Is the Annie Chapman murder different?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi all

I am copying this from a post of mine on a 2004-2005 thread here on "Anatomical Knowledge." --

I have said elsewhere that the stated opinions of the medical men in the case changed noticeably after the uproar over Coroner Wynn Baxter's pronouncements at the Chapman inquest in late September. Specifically, Baxter stated that he had information that a foreign medical man had been enquiring from British medical institutions some time before for specimens of uteri, and was prepared to pay £20 for each specimen, supposedly to issue with copies of a new book.

It was subsequently reported [in the Chicago Tribune of 7 October 1888] that while there had been such a doctor, he was a respectable (though unnamed) Philadelphia physician with a large practice and that he did not want the specimens for the reason stated, nor did he offer that sum of money. The British medical press proclaimed that it was nonsense to think that a medical man could be involved in any way with the crimes.

Best regards

Chris

[Hunter]

Yes indeed, Chris. The whole episode involving Baxter's claims is an unfortunate red herring that to this day has muddied the waters when it comes to proper assessment of the medical evidence and the so-called medical knowledge debate.

Even the reference you posted has been used by some suspect theorists to suggest that the American physician might be Tumbelty, which is a bit of a reach.

Actually, what Baxter implied has been sometimes misunderstood. He did not say that a physician perpetrated the murders, but some deranged individual who may be familiar with the autopsy room.

Of course, it all got convoluted, but there never was any implication by Baxter that the American doctor was involved in perpetrating murder or even promoting a surrogate to inflict it.