Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 01:17 pm |        |
I am currently doing some research into the career of THO to find out how qualified he might be to have commented on the LK. When done I will start on Brown and then Sutton. Did Sequiera actually see the kidney? Smith talks about a world expert on kidney's seeing it. Some may disregard this as many disregard all his evidence but is sounds plausable to be. I think at some point we need to find some possible candidates for this expert.
The first thing I notice is his years (I know this is in the A-Z but it didn't strike me as important at that time). He was only 32 when given the LK. That is young (using the definition of young as younger than me!). I'm not sure if anyone of that age could possibly have the experience to give such an opinion unless renal pathlogy was a specific interest of his, which it was not.
The first stage of my search (done by the RSM library) on him is a hand search of the Index Medicus and the RSM Catalogue. (I am half hoping that he may have published the findings of the LK in an obscure medical journal and although my search failed to find anything of note it did tell me that he was a prolific writer).
In addition to the London Hospital pathology museum catalogue (1890) which I have seen and mentioned in a previous post I have to date found 34 other published articles that are possibly attributed to him. (If anyone wants the list, e-mail me and I will send you the results of the search so far).
What is interesting is that his academic career didn't really kick off until 1889. This reinforces my opinion of inexperience prior to this time. Of the 34 potential articles written by him, all but 3 are on subjects related to orthopaedic surgery. A-Z label him as an orthopaedic surgeon.
So in 1888 he was young and inexperience. He had previously taught anatomy but even in my time it was usual to be an anatomy demonstrator during ones early years in training for surgery. His field of interest was orthopaedic surgery (not urology or nephrology). He was curator of the museum but I'm not quite sure of the significance of this position. It appears from his age that it was more of a career post perhaps related to his previous time as an anatomy demonstrator.
Comparing him to myself, he was in a surgical specialty and young. I could not be less qualified to comment on whether a kidney was human or had Bright's disease and I am now convinced that he was not qualified to give such an opinion.
My search continues and I have asked the RSM to do three more things for me;
1 - To perform a hand search of the journal 'Archives of the Pathology Institute of the London Hospital'. This was a minor journal that I don't think was listed in Index Medicus and just the place where an ambitious surgeon might publish something difficult to get into major journals.
2 - I have asked the RSM to try and find me a photograph or portrait of him.
3 - I have discovered that he was quite active in the Royal Society of Medicine and I have asked them to find out if he held any offices of any of the sections.
I will share this information if and when I get it.
Has anyone got any other ideas of things I might want to look up about him? I have found him in a geneology tree on an Openshaw site of the internet and obviously I need to go via the archives of the London Hospital. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 03:53 pm | |
Hi, Tom:
Congratulations on what you have so far found out about the career of Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw. You may not be aware that we do have a photograph of Openshaw that we will be using with Christopher-Michael DiGrazia's article on the Lusk kidney that we will be publishing in the next issue of "Ripper Notes," Vol. 1, No. 4. The image came to us through Stewart P. Evans who, according to the credit on the back of the photograph, obtained the image from the London Hospital. The photograph shows Dr. Openshaw wearing a hat and white bow tie or cravat and with his hands folded in front of him. It appears to be a close-up from a group portrait. He also appears to be considerably older than the age of 32 when he was given the LK to examine, I would say possibly as old as age 60 years.
Best regards
Chris George
Editor, Ripper Notes |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 06:23 pm | |
Thank you Chris
I'm sure CMD would have come up with that information once he had read the post. However, I will still keep the search going to see if we can find a younger picture.
I look forward to the next issue of RN but that is only if I can find of a way to pay by US dollars. I am at work when all the banks are open. Perhaps you should accept credit cards or UK cheques in sterling to help us and your new initiative.
I understand from the last issue of RN that I received today (thank you by the way) that Steward Evans is very generous with his information. I will e-mail him and ask if a digital copy is possible.
BTW. I note that THO's last indexed publication (Deformities of the os calcis. Brit Med J 1923; ii: 1214) was written when he was 67. That suggests that he had a very long academic career. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 09:23 pm | |
Hi, Tom:
In your Openshaw search, you have probably come across the following reference, but if not here it is:
London Hospital Medical College. Pathological Museum. A descriptive catalogue of the pathological museum of the London hospital ... Thomas Horrocks Openshaw, contributor. London, Taylor and Francis, [1890]. xli, 628 p. 26 cm.
