Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Sam Flynn 50 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Batman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wolf Vanderlinden 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wolf Vanderlinden 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by DJA 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - (11 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (9 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1841  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:47 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You seem to be on a quest, some sort of a crusade, where the aim is to try and make a case for how there was never any skill at all evinced by the Ripper and no recognition of any such skill on behalf of the medicos. All the evidence pointing against your take is mishearing, misrepresentations and misunderstadings.
If I'm on a crusade at all, it's one of sticking to the evidence of the wounds, not opinions, summings-up, editorials or 129 years of the "telephone game". Read Phillips' own description of the damage inflicted on Annie Chapman's abdomen, and read carefully what Phillips - not Baxter - actually said at the inquest.

Then, as a fun exercise, read Baxter's summing-up, and ask yourself whether it isn't flowered up and over-dramatised.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #1842  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:22 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
If I'm on a crusade at all, it's one of sticking to the evidence of the wounds, not opinions, summings-up, editorials or 129 years of the "telephone game". Read Phillips' own description of the damage inflicted on Annie Chapman's abdomen, and read carefully what Phillips - not Baxter - actually said at the inquest.

Then, as a fun exercise, read Baxter's summing-up, and ask yourself whether it isn't flowered up and over-dramatised.
We do not know what Phillips said at the inquest, Gareth. Different papers carry different versions, and they are decidedly meagre when it comes to Phillips´revelations about the damages done. One example would be how the Daily Telegraph says that "I am of opinion that the length of the weapon with which the incisions were inflicted was at least five to six inches in length - probably more - and must have been very sharp. The manner in which they had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge."

Here, other papers make it clear that Phillips said that the cutting away of the abdominal flaps evinced "a certain amount of anatomical knowledge", and that the excising of the uterus showed greater such insights.

Some papers simply say something like "Here, Phillips expanded on the damage done".

What Phillips REALLY and FULLY said, is unknown to us. This is perhaps best understood when reflecting on how the East London Advertiser worded it:
"At the inquest on Chapman, Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, under protest, gave the details of the mutilation of the deceased. Of course, as might have been expected, they were almost beyond description, and needless to say they did not find their way into the papers."
So when we see that no papers at all mentioned any post-mortem room experience in their quotations of Phillips´ testimony, that should not be taken as evidence that he did not, for indeed Baxter quoted him on it in his summing up. And Baxter would not have done that if he had not been given reason too, so very clearly Phillips DID speak of knowledge and expertise, and the Lancet is probably the paper best suited to relay what he actually said in the errand.

So no, I don´t think Baxters summary is in any way overdramatized when it comes to the damage done to Chapman. The suggestion of an American doctor asking for certain body parts in return for money has to be viewed in isolation, because here, Baxter was let off the leish.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-07-2017 at 08:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #1843  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:40 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Interesting in this context is the interview with the "eminent physician James Risdon Bennett" of Cavendish Square. This is what he has to say:

"Dr. Phillips has stated that the injuries inflicted upon these women have been apparently performed by a person possessing some anatomical knowledge. That is likely enough; but would not a butcher be quite capable of treating the body in this way? Since I wrote my letter to the Times I have received several communications in support of my view. One of these comes from the Bishop of Bedford, who agrees with me that the theory of the American physiologist has no claim to credit. I wish to have it understood that my only desire is to remove from the public mind the evil impression which has been made by the suggestion, that a member of the medical profession is more or less responsible for these murders. I, however, believed in that theory, and these two last murders confirm me in the opinion that they are the work of a man suffering from acute mania, to whom the ordinary rules of motive and procedure do not apply."

