|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Ripper motive for the mutilations.
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims:
Ripper motive for the mutilations.
Author: Vicki
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 05:09 pm |        | Hi everyone,
I was researching and came across this idea as a possible motive for the Whitechapel murders.
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/waller.html
Augustus Waller was a Doctor of physiology, and around the time of the Whitechapel murders and before, there was an interest in the science community in "electro-physiology." For example, experimenting with electricity on frog legs. Perhaps the Ripper was farming human organs for experimentation by some mad scientist, or was himself a mad scientist. From what little I've read, there wasn't any sanctioned human experimentation at the time, except, as has been mentioned on this board, of the remains of the poor deceased as payment to the state for their burial.
I am not saying Waller was the Ripper, but Waller lived and worked in the London area. When he got married, in 1885, "he was greeted on his return with the blackboard scribbled with 'Waller takes the biscuit'. In good humor, Waller added 'and the tin as well'." (Waller's new father-in-law owned a "cheese biscuit empire" This writing on the blackboard is similar to the writing on the "wall" on Goulston St, which had to be a chalk-like writing media to be so easily washed off.
In 1887, Augustus Waller demonstrated his electrocardiogram for the first time. He used a "Lippmann capillary galvanoscope," which is pictured in the above website. The scope has two electrodes or double electodes. It actually looks like an old fashion taser gun. The Catherine Eddowes and Elizabeth Stride murders are called a "double event."
Catherine Eddowes had two sisters, double, both with a form of the name Elizabeth. One had the last name Gold which is the color of the double electrodes. Their father was a "tin plate worker."
Mary Kelly's heart was taken. Could it along with the other missing organs from the victims have been taken for experimentation.
This is a thought on the possible motive for the mutilations.
Vicki |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 08:01 pm | | At the time the police, press and public alike were dumfounded by these apparently motiveless crimes.
The rational mind finds it difficult to conceive of an irrational motive. Researchers try to find a rational explanation but it is difficult when you have no idea as to the state of mind of the killer.
It is sufficient to point out that only a matter of weeks (late Summer) separated the inquiries of an American doctor, requiring uterii, from three mutilated bodies, two of which were found to be missing those very uterii.
Some can always argue its a mere coincidence, but that is a matter of opinion and a stretched opinion at that.
If similar occurances happened today the modern police would hunt that doctor down with every available resource. They would not entertain any argument of "mere coincidence", neither do I, they would investigate it to make sure.
Regards, Jon |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 11:16 pm | | | Jon--It sould be pointed out that the offical line [the British Medical Journal & etc.] claimed that these 'inquries' took place a full 18 months previously and not 'a matter of weeks' earlier. Cheers, RP |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 09:54 am | | RJ
The British Medical Journal is repeating a story, there is no 'official line' on this event.
"....was informed by the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum that some months ago an American had called on him..."
This was written in The Lancet, September 29.
"...acquainted with the outlines of a rumour which had circulated in the dissecting rooms during the past summer, and to which not the slightest importance was attached until the murder in Hanbury-street..."
East London Advertiser, Oct 6.
I was aware of the BMA referring to "18 months", but as we hear Tumblety came and went across the Atlantic twice a year, I considered the alternate stories referring to "past summer".
I do not know which story is correct but the possibility of an incident which occurred 18 months ago sparking the interest of a current series of murders I thought more remote than "this past summer"
I'm not suggesting Tumblety was the American Doctor, he was described both as a "physician of the highest reputability and exceedingly well acredited" and in another report as "a medical student". Tumblety does not fit either description.
The story in the BMA does not instill confidence as regardless of how eminent they try to make him, he was still refused by two Medical institutions.
Which then begs the question....why would such an eminent person be refused?
I think there is more of "scuttling" in their report than facts.
But, thats just my opinion.
Regards, Jon
To appreciate the emphasis that the BMA made on this matter you must understand the position the Medical practitioner held in Victorian society, to accuse a doctor of such murderous conduct was akin to blasphemy. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 05:18 am | | Hi Jon,
You wrote:
'If similar occurances happened today the modern police would hunt that doctor down with every available resource. They would not entertain any argument of "mere coincidence", neither do I, they would investigate it to make sure.'
I'm trying to think this one through in relation to the recent case here in the UK of the elderly lady who was murdered and her heart removed. I'm not sure whether the heart was found or not, but let's assume for comparison purposes that it wasn't. Now imagine that a matter of weeks before she was killed, the media had reported that a foreign doctor was enquiring about purchasing hearts.