Any half kidneys listed, I wonder, or other items connected with the Whitechapel murders? :-)
If you cannot find the book in London, it is here at the Welch Medical Library of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore.
Chris George |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 11:01 pm | |
Tom
From your previous poste are we to deduce that Openshaw was an Orthopedic surgeon, that is in lay terms, the study of bones, joints and in general the skeleton and related bones structures.
Whereas you need to find if he was experienced in Pathology, the study of the nature, causes, function & structure of diseases?
Certainly an Orthopedic surgeon surely would not be qualified to comment on a diseased kidney?
It would be of interest to know what Openshaws contribution was to the Pathological museum's catalogue listed above, by Chris.
Jon |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 30 January 2000 - 09:30 am | |
Chris
Yes, please refer to the other thread on the LK. I have read the catalogue (but I only had 45 minutes before the library closed). The librarian is keeping it out for me for when I next visit.
There are a lot of half kidneys but that is the usual way to display them. I am interested to find out how the kidney was cut in half. I have spoken of this before but not explained it well. These are ways a kidney could be cut in half;
1 - Leaving the top and bottom halves apart
2 - Leaving the back and front parts apart
3 - Leaving the side and middle parts apart
The kidney was described as being cut longitudinally. I don't know if that refers to example 2 or 3. In medical langage longitudinal would specifically refer to 2 or 3 and the word 'saggital' to the other but I have forgotten which and need to ask someone who will know (radiologists still use these descriptions). If longitudinal refers to my example 2 then it would be difficult to distinguish an LK in a museum as nearly all kidneys are displayed that way. If it refers to example 3, then it would be easy to identify. In answer to your question specimen 1823 for example is 'Half a kidney showing similar changes with the vessels dissected. Presented by Mr Eve.' Interestingly there are a number of specimens donated by Mr Sutton but I didn't have enough time with the book when I went last Friday. The problem I have is that the library now shuts at 20:30 and I rarely get off work early enough to get to it. The library is open on a Saturday but I do have fatherly duties on Saturdays that I have off work. I will post on this again and am considering getting it photocopied. However, as the library values it's old books so much they do not allow photocopies but insist on photographs. This takes time and costs money.
Jon, YES THO was an orthopaedic surgeon and therefore by my thoughts had few qualifications to comment on the LK. However, my interpretation of the evidence I currently have (baring in mind that my research is not yet completed)is this;
1 - THO was wanting to enter a surgical career.
2 - I don't know when he qualified in medicine but baring in mind this occurred at younger ages in 1880 it could have been as young as 22 (BTW I qualified aged 22 but this is very unusual for now - no Douggy Houser jokes please). This information I need and will get soon.
3 - Surgical training in the UK up to only a few years ago was more of an apprenticeship than a formal training program. It therefore took (& still does a good 10 years to become a surgeon)
4 - Part of that training for 'high flyers' usually involved a year as an anatomy demonstrator.
5 - No busy surgeon with a large private practice would have time to also be curator of a museum
6 - THO became curator in 1887 aged 31. This must have been related to his time as an anatomy demonstrator and clearly a stepping stone to getting on the staff as a surgeon at the London.
7 - I think that the curator of the museum was a prestiguous post for a young doctor wishing to further his career. I don't believe it was one that required qualificiations in pathology.
8 - THOs parting gift to the museum was the catalogue. In the begining of the catalogue there is a statement saying how the format was copied from the Barts catalogue (which I have also seen) and this suggests that THO made the first one. This catalogue could have been the reason for his appointment.
If the LK still exists in one of the Old hospital's museums. Then I think it could be at the London (THO), Barts (the teaching hospital in the City and therefore Brown), or Guys (where Bright worked and possibly one of his academic descendants may have been asked to examine it). Openshaw made slides and these may still exist possibly in the London. It does make you think bearing in mind that Eddowes diagrams were found in the basement of the London as late as 1975. (I can think of no good reason why they were in the London Hospital bearing in mind they were made for Brown who had no connection with the London and was a City doctor).
