|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 155
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 6:50 pm: |       |
I'm sure we are all aware of the story by Wynne Baxter about the American who attempted to buy anatomical specimens but I have found a version of the story which claims to identify both the company he worked for and one of the institutions he approached. I thought it might be of interest.
It is from the Lethbridge News, a Canadian paper, dated 10th October 188 and is part of a much longer article about the murders which I am transcribing.
The passage in question reads:
"The first theory originated in evidence given before the coroners inquest, to the effect that some time before a man who claimed to represent the American Publishing Company called at the British Museum and at one of the London hospitals, and said that he wanted to purchase specimens of uterus to be distributed with a medical work which his form was then publishing. It was consequently supposed that the murders might have been committed by an insane American surgeon for the purpose of procuring these specimens, as in all cases examined parts of the uterus have actually been missing. Further evidence, however, shows that it is nearly two years since the uterus seeker called at the British Museum and the theory is accordingly rendered improbable."
Hope it's of some interest
CS |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 10:34 am: | |
Hi, Chris:
If this information is correct, the American Publishing Company was a Hartford, Connecticut firm, which in the later nineteenth century published Mark Twain's books among others. They do appear to have published some medical titles as well.
All the best
Chris |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 159
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 5:09 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Very interesting - I will have to see what I can find about them - would be great of any catalogues still survived.
many thanks for the info
Chris S |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 21
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 8:19 pm: | |
I just re-read that section today adn although it isn't stated I'm wondering if the American wasn't Francis Tumblety. I recall reading somewhere on the boards before the format was reworked that Tumblety collected Uteri. Kindest regards, Neil |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 8:02 pm: | |
Hi all Inspector Abberline did put some faith in the theory that the organs were being harvested. In the Pall Mall Gazett 1903 March he suggest that chapman was working on a commission. Hi Neil Colonel Dunham testified that while at a dinner party he was invited into Tumbletys office were he saw DrTS Collection of organs DrT bragged that he had collected the wombs of every class of women. The thought crossed my mind that the American could have been Tumblety. Take care CB |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 53
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
Is the Chicago Tribune's Oct 7, 1888 story (which can be found in this Casebook's press section) given much credibility in the Ripper world? The article just dismisses this whole episode rather easily. It referred to a Scotland Yardsman having informed a press reporter about a reputable Philadelphian physician. This doctor went to King's College and Middlesex Hospital in a legitimate attempt to obtain those specimens. Unlike the Lethbridge article above, the Tribune reported the American doctor's visits to these Institutes as being within the time frame of a "few months ago" and not a couple of years. If this Tribune article was true, it would somewhat pull the plug on this whole subject. I have yet to see this Tribune report show up in any other newspaper, so I'm that's why I'm wondering if it's authenticity has been challenged. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
Hi Joe
I wrote an article entitled "The Search for the 'Eminent Philadelphia Physician'" for Ripperologist No. 43, October 2002. I would agree that the report that the man who was seeking the anatomical speciments was an "eminent Philadelphia physician" would appear to put paid to the idea that the doctor could have been Tumblety, who appears to ahve been recognized as a transparent charlatan. I have been trying to identify the Philadelphian but so far with no success.
One candidate might be Dr. Howard A. Kelly of Philadelphia, later to be one of the "Four Doctors" of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, memorialized by American impressionist painter John Singer Sargent. Dr. Kelly was a world-renowned obstetrician and a friend of H. L. Mencken, who however departed from Dr. Kelly on the matter of religion -- Kelly and his wife Laeticia being devout Christians and Mencken veering toward agnosticism if not Godlessness.
It appears though that Dr. Howard Kelly's publishing career, major though it was, began in the next few years after 1888 and he would not have had a monograph coming out as the American doctor was said to have had appearing for which the organ samples were needed, at least in coroner Wynne Baxter's rather lurid telling of the tale.
In any case, if we believe Baxter, the American would presumably have needed quite a few uteri to give out with each copy of his monograph if Baxter had it right. Yet, could it be perhaps more correctly the American wanted them for purposes of medical illustration or something else concerned with the upcoming publication?