While I can see how some people might wonder if there was a connection, and that the old lady may have been killed by an opportunist hoping to sell her heart, since he had heard of a potential market, I'm not convinced the police would have found it beyond coincidence, nor that they would have used every available resource to hunt down that foreign doctor - either as an automatic response to the nature of the crime, or as a last resort, had the murder remained unsolved for any length of time.
But of course, I could be wrong - just going by my own gut feeling. I know we can't compare 1888 with 2002 but you were using such a comparison to make your point. My point is that, if they didn't think it important to investigate this angle further in 1888, I feel they would have even less reason to do so today.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 09:42 am | | Take it a little further Caz.
Your comparison does not include a previous case of a similar old lady in the next street who had a deep laceration over her heart, but the organ was not removed.
Then three weeks later a third case where another old lady had her heart removed........
Then the Chief Inspector learns, by way of a rumor, that a medical person had been trying to buy hearts for some obscure reason and was refused...
You are the chief Inspector.....what would your reaction be?
If you make a comparison, take it all the way.
But, regardless, I think there was a case to investigate, and it was a missed opportunity.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 10:57 am | | Dear Caz:
Wasn't the heart of the lady found in a pan? The boy who killed her thought that if he drank the blood of her heart it would make him a vampire, I thought.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 01:37 pm | | Hi Divia,
You may well be right about what happened to the heart. I know the boy claimed to have vampire fantasies, but I did write:
'...let's assume for comparison purposes' that the heart wasn't found. Perhaps I should have added, '...or that the [killer's claimed] motivation for taking the heart remained unknown'.
Sorry, should have made myself clearer - as usual.
Hi Jon,
Point taken. As usual, you get right to the heart of the matter. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 10:22 pm | | Jon--Hi. I fully agree that the BMJ piece doesn't inspire confidence. [And actually, I'm not trying to rattle your cage; I've been thinking this thing through and just wanted to hear a second opinion].
If one reads closely the reactions to Baxter directly after the Chapman inquest, there is certainly something strange going on. The initial reaction was to deny the story as wildly ridiculous. The second reaction was to confirm it happened! But then, of course, it was down-played as having been an entirely 'respectable' occurance. I'm with you, though. Something's wrong here. As you point out, the fact that two hospitals were approached [and must have rejected the offer] certainly confirms Baxter's version of the story.
But where I differ with you is that this was a 'missed opportunity'. In fact, I firmly believe that Scotland Yard took this theory very seriously, and pursued it. Note all the doctors that were given some tender loving scrutiny in Oct/Nov 1888. I believe Scotland Yard was looking for this guy.
Your own inquires pose a problem. Even if we accept the reality of this 'mysterious doctor', why should we believe that this would have created a market for the organs? How would this work? Abberline suggests the same thing, but doesn't explain the obvious problem. Unless the murderer knew of the offer prior to it being reported in the press --or was direcly working for the renegade doctor-- isn't the theory a non-starter? Cheers, RJ Palmer |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 10:48 pm | | Hi Caz:
Sorry, my post was just for clarification.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Vicki
Wednesday, 18 September 2002 - 10:58 pm | | Jon and all,
Here is more information on the Wallers, father and son, and a possible relation to the case.
When Annie's uterus was removed, it was said that it was a clean removal. (paraphrased) When Catherine's uterus was removed, a 3/4-inch stump was left. For some reason Mary's wasn't taken.
For whatever reasons, Annie was buried 6 days after her murder, Catherine 8 days after her murder, and Mary 10 days after her murder. The timing seems progressive. It almost seems experimental in nature.
Waller's father's research and studies seem coincidental to the above mutilations.
Augustus Volney Waller, August D. Waller's father, was also interested in physiology. He was first interested in the histology of the frog's tongue. (There was the "Kearly and Tonge's Warehouse" near where Catherine was killed. Tonge and tongue are similar. In fact "u" that's missing in Tonge could stand for uterus. Following is a brief description of Waller's frog studies. To better understand it, read more of the details on the listed website.
http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2383.html
" Waller's law
Description: The anatomical and physiological integrity of the nerve fibre is preserved only as long as it is connected to its cell of origin. When nerve fibres are cut the distal portions of the fibre degenerate."
"The other (Waller Degeneration) dealt with the section of the glosso-pharyngeal and hyperglossal nerves of the frog in which he showed that the distal segment cut off from the cells underwent degeneration, whilst the proximal segment remained intact for a long period of time."