If anyone knows the answers to some of my questions then they can save me some time. I want to know where THO trained (I think it was London). I want to know the dates of his different appointments at the London and if he retired or died in post. Finally, I relaise that I have made an error in his Genealogy. The A-Z describes him as from Lancashire and when I found a Thomas Frederick Openshaw of similar dates on a web site I assumed that was him but I confused my Frederick (as of Brown) with my Horrocks (as of Openshaw). Freudian I know, but I am back to square one on this one now as a result of my error.
Finally, how on earth did a copy of the catalogue get to the John Hopkins. If a copy was purposely distributed to America the JH would be the most obvious choice as it was the most prestigious hospital in the states at the time. Like most thinks in research you normally find more questions than answers. I now need to find out where to (and why) the catalogue was distributed. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 30 January 2000 - 09:31 am | |
| Pelease forgivvvve splelling |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 30 January 2000 - 01:56 pm | |
Have found an article in London Hospital Gazette that suggests there is a younger photograph of Openshaw
'London Hospital Rowing Club, July 1895
Boating on the lea commenced on May 1st. The club has had a fairly succesful season. Two fours were entered for the Inter-Hospital Races, training commencing three weeks before the day. The following were the crews:-
SENIOR BOAT
WB Heywood (bow)
HE Finch (2)
WH Wakefield (3)
LS Gaskell (stroke)
A Moritz (cox) JUNIOR BOAT
PK Nix (bow)
H Howard (2)
EG Battiscombe (3)
H Barraclough (stroke)
H Wallis (cox)
Four crews, London, St George's, St Thomas' and Middlesex, entered for the senior fours.
A sharp wind blew across and down the course, making the water very lumpy. Our men got a bad start, as, when the word was given, their boat was not straight, and their oars clashed for severel strokes with those of St. George's. A good race ensued between St. George's and Middlesex, at the finish London being about two lengths behind St. George's.
The Junior Four rowed well, but, despite repeated spurts by their stroke, were unable to beat Middlesex, who won by a clear length.
The club is very much indebted to an anonymous fried of Mr Wakefield, for he present of a new Four for the races, and we are glad to be able to take this opportunity of thanking him.
The Annual Boating Picnic was held on June 28th. A large party left Paddington in the early morning, including many members of the staff, and we were very glad to have Mr Dean with us again, after his recent illness.
A most enjoyable day was spent on the river between Maidenhead and Marlow. Bathing at Cookham was indulged in by nearly all present, though we missed Ramps from his usual place beneath the Weir.
Lunch at Marlow followed, and we migrated from the Fisherman's Retreat to an Infants' School, an incident aptly alluded to by our President in his speech after lunch.
Dr Stephen Mackenzie and Mr Openshaw joined us at luncheon.
After lunch the usual photograph was taken in the grounds of the Fisherman's Retreat, and then, by gradual stages, the return journey to Cookham was made.
By the kindness of our President and Dr Gilbart-Smith, tea was provided at Cookham for the Party.
After tea, owing to rain setting in, the usual game of rounders could not be played, but instead, a hasty retreat for Taplow was made, most members of the party catching the 7.09 train back to town, and thus ended a very pleasent day.' |
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 11 February 2000 - 05:13 pm | |
This post is tongue in cheek and I don't believe for a second that THO was JTR but it does demonstrate how silly some other suspects are. In fact you could put quite a good case for him;
1 He arrived in London just before the Whitechapel Murders
2 He lived in Whitechapel and must have known the area well by the time of the murders
3 He was a surgeon and had the skill to perform them.
4 He had the anatomical knowledge required.
5 The first murder (PN) was performed a few yards away from the front entrance to the hospital.
6 There were no previous murders but this one was actually only a mild attack for a man who was bored and frustrated in his post as the Museum curator with strong aspirations for radical surgery.
7 On the night of the double event the first was not far from the hospital and on returning from Mitre Square Goulston Street would be on routine to the hospital if you were trying to avoid Whitechapel road itself.