As stated in the Chicago Tribune of 7 October 1888 here on the Casebook that you cited: "He is a reputable physician in Philadelphia with a large practice, who was over here preparing a medical work on specific diseases. He went to King's College and Middlesex Hospitals and asked for specimens, and merely said he was willing to pay well if he could not get them otherwise. The statement that he offered £20 each or named any other large sum seems to be a delusion of the Coroner. These facts were given the police by an eminent London physician, who saw a great deal of the Philadelphian when he was here, but would only divulge the information on a written guarantee from Sir Charles Warren that neither his name nor the name of the physician in question should be given to the public. He said the doctor had gone back to America, and his mission here was purely legitimate."
The hunt for the identity of the Philadelphia doctor continues.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 616
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
The 28 Sept. 1888 Daily Telegraph has a good article on this incident, which they place near the end of 1887.
It has been ascertained that the incident to which Mr. Wynne Baxter, coroner for East Middlesex, so emphatically referred in his summing up of the evidence given at the inquest concerning the death of Annie Chapman, occurred some months since, towards the close of last year. The person who made the singular application, as described, at one of the great London hospitals, and which he repeated at a scientific institution, was for some time a student at the hospital in question, and it is stated he would have been able to procure what he required without incurring any risk. As a matter of fact, according to the experience of demonstrators of anatomy, there is no such value to be attached to what was mentioned by the coroner, who was informed that £20 would be given by the American in every case. In a pecuniary sense there would be no value attaching at all. As a student the applicant must have been conversant with the rules of the dissecting room and with the very strict regulations of the Government in regard to the disposal of post-mortem subjects. He certainly would have excited suspicion by pressing a demand with unusual conditions, the more especially as under proper treatment glycerine, as the medium of preservation, would have been totally unnecessary. This at all events is the view taken by some experts, while others state that the use of glycerine, as opposed to spirits of wine, as a preserving agent would depend to a great extent upon the experiment subsequently intended to be made. Inquiry at the London Hospital, Whitechapel-road, the nearest institution to the scene of the murder, elicited the fact that no applications of the kind indicated have recently been made to the warden or curator of the pathological museum. An opinion was express that an American pathologist would scarcely endeavour to obtain his specimens from London, when the less stringent laws prevailing on the Continent would render his task comparatively easy there. It was stated, however, that a considerable number of Americans, holding medical degrees of more or less value, were in the habit of studying at London pathological museums. On the other hand, if the real object was to add to the practical value of a technical publication in preparation, as alleged, the purposes in view could have been easily attained in America, without the necessity of committing murder. It is the theory, however, of some among those who are well acquainted with the medical details of the recent mysterious deaths in Whitechapel, that the offer of £20 must have become known to some one in the habit of frequenting dissecting rooms, and that, under temptation, this individual had yielded to the impulse of taking life. The circumstances that two murders had been perpetrated in the streets of Whitechapel within a short period without causing much comment would have led, it is supposed, the miscreant to assume that the police protection in the neighbourhood was so insufficient that he might commit a third murder with impunity. Upon the body of Mary Anne Nicholls, the Buck's-row victim, there were indications that the murderer had entertained, but not fully carried out his project, and had had to hurry away to evade discovery. In the case of Annie Chapman, the opportunity was more favourable and the object was attained. Both women had had their throats cut by a left-handed assailant. Although many hospital authorities do not attach very great importance to the story, the police have given due attention to the matter. In their view, however, it does not provide a clue which will facilitate the identification of the murderer.
So whoever the American was, it sounds like he didn't know what he was doing--he seems to have placed too high a value on uteri (20 pounds) and also have been ignorant not only of British procedure towards human remains, but European and most importantly, American law as well. It seems to me a reputable physician would have known better. The D.T. says something about the American being a former student. . .maybe a student who slept during class, eh?