"I am the Wallerian degeneration"
His son Augustus Desiré Waller (1856-1922) was also a distinguished physiologist and in 1887 demonstrated an electric current in the human heart by placing electrode on the surface of the body, the forerunner of the electrocardiogram. On one occasion when his father's name was mentioned the younger Waller remarked I am the Wallerian degeneration.
A coincidence is that profilers describe the Ripper's behavior as a degeneration of sorts. The mutilations got worse. Again, I am not saying Waller was the Ripper, but perhaps he knew something. |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 19 September 2002 - 02:01 pm | | I am the Walrus.
GOO GOO GOO JOOB
David |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 19 September 2002 - 03:00 pm | | Hi, Vicki:
The more you expound on your Waller theory the more far-fetched it sounds.
Hi, RJ and Jon:
I have an article coming out in the October issue of Ripperologist giving newly discovered information from a U.S. newspaper of 1888 which indicates the American doctor could not have been Tumblety. I realize you were not arguing for Tumblety being the man necessarily, but I just wanted to point out that this new information runs counter to the thought that the American was Dr. T.
All the best
Chris |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 01:41 pm | | Chris--Hi. I'll be most interested in seeing your article! However, if the news report you are referring to is the same one that I am thinking of, my own feeling is that this doesn't fully eliminate the possibility that Dr. T was the American Doctor. I suppose that sounds a bit odd. But my own information makes me confident that Dr. T's arrest was directly related to the 'American Doctor' incident. Which, of course, doesn't prove that the incident was the motivations for the murders.
Cornwell, American Doctors, the Ripper Diary, D'Onston..this autumn is going to be an interesting one, I think.
Cheers, R J Palmer |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 02:19 pm | | Hi, RJ:
We may not be thinking of the same article because the description of the doctor given in the newspaper, if true, would not fit Tumblety in any respect. Sorry to continue to be circumspect until the article comes out!
All the best
Chris |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 03:08 pm | | | Chris--Well, you certainly have me intrigued. It does sound like you're describing something different than what I have hidden away in my files. I'll be most interested in seeing the article! Best wishes, RJ Palmer |
Author: Vicki
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 09:40 pm | | Chris,
Maybe a little far-fetched, but saner than pickling a kidney to send through the mail.
Seriously, I'm not going to dwell on Waller, but his father did do some ophthalmology research in Bonn on the pupils of the eyes. Catherine had a lot of strange eye cuts. It doesn't hurt to check it out, and I do like constructive criticism.
Frogs can fetch pretty far, unless you cut the distal end of their tongue off.
Vicki |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 08:30 pm | | Hi RJ
Thankyou for openly acknowledging that "something was amiss" in this American Doctor story. At least you have taken the time and trouble to read the contemporary news articles (they are on this site) and form an educated opinion on the matter.
No theory will be 100% correct in every detail, where there's smoke there's fire. We have to use sound judgement in evaluating such stories and not follow the crowd in casting it aside.
Thankyou.
Yes, where we differ is with the Tumblety connection. I would prefer to leave the identity of the American Doctor to others to evaluate.
The 'market' issue?
I had understood the story to imply that the 'market' (meaning only one individual) was rumoured to exist before the announcement by Baxter at the inquest. Is that what you mean?
I could imagine this doctor being refused twice then turning to some institution of lower repute, or in consequence of this move he may have been approached by an employee of this lower institution who offered to provide the organs 'under the table' so to speak.
Who knows?, there are numerous acceptable possibilities.
That part of the story is pointless to pursue as it is highly speculative, but still within reason.
Chris, That will prove an interesting article, thanks for the heads-up.
Best wishes, Jon |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 11:37 pm | | | Jon--I have a little information of my own and will make it public in the near future. The great Ripper authors of the past did fine research, but some of them were a little premature in stating that the 'American Doctor' story had been exploded. Yes, there were rumors floating around as to this guy's identity...supposedly Charles Warren was given information about him and how respectable he was, etc. etc., I've heard about these rumors. But isn't there likely to be more to the story? I think it is a little naive for anyone to think that Abberline would still be spouting this wild story 20 years later if the chief had been quietly told it was poppicock. The police still entertained the theory in November---after the alleged debunking. I'm holding to my guns for the time being, and will explain my reasoning at a future date. Cheers, RP |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 11:27 am | | RJ
Above, on Sept 16, you posted this.