8 He would have a perfect excuse to be covered in blood.
9 He was short in stature and had a moustache and would therefore fit the descriptions.
10 He had a strong Lancastrian accent and could therefore be perceived as a foreigner.
11 After the murders he became an anatomy demonstrator and therefore was able to cut up bodies to his hearts content without having to go out in the streets to get them.
12 He then went to serve in South Africa and was out of Whitechapel in 1890.
13 On his return to South Africa he was still able to cut bodies to his satisfaction as a surgeon and his interest in surgery took over from his lust for murder.
14 He was a prominent mason (for those who like conspiracy theories).
15. He was a keen fisherman and used to filletting.
16. Both his fishing antics and his time as a volunteer mean that he could have had the appropriate knife/knives
Now I'm having a bit of fun. No one get silly please. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 12 February 2000 - 09:13 am | |
Hi, Tom:
Procure some samples of Openshaw's handwriting and we will see if we can tie him into the JtR letters. As you may know, I am studying the letters and I am looking at suspects' handwriting. I don't think for one moment that Openshaw was JtR. But who knows? We know he WAS there, had the skill, fits the description, as you say, and was a foreigner (ee, by gum, a Lancastrian!). By contrast, we don't know if someone like Maybrick was there -- although I note that the redoubtable Colin Wilson in the Monster Book of Murder affirms that he still thinks that Maybrick was the One despite the vociferous criticisms of the bogus diary by Melvin Harris and others.
Chris George |
Author: JacksBack
Saturday, 12 February 2000 - 05:36 pm | |
| HRH, I have heard you refer to your handwriting comparisons before. My question is have you found any similarities at all or even close fits. Your Answer is "You will have to attend the upcoming Conference (insert Conference Info here) to find out". Right? |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 12 February 2000 - 07:49 pm | |
Hello JacksBack:
Your request for me to tell you whether I have found any similarities or even close fits between the suspects' handwriting and the JtR letters gave me real fits.
Yours truly,
C.T.G., H.R.H. |
Author: JacksBack
Saturday, 12 February 2000 - 08:40 pm | |
Well, Your Holyness, all I can say is "If the handwriting fits, you must remitt."
Golly, I went to rent some Jack T. Ripper Movies tonight to get into the mood for Sunday Night's Doco, and there wasn't even a one on the shelves, not even Jack's Back, which I have to admitt that I don't think I have ever seen. This is a travesty and someone should write the management of "Blockbuster" to complain. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 13 February 2000 - 04:15 pm | |
Please help me with a few things.
Firstly masons on the boards. THO held the rank of P.G.D. from 1905 and P.A.G.Soj. from 1922. What does that mean?
Secondly he had many initials after his name. MRCS, FRCS, MB, BS, MS, LRCP & LSA I know as they are all medical qualificiations. CMG & CB are military awards. What do they stand for and what are their significance? |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 01:11 pm | |
Thank you for all your e-mails
I am having problems sending e-mails again and will e-mail thank-yous when I'm up and working again but I am receiving them all. THANKS |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 19 February 2000 - 07:50 pm | |
| I understand that Conan-Doyle served in the South African war in a medical capacity. So did THO which raises the question as to whether they knew each other. THO served in the Lincolnshire Yeomanry and the Imperial Yeomanry Field Hospital. Does anyone know where Conan-Doyle served? |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Sunday, 20 February 2000 - 02:57 pm | |
Tom, ACD attempted to enlist with the Middlesex Yeomanry but because of his age, 40 I believe, he was only put on a waiting list. It was at this time that a friend, John Langman, was sending a hospital and group of surgeons over to South Africa at his own expense. Conan Doyle went in an unofficial capacity as a sort of general supervisor and alternate doctor.
Wolf. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 20 February 2000 - 04:09 pm | |
Thanks Wolf.
Do you know where he served in South Africa? Could it have been Pretoria?