Cheers,
Dave
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
Hi Dave
I was unaware of this news report, and it gives a valuable clue. Most American doctors of the day probably would have trained in the United States or Canada. That the doctor was a student at one of the British hospitals, possibly the King's College and Middlesex Hospitals named in the 28 September 1888 Daily Telegraph article, and that he was later "a reputable physician in Philadelphia with a large practice" (Chicago Tribune, 7 October 1888) should narrow things down. Stay tuned.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 54
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:13 pm: | |
Gee, that was fast. Thank you, gentlemen. I was privately telling a few Casebook members recently about how noticeable it is that many of you are so very well versed on a variety of different topics concerning Whitechapel. I'm confined to just one suspect, and that goofball exhausts most of my energy as it is! But it's great to see the diversity many of you show.
I suppose it was tempting in those days for people to hear Baxter's comments and react to it by thinking in terms of "Let's find this American, and maybe we'll have the Ripper." I don't think that was the intent of the Coroner's comments though. Baxter seemed to bring up this specimen-purchaser topic just so he can stress his point that there was a market for the confiscated organ. I can't agree at all with Baxter's final conclusion that the theft of Chapman's rings was only "a thinly veiled blind." The theft of the rings had a purpose, but Baxter tried to downplay this and focus the attention on the womb confiscation. He even provided what he thought was a motive by bringing up the purchase request. Anyway, I'm happy to have learned more about this from you guys.
Dave, I took up your recommendation about researchers looking into the George Eastman House in Rochester. The best chance at scoring there looks like it would be in the collection of Colonel Arnold A. Rand who was with the 4th Calvary Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers. I'll let you know if anything comes of it. It appears to be a longshot though. If I need to take a trip to Rochester for this, it definitely won't be in winter time!
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 618
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 11:41 pm: | |
Hi Joe,
Heh heh, at this point, everything's a longshot.  But I'm glad someone who's more familiar with Tumblety than I am is following up with GEH. If the conspiracy collection doesn't pan out, maybe they have some other collection that's pertinent, considering Tumblety has a Rochester connection. I'll be interested in hearing how it turns out even if nothing turns up. The GEH staff seem to be the helpful sort.
Best,
Dave
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Going back to the possible background of the would-be specimen purchaser, this excerpt from The Morning Advertiser might also be of interest:
Last evening Dr. Thomas Stevenson, lecture on medical jurisprudence at Guy’s Hospital, and official analyst to the Home Office, being asked by a reporter to express an opinion on the recent murders at the East-end, observed that he would rather not advance a theory on the subject of the commission of the tragedies; but with regard to the extraordinary disclosure made by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner, in the course of his summing up, he (Dr. Stevenson) thought that if the crimes were committed by a pathologist, as had been suggested, the only possible place that a demand for the organ alluded to could emanate from was a quack museum, such as existed in the West-end of London down to a few years ago. It was well known, the doctor added, that no English medical man would need specimens; and as for the publication of a book of the description that had been referred to, such a thing would be utterly impossible except in some far distant land.
By "some far distant land", I'm taking Stevenson to mean Timbuktu, not the United States. I think in trying to determine the kind of background the specimen purchaser might have had, it's important to learn whether, at that time, U.S. law forbade the kind of publication that was proposed.
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on December 19, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Hi David
You quoted the Morning Advertiser giving the opinion of Dr. Thomas Stevenson, lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Guy’s Hospital, and official analyst to the Home Office, the effect that, it was well known that no English medical man would need such specimens to issue with a book and that only in "some far distant land" could such a thing take place. Then you speculate whether U.S. law might prohibit the issuance of such a book. But it isn't a question of whether the book could be published, but whether the specimens could be distributed with the book. Perhaps this is what you meant. Presumably the book did come out but without the specimens... that is the working hypothesis that I have adopted in trying to identify the Philadelphia doctor.
Best regards
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 623
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 4:12 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Yup, the legality of human organs being distributed with a book is what I meant--sorry if I wasn't clear. My perception from the articles I've quoted is that generally at that time, the medical men in London seem to have believed that the specimen purchaser was a quack and not the reputable doctor described in the Tribune article. As I read it, they point to an ignorance of British, European and American medical law, the over-high pricing of the uteri, and Stevenson's reference to quack museums. That's indicative of someone who didn't know what they were doing and would speak against the involvement of a practicing doctor of the type you seem to be searching for in Philadelphia.
