Over a hundred years' speculation about the world's most famous
sadistic serial killer has given rise to endless ideas, stories and
beliefs about his crimes and his identity. As Lacey Flint, heroine
of Now You See Me tells her fascinated colleagues, 'Jack
was a real man, but he's become a myth.'
RIPPER MYTH 3 - JACK WAS A SURGEON
One such myth, the idea that Jack had medical knowledge, was
possibly even a trained surgeon, simply will not go away.
It started, because two of the Ripper's canonical victims (those
whom most experts agree were definitely Ripper killings) Annie
Chapman and Catharine Eddowes were both partially disemboweled and,
at their post mortem examinations, were found to be missing
internal organs.
At the coroner's inquest into Annie's death, held on 10
September 1888, Dr George Phillips, (Divisional Surgeon, H
Division, Metropolitan Police), reported on how he attended the
murder scene and subsequently carried out Annie's post mortem. Here
is part of the transcript:
Coroner: Was there any anatomical knowledge
displayed?
Phillips: I think there was. There were
indications of it. My own impression is that the anatomical
knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of
haste.
A short while later Phillips says: I think the mode in which
they (the organs) were extracted did show some anatomical
knowledge.
Phillips' opinion set the hare running. Police attention became
focused on suspects with a medical background, possibly even those
who worked in slaughterhouses and who were accustomed to slicing up
carcasses quickly and efficiently. When, shortly after Catharine
Eddowes was killed, the head of a local vigilante group received
what appeared to be a human kidney in the post, the press and
public, even the police seemed convinced that not only did Jack
have medical skills, he took his victims' organs for some purpose
of his own.
Trevor Marriott, a retired detective and keen Ripper historian
suggests an alternative and, to my mind, much more credible
explanation for the missing organs, in his book: Jack the
Ripper, the 21st century investigation.
Marriott argues that in Victorian England, medical science was
far less advanced that it is now and that many areas were still
actively being studied and developed. The research would have
called for cadavers and body parts, in a time long before donating
one's body to medical research was a normal and acceptable course
of action. Marriott argues that Chapman's and Eddowes' organs were
removed, not at the scene by the murderer, but later, in the
post-mortem room, by unsupervised and unscrupulous mortuary
assistants, who knew their value on the black market.
Which seems more likely - that organs were removed in very dark
alleyways and yards, when the killer could have been disturbed at
his work at any second, or in the daylight and relative privacy of
a mortuary?
The abdomens of Chapman and Eddowes were cut open by their
killer, so locating and removing organs would have been easy and
could have gone unnoticed. Neither Polly Nichols nor Elizabeth
Stride were missing organs, but their abdomens were intact when
their bodies were sent to the mortuary, making unauthorized removal
much more difficult. Although the Ripper hacked Mary Kelly almost
beyond recognition, her organs were all left behind in her
room.
Marriot's theory, to my mind, has a great deal to recommend it
and Jack may well have had nothing more than the most basic
knowledge of anatomy.
FRANCIS TUMBLETY - RIPPER SUSPECT
Many Ripper experts in recent years believe the American Francis
Tumblety to be the prime suspect for the killings.
Francis Tumblety was born in America and, at the time of the
murders, was 56, living in London and posing as a doctor. He was
married to a woman who turned out to be a prostitute. The marriage
failed and Tumblety became a practicing homosexual.
Tumblety was charged with acts of gross indecency with a number
of males on 7 November 1888. He jumped bail and sailed to New York
where he was kept under surveillance by the New York police. Those
who favour Tumblety for the Ripper murders claim he kept a
collection of female body parts in his American home, but there is
no evidence to substantiate this.
NOT GUILTY (probably) - FRANCIS TUMBLETY
The case against Tumblety is very weak. There is no evidence
that he ever visited Whitechapel or was ever violent. He bore no
resemblance to witness sightings of the Ripper and, as a
homosexual, was most unlikely to commit sadistic, sexual offences
against women. Having had him in custody once, the Metropolitan
Police would probably not have released him on bail if they had any
reason to suspect him of the Ripper's crimes.