I am not well read when it comes to ACD. Did he write an account? If so I could read it and see if there are any cross-references with THO. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 20 February 2000 - 08:33 pm | |
Greetings, Tom:
I am not an expert on Conan Doyle but doing a web search I find that item for which he is most remembered in connection with his service in the South African War, is his history of the war. The exact citation is: Arthur Conan Doyle,
The Great Boer War: A Two-Years' Record, 1899-1901. London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1901. In the Preface to the First Edition, he wrote: "This book was begun in England and continued on board a steamer, but the greater part was written in a hospital tent in the intervals during the epidemic at Bloemfontein." This information is from a website on Baden-Powell which gives selections from the book, with this quote at http://www.pinetreeweb.com/conan-doyle-chapter-00.htm Bloemfontein is 275 miles southwest of Pretoria. Of course, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw knew each other during their time in South Africa and swapped "war stories" about their medical practices there.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 21 February 2000 - 03:35 am | |
Hi, Tom:
I am not sure whether you are aware that Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw was apparently mentioned by name (or at least by implication) in the statement made on 26 September 1888 by Coroner Wynne Baxter at the inquest on Annie Chapman as the informant who told him that a American had been to his institution some months before and had requested some specimen uteruses, the very organ missing from Chapman, murdered on the morning of 8 September. To quote Howells and Skinner, "The Ripper Legacy: The Life and Death of Jack the Ripper," p. 6:
"Mr Baxter had been informed by Dr Thomas Openshaw, the Pathological Curator of the London Hospital Museum, that some months before an American had asked him to procure a number of uteri. He [the American] had been prepared to pay £20 for each specimen, and said that he intended to issue one with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged. The American was told that his request was impossible, but he persisted and repeated his request to another institution. He wanted the organs preserved in glycerine in order to keep them in a flaccid condition."
Perhaps others who have better access to the Chapman inquest testimony can answer what exactly Baxter said at the inquest, but a newspaper report that I have gives the above details pretty much verbatim but with a few differences and a number of interesting additional details, and in this quote from Baxter, he does not mention Openshaw by name.
Baxter is quoted in the East London Observer of 29 September 1888 as saying:
"Within a few hours of the issue of the morning papers containing a report of the medical evidence given at the last sitting of the Court, I received a communication from an officer of one of our great medical schools, that they had information which might or might not have a distinct bearing on our inquiry. I attended at the first opportunity, and was told by the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum that some months ago an American had called on him, and asked him to procure a number of specimens of that organ that was missing in the deceased. He stated his willingness to give £20 for each and explained that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged. Although he was told that his wish was impossible to be complied with, he still urged his request. He desired them preserved, not in spirits of wine, the usual medium, but in glycerine, in order to preserve them in a flaccid condition, and he wished them sent to America direct. It is known that the request was repeated to another institution of a similar character."
Chris George |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 21 February 2000 - 12:18 pm | |
Tom, in regards to Conan Doyle's stay in South Africa:
He sailed from Tilbury England on February 28th, 1900.
Docked at Capetown March 21st.
Sailed from Capetown March 26th, disembarked at East London March 28th.
Travelled by rail to Bloemfontein (which had been captured by the British on March 13th)arriving on April 2nd.
Advanced with the army and was present at the capture of Brandfort before returning to Bloemfontein while the army continued it's advance, capturing Pretoria on June 5th.
ACD travelled to Pretoria on June 22nd then returned to Bloemfontein on July 4th.
He sailed from Capetown for England on July 11th.
The war itself carried on for another 2 years as the Boers switched to a guerrilla campaign.
Wolf. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 21 February 2000 - 12:56 pm | |
Oh great stuff.
I'm getting quite excited as I have found (someone has found for me) minutes of the London Hospital Museum Committee for 1888 which I am seeing on Friday. I will let you know if anything is inside them. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 21 February 2000 - 02:17 pm | |
Hi, Tom:
It also occurs to me that a descendent of Openshaw's or some archive might have his correspondence which might mention the examination of the Lusk kidney and the visitation of the American who wanted the uteri to the pathological museum.
Further to my posting of coroner Dr. Wynne Baxter's theory involving Openshaw in which Baxter went on to say that "knowledge of this demand might have incited some abandoned wretch [to commit the murders and remove the victims' wombs]", in the words of Philip Sugden, the British Medical Journal of 6 October "did its best to bury the whole story."
The BMJ stated that the story had originated with a respectable foreign physician who had made enquiries over eighteen months before and that no large sum of money was involved.