Now I don't know if the purchaser was a quack or not, but since he's supposed to have been an American, then it might be helpful to know if American law at that time would have permitted a doctor to distribute human remains with a medical book. If it didn't, then that would seem to weigh against the involvement of a licensed, practicing doctor. On the other hand, if it was legal, then the idea that these British medical men had of a quack might not necessarily be accurate. That's why I think it would be worthwhile to determine what the law was in the United States near the end of 1887, or even if it addressed such things at this point in U.S. history--after all, the country was only a century old and maybe medical law hadn't really evolved that far yet.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Nina Thomas
Inspector
Username: Nina
Post Number: 176
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:41 pm: | |
Hi Dave,
I believe that the specimens were most likely to be used as illustrations or photographs in a journal.
I found the following in a rare book site:
http://www.daileyrarebooks.com/0902medicine.htm
BURNS, Stanley. EARLY MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN AMERICA (1839-1883). New York: The Burns Archive, 1983. 4to, (8), (1), 788-795, (3), 943-947, (2), 1256-1268, (12), 1930-1938, (1), 270-280, (1), 1444-1469, (2), 1226-1264, vii-xvi. Orig. cloth, photographic onlay, fine. $150. ¶ First Edition, collected from articles in the New York State Medical Journal.
Now I'm curious as to what it contains.
Nina |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:47 pm: | |
Hi Nina
*** Not for the squeamish ***
This somewhat grizzly and bizarre collection of thumbnail size photographs from the Burns collection during their exhibition in Sweden gives you an idea of what is in the book. I might mention that people in the nineteenth century were fascinated by what might be termed "medical freaks" and this explains the nature of some of these photographs -- I have seen the same in looking through medical literature of the period, with color drawings of massively swollen, soccer ball size ovaries, and so on. Look at your own peril. 
The Burns Archive NY
As noted on the site: "Stanley B. Burns, an ophthalmic surgeon, started during the early seventies to collect photographs that documented medical and social history. Today the archive holds up to one million vintage photographs, of which about 40,000 related to medicine and disease. The pictures are dated from first century of photography, i.e. the 1830’s until the Second World War, and they all deal with the darker sides of life, such as disease, deformations, war, murder and death.
"During the early eighties, Dr. Burns published his first book, Early Medical Photography in America 1839-1883. A few years later the second book was released, Masterpieces of Medical Photography, a selection that was made in cooperation with artist Joel-Peter Witkin, and recently another book in the subject, A Morning's Work. They all contain, besides the pictures, well written texts from a medical and social perspective.
"The pictures come most of all from private photo albums and official archives around the world, but mainly North America and Europe. Dr. Burns' mission in life has been to collect these pictures to the after world, but also to show them and to talk about them through exhibitions and lectures. At the moment he is with the book Sleeping Beauty II, post mortem photography in America and Europe, that was released for the time of the opening at Musée d’Orsay."
(Message edited by ChrisG on December 22, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Nina Thomas
Inspector
Username: Nina
Post Number: 178
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:07 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
I’m not very squeamish, but I believe I’ll pass on this publication. 
If Dr. Burns was allowed to publish such photos then, then why couldn’t the supposed American specimen collector be allowed to publish photos of uterus' in a medical journal for teaching purposes.
Nina |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 4:14 am: | |
Hi Nina
As I noted in my last, medical illustrations of internal organs and surgical techniques did appear in the medical literature of the day, so I don't think there would have been any bar to the American publishing such illustrations, if that is the reason why he wanted the uteri.
I think it is a good possibility that, as both you and I have said, the American may have wanted to purchase some specimen diseased uteruses for medical illustration purposes. In other words, his original intention in his enquiries had got twisted in the retelling by the time it reached Coroner Baxter and he related the incident concerning the American's enquiries at the Chapman inquest. If that was what indeed happened, of course, this would not be the only occurrence in the Ripper case that officials got the facts garbled. Vide Macnaghten's famous 1894 Memoranda in which he characterized Montague John Druitt as a "doctor", and Littlechild's apparent similar belief when he mentioned a "Dr. D." in his letter of 1913 to George R. Sims naming Tumblety as a likely suspect.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on December 23, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