So it seems the view that the murder was the work of a medico or suchlike, was put forward. By whom, one might ask? Phillips? Or the papers only?
It does seem however, that Risdon Bennett "believed in that theory" from the outset, and if it was just a suggestion made in the papers, I find it less likely that he would have done so than if it was suggested by Phillips. It also seems clear that Risdon Bennet opts for how a butcher could have done what Phillips suggested a doctor woul have been resonsible for:
"Dr. Phillips has stated that the injuries inflicted upon these women have been apparently performed by a person possessing some anatomical knowledge. That is likely enough; but would not a butcher be quite capable of treating the body in this way?"
The inference is that Phillips did NOT allow for a butcher but only for a doctor.
Quick reply to this message
  #1844  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:50 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

This is the letter to the Times spoken of in my former post:

"In a letter which he publishes in The Times today, Sir James Risdon Bennett comments upon the statement made by the coroner to the jury at the inquest on the death of the woman Chapman, and refers to the injurious influence which the coroner's theory is likely to exert on the public mind. Sir James says:-

I will, for the sake of argument, assume that the information given to the coroner by the officer of one of the medical schools is correct, and that Dr. Phillips is right in considering that the character of the mutilation in question justifies the assumption that the perpetrator was probably one who possessed some knowledge of anatomy. But that the inference which has been deduced is warranted, any one who is the least acquainted with medical science and practice will unhesitatingly deny and indignantly repudiate. That a lunatic may have desired to obtain possession of certain organs for some insane purpose is very possible, and the theory of the murdering fiend being a madman only derives confirmation from the information obtained by the coroner. But that the parts of the body carried off were wanted for any quasi scientific publication, or any other more or less legitimate purpose, no one having any knowledge of medical science will for a moment believe. To say nothing of the utterly absurd notion of the part, or organ, being preserved in a particular way to accompany each copy of an intended publication, the facilities for obtaining such objects for any purpose of legitimate research, in any number, either here or in America, without having recourse to crime of any kind, are such as to render the suggestion made utterly untenable. There can be no analogy whatever with the atrocious crimes of Burke and Hare, the merest insinuation of which is a gross and unjustifiable calumny on the medical profession.

My guess is that Risdon Bennet is saying here that Phillips stated that the cutting would have taken a certain amount of anatomical knowledge, and that he "deduced the inference" that a medico lay behind it. It is how it reads to me. And it is how it fits with Baxter quoting Phillips and with the Lancets article. So we don´t need to get rid of these things, but can instead accept them as true echoes of Phillips´ stance.

Interestingly, in both murder series we have the exact same thing: a medico (Phillips in the Ripper case and Galloway in the torso case) who blatantly says: surgical expertise!, only to then either be questioned by the profession or to retract what was said. And in both cases we can very clearly see that what inpressed Phillips and Galloway was NOT how the killer emulated exactly what a surgeon would do, for in fact NO surgeon would do what was done. Instead, it was the knifework that made the medicos go "it must have been a surgeon or somebody from the post-mortem room."

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-07-2017 at 08:52 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #1845  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:55 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
We do not know what Phillips said at the inquest.
Phillips certainly mentioned anatomical knowledge, which Baxter turned into anatomical SKILL in his summing up. Baxter's assertion that the killer must have been accustomed with the dissection room seems to have been conjured out of thin air, and it is perhaps significant that Baxter said this almost as a prelude to trotting out his pet theory that the killer was involved in the black market organ trade.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #1846  
Old 11-07-2017, 09:31 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Sam Flynn: Phillips certainly mentioned anatomical knowledge, which Baxter turned into anatomical SKILL in his summing up.

Sorry, Gareth - this can be nothing but an unsubstatiated guess of yours. There is every reason to believe that what Baxter relayed was what Phillips said. As you can see, the press did not cover Phillips´ testimony, and so you have no idea what terminology he used. He could have said "surgeon", "post-mortem room", "skill" or anything else like that - and it seems he actually did. And it apparently was quite enough to have his fellow medicos question it, on account of their profession - and themselves.

Baxter's assertion that the killer must have been accustomed with the dissection room seems to have been conjured out of thin air...