In an exquisite example of 1888 "spin control," the BMJ editorialized: "There was never any real foundation for the hypothesis, and the information communicated, which was not at all of the nature the public has been led to believe, was due to the erroneous interpretation by a minor official of a question which he had overheard and to which a negative reply was given. This theory may be dismissed, and is, we believe, no longer entertained by its author."
Whether the "author" mentioned at the end is meant to be Baxter or Openshaw or the latter's assistant is open to question. Note though that instead of seeking verification of the story by talking of, in the coroner's terminology, the "officer of one of our great medical schools" who had first communicated the story (presumably Openshaw), blame was evidently now attached to the lowly "sub-curator of the Pathological Museum" who had talked to Baxter and who is now said to have been mistaken in his deductions.
In the words of the fictional Detective Chief Superintendent John Watt in "The Ripper File" by Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd (London: Arthur Barker Ltd., 1975), a valuable work that mixes actual files with a fictional narrative: "Note by Watt: Theory knocked on the head by the hospitals. Never mentioned by Baxter again." (p. 31).
As noted Evans and Gainey ("Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer"), "The story, however, is not that easily disposed of." (p. 65). Those authors in 1995 proposed a major suspect, Irish-American herb doctor Dr. Francis Tumblety, who is said to have had an anatomical museum including women's uteri (p. 196). They add:
"Two medical schools, those attached to University College and Middlesex Hospitals, strangely refused to clarify the matter [to the press], unlike others who stated that there had been no such application. Phil Sugden suggests that there was certainly more to this story than met the eye, especially in the light of a statement, appearing in the Daily Telegraph, from an official hospital spokesman, who said that they 'indignantly repudiate the suggestion that it was a hoax or that the matter was of no importance' and who talked enigmatically of 'the interests of justice' being imperilled by any disclosure. Had the hospital, in fact, already identified the American to the police?" (p. 65).
So, Tom, in other words, it will be, to me and I assume to others too, of the greatest interest to see if the minutes of the London Hospital Museum Committee for 1888 reveal any further clues about this matter or that of the Lusk kidney. Fascinating stuff indeed!
Chris George |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 22 February 2000 - 11:03 am | |
| There is a possiblity that I may see them today (if I finish work before 20:00). I will try and photocopy them if I can. A negative finding will be just as important so if there is nothing about the LK or letter or approaches for organs then I will obviously let you know. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 22 February 2000 - 02:37 pm | |
I've now seen the minutes and regret that they are a tad disappointing. I'm afraid there are no comments on the LK or Openshaw letter or JTR at that. Although I have only read the minutes of the Library and Museum Committee between December 1887 and June 1889. They are in a book of minutes of all subcommittees and include minutes of 'The Committee Appointed to Consider the Cases of Backward and Idle Students' and others. I have made some photocopies and will scan them in soon but will not post to the board as they are so boring.
The Library and Museum Committee only met twice a year and THO wasn't even on the committee. He clearly made quite an impression though as prior to his appointment when Treves (of Elephant man fame) was curator the minutes of March 16 1888 said;
'The committee then inspected the Museums and found them showing very greatly want of care & it has resolved to recommend that immediate steps be taken to place them in proper order.'
Six months later when THO was curator the minutes state;
'The committee then inspected the Museums & Librarys and confered with Mr Openshaw the Curator of the Pathological Museum.
The Committee found the state of the Anatomical & Pathological Museums to be very good and showing immense improvement; the amount of work done & the manner in which it has been effected reflecting great credit on Mr Openshaw the Curator.'
It is however clear that Treves was still very much the man in charge and Openshaw only became an editor of the catalogue at a late date. (My opinion from the text anyway).
I have found some other goodies aswell. Some new photos of THO and his wife Gertrude (a nurse in the hospital) and also a cartoon. I have also found 2 samples of his hand writing (I forgot who was interested in that). I can't start scanning them in until this weekend though due to family and work commitments so if you would like copies please be patient. |
Author: JacksBack
Tuesday, 22 February 2000 - 10:36 pm | |
Has anyone ever considered or researched the possibility that the Whitechapel Murderer was an employee (not a doctor, but in some minor position) of the Hospital. Perhaps a review of dismisals or deaths of employees during this period might turn up something interesting and explain the supposed medical knowledge referred to in variouis letters, books, articles and Inquest Testimony.
