said at the inquests. The court reporters for the Times and Telegraph - relied on by the police themselves and the Home Office - were as reliable as one could hope for, allowing for acoustics and errors of hearing.

A historian would, of course, know this.

They say even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Why can't this one be inadvertantly right about something even once in a year and a quarter?

[Fisherman]

Let´s return once more to the idea that Bagster Phillips would not have used the expression "with one sweep of the knife" when describing how the reproductive organs were taken out from the body of Annie Chapman.

It seems we all agree that Phillips actually said that the removal of the uterus and it´s appendages, some of them damaged in the process, was made by one single cut, that also cut the colon open.
That part does not seem to be what is under discussion. Instead, it is the precise wording "with one sweep of the knife" that is supposedly very non-medical, and Gareth therefore suggests that it was an invention by the Lancet journalist in an effort to spice up Phillips´ testimony. He recognizes a risk that we have been led astray by a myth for more than a hundred years, and wants to make us wary of that.

Supposedly, Phillips was at one time educated in surgery, reading books on the subject. It may even be that he once took part of the work "The first lines of the practice of surgery: designed as an introduction for students, and a concise book of reference for practitioners (Volume 2)."

This was a book written by Samuel Cooper and Alexander Stevens, it was published in 1822, and here is a passage from it:

"Baron Dupuytrens mode of amputating was as follows: With one sweep of the knife he divided the integuments and muscles down to the bone…"

The underlining is mine.

Samuel Cooper is described on Wikipedia:

"Samuel Cooper FRS (September 1780 – 2 December 1848) was an English surgeon and medical writer. He published a Surgical Dictionary which went through many editions."

There is a lengthy article on him - he was a very prominent surgeon.

To my mind, this tells us that "one sweep of the knife" was common medical prose, used by the surgeons and medical practitioners of the age. I therefore think that we need to accept that Bagster Phillips may well have expressed himself in this exact manner.

PS. I have more examples to offer, should this not be enough, for example from the Medico-Chirurgical Review of 1839, by James Johnson, M.D., physician to the late king of England, and his colleague Henry James Johnson, a lecturer on anatomy at the school of St Georges Hospital in Kinnerton Street. The expression "with one sweep of the knife" appears there too - and in work after work by prominent medicos, anatomists and surgeons.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth therefore suggests that it was an invention by the Lancet journalist in an effort to spice up Phillips´ testimony.

Not so much "spicing up", as rendering a less elegant phrase more journalistically memorable.

He recognizes a risk that we have been led astray by a myth for more than a hundred years, and wants to make us wary of that.

I firmly believe we've been mistaken in ascribing that particular dramatic phrase to George Bagster Phillips, but I'm not suggesting that he didn't say something similar.

[John G]

There is a lot more than the correlation between Galloway and Phillips, and you know that quite well.
Hey, John - cutting a swastika into a forehead is not a medical term either, but when it happens to two victims, it is neverthless evidence of a connection. So much for "medical terms" - and for your "argument". Get off them high horses - or learn to ride.

Have you been on the Christmas sherry again?

[John G]

John G: Now, now let's not get personal, or I might have to question why you have attacked the integrity of Lechmere-as others have done-who may well be an innocent man, and that my dear Fish is far more serious.

Question away, John - I have all the answers. Not that I see what Lechmere´s candidacy has to do with how you want to question Phillips as a medico on no evidence at all, but maybe you have a rational explanation to offer. Or not.

As regards Eddowes, Dr Sequeira didn't share Dr Brown's opinion as to the skill of the perpetrator: "He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill." Presumably, therefore, you are brought into question if you challenge his opinion. As you are if you have wrongfully accused an innocent man of being a serial killer.

I am not the one picking and choosing between the medicos in order to find myself a man to accuse of having done a bad job or misled the public. You are. I find that the medicos are entitled to their opinions even if they differ from each other - there will have been different experiences, different knowledge, different convictions that governed their thinking.

But, of course, Dr Brown may have been correct. After all, he seemed to think that Eddowes murderer was a medical student, which obviously puts Lechmere in the clear.

How very moronic. Just a few posts back you agreed that various medicos may have had various thoughts about what constituted a sign of expertise. And here you are, thinking that what Brown believed would somehow be written in stone - and that it would put Lechmere in the clear.
That wet dream of yours won´t go away, will it?

I'm not saying that any of the medicos were correct or incorrect. Unlike yourself, I don't cherry pick the e evidence in order to support a weak theory.

[Fisherman]

Not so much "spicing up", as rendering a less elegant phrase more journalistically memorable.I firmly believe we've been mistaken in ascribing that particular dramatic phrase to George Bagster Phillips, but I'm not suggesting that he didn't say something similar.

Why would he - it was standard medico prose, it was a phrasing that was common in the surgical instruction books as I have shown you.

It is a fair bet that he was not misquoted, therefore.

[Fisherman]

Have you been on the Christmas sherry again?

I prefer port.