No, it seems to be a quotation from Phillips´ testimony. Once again, the press did not take down all Phillips said, because it was unsuited for the general public. If you want to claim that Baxter made things up out of thin air, then you must also be able to produce some sort of evidence for that. If he HAD done so, he would no doubt have been brandished a phantasist in the papers. And James Risdon Bennett would have cleared Phillips and put all the blame on Baxter.
That never happend though, and so we once again arrive at your eminent wording when we are to answer the question "Why?": Go figure!

...and it is perhaps significant that Baxter said this almost as a prelude to trotting out his pet theory that the killer was involved in the black market organ trade.

Once again, if he had gravely misqouted Phillips, we would have heard of it. The american doctor matter cannot be used to alter that - the whole world was listening, and there was no room for lying on behalf of a coroner.
Quick reply to this message
  #1847  
Old 11-07-2017, 11:39 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Phillips certainly mentioned anatomical knowledge, which Baxter turned into anatomical SKILL in his summing up. Baxter's assertion that the killer must have been accustomed with the dissection room seems to have been conjured out of thin air, and it is perhaps significant that Baxter said this almost as a prelude to trotting out his pet theory that the killer was involved in the black market organ trade.
Hi Sam,

This Inquest excerpt is arguably what we can agree Phillips intended to convey....."Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste"

"Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge."

"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. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

"I am of opinion that the length of the weapon with which the incisions were inflicted was at least five to six inches in length - probably more - and must have been very sharp. The manner in which they had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge."

Without any boost from Baxter, I believe Phillips is on record saying that the killer had some, perhaps considerable, anatomical knowledge and that the cuts were all made so that the uterus could be accessed and extracted.

I don't know about you, but before studying here I would have no idea which would be the best way to access or remove that organ...and certainly not while the clock was ticking loudly. Sure, I could read a book, but would the cuts I make to accomplish the action look as if they "enabled" the organ access and extraction?
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message
  #1848  
Old 11-07-2017, 11:40 AM
RockySullivan RockySullivan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,870
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debra A View Post
Rocky, the reference was in the Star of 3rd Oct. The source is an employee at the Red Lion pub near the building site who had applied for a nightwatchman job there and been turned down. He claimed he saw men entering regularly to sleep in the vaults, he thought:

"The night waterman at the Red Lion public-house in Cannon-row explained to a Star reporter how it was possible for a man to get into the new police buildings at night. He applied to the clerk of the works for the post of night-watchman, and was told that one would not be appointed, but he is about the neighborhood every night until after twelve. He has, he says, frequently seen men going into the buildings at night to sleep - he supposes in the vaults. A large iron pillar stands at the corner of the kerb-stone in Cannon-row just against the hoarding. It is quite easy for anyone to mount on the top of the pillar, and then to

SCALE THE HOARDING.
He has seen several people enter this way. He has never seen any females go over, but a man once in could easily open a door from the inside and admit a female. It would be difficult, although not impossible, to get a heavy parcel over the hoarding at the place to which the waterman referred."

Of course, he could have been making this up because he really wanted that nightwatchman job.
Kinda suspicious no?
Quick reply to this message
  #1849  
Old 11-08-2017, 07:10 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pcdunn View Post
Maybe the Torsoman was Jack the Ripper's father or mentor? Could explain the Torsos killings seeming more accomplished, while Jack seems to have a learning curve in his series.

I'm only half-joking, as I have seen a true crime doc about at least one father and son set of criminals, who I believe were also serial killers.
HI PC
thanks for responding. yes ive thought of the mentor scenario and its definitely plausible. Ive also thought of that scenario to link the 80s and 70s torso murders.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message
  #1850  
Old 11-08-2017, 07:24 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
HI PC
thanks for responding. yes ive thought of the mentor scenario and its definitely plausible. Ive also thought of that scenario to link the 80s and 70s torso murders.
It will require that both father and son (or mentor and pupil) respond to the same inspiration ground and develop the same paraphilia, though.

The by far simpler explanation is that it was the same man throughout. Then again, whenever Gareth opts for the simple explanation, I whack him over the fingers...
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.