Just a thought..JiB |
Author: JacksBack
Tuesday, 22 February 2000 - 10:38 pm | |
Has anyone ever considered or researched the possibility that the Whitechapel Murderer was an employee (not a doctor, but in some minor position) of the Hospital. Perhaps a review of dismisals or deaths of employees during this period might turn up something interesting and explain the supposed medical knowledge referred to in variouis letters, books, articles and Inquest Testimony.
Just a thought..JiB |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 02:48 pm | |
An interesting thought it is too JiB. Assuming that the information still exists, it might be worthwhile to look through the names, addresses and background details of the doctors and medical students working at the hospital in the autumn of 1888 and see if any of them died, resigned or went awol around the time of the murders. No doubt many of them would have lived around the area and had ample opportunity to commit the crimes.
Regards, V. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 04:08 pm | |
We are talking quite a lot of doctors here.
I have the list of doctors employed in 1888 and there are a lot to research (especially if you take as long as I have on THO)
There are some interesting names on the staff though such as Hughlings Jackson (of Jacksonian Epilepsy fame); Warren Tay (of Tay-Sacks disease fame); Frederick Treves (Elephant man doctor); also THO (an orthopaedic surgeon), Sequeira (a dermatologist) and Sutton (I will post about him soon).
Hasn't someone already searched the medical student register. I'm sure I remember reading that someone had a while back in one of the books? |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 04:11 pm | |
Correction
I got carried away
THO was not on the staff in 1888, he was Curator of the Pathological Museum (not Pathological Curator; nor Curator of the Anatomical Museum who was Treves)
Sequiera was on the staff later on and not in 1888 as well. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 04:31 pm | |
 |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 04:40 pm | |
Ug I'll try once more or else I will give up.
I've noticed others have had similar problems.
The question I was going to post with this photo of THO circa 1902 is this. He left 29,808 pounds when he died. That sounds like quite a lot of money to me for 1929. What is that the equivalent to now in 2000.
|
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 04:45 pm | |
| Sorry folk. I don't know what I am doing wrong. I do have some new photos but it seems I can't do it. |
Author: JacksBack
Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 08:41 pm | |
Thanks Viper and Dr. Tom, but I wasn't thinking of the medical students, more of orderlies, (sp?) and other Hospital Staff that might have observed, participated and/or cleaned up during and after autopsies, surgical procedures and general medical clinics. They might have acquired lots of medical knowledge, just looking over the shoulders of the Doctors and cleaning up, etc. They would have access to surgical instruments, scalpals, diagrams, books and were in the general area all week and on weekends, as Hospitals never really close. The scene in "The Elephant Man" movie comes to mind when local lower classes gained entrance to the hospital by bribing night staff to see John Merrick. Maybe there are employment records available for these staff members.
JiB |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 24 February 2000 - 09:17 am | |
From Thomas Ind...
Attached is a photo of Openshaw as Surgeon to the London Hospital. He was appointed surgeon in 1902 and the general agreement is that he had this photo taken on appointment but that is speculation not fact. The other is a cartoon of Tommy in his First world war uniform (he was very active in the artificial limb front during the the Great War).
 |
Author: Thomas Ind
Thursday, 24 February 2000 - 12:47 pm | |
JiB
You may be interested to know that prior to THOs appointment as Curator, Treves assistant in the Museum was reported as being not very good and too slow in preparing the mounts and there was talk of getting rid of him. When THO took over the assistant (cleary a new one) was praised. So here is someone (name unknown) on a low income with anatomical knowledge who probably lost his job just before the murders. I'm not suggesting that he was JTR but it does answer you question.
One other point in correction to a previous post. I previously stated that THO was educated at Durham and didn't arrive in London until 1887 (as his MS from Durham was in 1887). I now know this to be incorrect as I have records of him as a medical student as early as 1879 when he won the Dresser's prize of 15 pounds. Clearly he did his training at the London and was awarded his degrees from Durham but wasn't actually in Durham. Apparently there was no medical college at Durham but they did award MB BS and MS degrees. Medical students had to do a 3 month stint as a dresser in their first 'Winter Session' so this is probably the date he started as a student at the London. |