"But where I differ with you is that this was a 'missed opportunity'. In fact, I firmly believe that Scotland Yard took this theory very seriously, and pursued it."
Is this based on any info you have obtained?
I wondered if you were aware of this little extract in the Eastern Post of Sept, 29. Written three days after the closing statement of Wynne Baxter.
"...From inquiries made at some of the great medical institutions it has been ascertained that requests similar to that of the American gentleman have before been made; but the peculiar conditions attaching to the requests could not possibly be complied with, unless the operation were performed before or immediately after death. Ever since the coroner communicated the facts to the police authorities no stone has been left unturned to follow up the clue, and active inquiries are still proceeding..."
This tends to support your belief that they did certainly pursue it and took it seriously.
Some time ago I asked if anyone was aware of a report indicating the origin of suspicion of those three 'insane' medical students, just how did the authorities stumble on these young men as suspects in the first place. Equally, what was the initial report that brought Tumblety into this case?.
The earliest mention of the three students is dated Oct 19th, sometime after this 'American doctor' investigation. I have not been able to find mention of them prior to Sept 26th, which may or may not be of importance.
What struck me in the quote above is that there were "other similar requests, made before", ....by whom and for what reason, we may ask.
And, the remark that the request could not be complied with "unless the operation was performed immediately after death".....may or may not be of significance.
Regards, Jon |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 01 October 2002 - 10:49 pm | | Jon--Thanks for the quote; a facinating thread you have here. I've seen something similar in an American news story, but hadn't seen the Eastern Post report.
I don't have my materials at hand, but in regards to the three insane medical students, didn't they all come from London Hospital? In a footnote to a comment about John Sanders, one of the insane students, Philip Sugden mentions a report by Abberline dated September 13th [14th?], merely two days after the Chapman inquest's closing statement. Abberline's report refers to inquiries at London Hospital and is responding to a report from the commissioner the previous day. So is Sugden's belief that these early inquiries at London Hospital were in regards to the three medical students? Or were they somehow connected to Baxter's American doctor?
As for Dr. T., I really don't have any clear opinion about whether or not he was the American doctor. My interest in him as a suspect isn't particularly based on such a theory. On the otherhand, I have for a long time felt that your thinking about the Whitechapel crimes is well worth considering.
By the way, there was a curious statement in the New York Tribune suggesting that Tumblety's Whitechapel arrest was possibly due to his fondness for 'collecting anatomical specimens.' Whether Tumblety really had such a 'fondness' or whether this statement was based on the earlier story printed by the New York World about the uteri collection is anyone's guess. My own information is that Tumblety retired from any formal medical quackery about 1883, and spent the next few years travelling to various health resorts. He was a bit of a hypochondriac and complained frequently about his kidney and heart.
I do have a couple of unpublished pieces of information in regards to the American Doctor story, but I thought I'd first wait & see what Chris George has come up with. My own belief is that Scotland Yard took Baxter's story very seriously...but never really got to the bottom of it.
By the way, I wish you'd reconsider Martha Tabram. Would you consider it 'MO' or 'signature' that her legs were spread, her dress was thrown up to her waist, and a three inch incision was made in the lower abdomen? The frenzied stabbing is a definite difference witht the other crimes, but could this only indicate the nervousness or rage at the beginning of the series?
Cheers, RJ Palmer |
Author: John Dow
Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 08:28 am | | RJ Said:
"The frenzied stabbing is a definite difference witht the other crimes, but could this only indicate the nervousness or rage at the beginning of the series"
Or that our Jack found the woman stabbed but alive and decided to finish her off.....
J |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 09:47 am | | Hi RJ
Sorry for an all too brief response, but...
I think in order to play it by the rules, we must decide what indications there are in the death of Martha Tabram that reflect the state of mind of the killer and what details were necessary for him to commit the crime.
Without any indepth discussion on this I would expect the questions you ask are indicative of the state of mind of the killer, therefore would fall under Signature.
What we must consider though is the question, do the wounds indicate an obsession with the reproductive organs?. Only one wound in the abdomen but 17 in the neck & upper chest, plus elsewhere.
What does the wound pattern indicate?
Was she really strangled?, I found no mention of this by Dr Killeen. It certainly looks that way but it would be nice to have read of the confirmation by Dr Killeen.
It is important to allow for the fact that the action that the killer thought killed her and what actually killed her, medically speaking, may not be the same. This is more of a general statement than specifically to do with Tabram, but the allowance still should be made.
In this we can confuse MO with Signature, it needs discussion.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
