After the Alice McKenzie murder, George Bagster Philips stated his general opinion concerning the murders:
First of all, looking for this quote online shows a version with "one man" transcribed as "our man". This of course changes the meaning entirely, reducing his statement to one concerning solely the murderer of McKenzie. I'm not sure where this second version comes from, but there's no doubt it's erroneous.
Secondly, what does Philips then actually mean - which murders is he including in "all the Whitechapel murders" and which of those would he consider the work of "one man"?
Philips examined:
Annie Chapman
Elizabeth Stride
Catherine Eddowes
Mary Jane Kelly
Alice McKenzie
Pinchin st. torso
Frances Coles
At the Stride inquest, he was asked if there was any similarity to the Chapman case - "There is a great dissimilarity." or "There is very great dissimiliarity between the two"
After the Rose Mylett-murder, the Star speculated about Philips' theory:
But of course Philips, by The Star's own admission, did not actually give his opinion, meaning the above is merely someone else's guess at his thinking.
During the inquest about the Pinchin St. case, Philips compared the torso with MJK and was not convinced they were connected:
Regarding Philips' view on Frances Coles, Arnold stated "from the examination he has made of the wound, the posture and appearances of the body etc. he does not connect this with the series of previous murders"
So Stride was dissimilar to Chapman, Pinchin was dissimilar to MJK, Coles was not connected to other cases at all.
Are there any sources about his thoughts on Eddowes or MJK compared to the others?
As mentioned, Philips formulated his opinion about several murderers in his report after the McKenzie murder. But does that mean he did or he did not consider McKenzie's murderer responsible for one or more of the others?
What did the McKenzie case make clear to him that enabled him to form the opinion about some murders being connected, but not all?
What would be the Ripper's tally according to Philips - Chapman, Eddowes, MJK?
After careful and long deliberation I cannot satisfy myself on purely anatomical & professional grounds that the Perpetrator of all the "WhChl.murders" is one man.
Secondly, what does Philips then actually mean - which murders is he including in "all the Whitechapel murders" and which of those would he consider the work of "one man"?
Philips examined:
Annie Chapman
Elizabeth Stride
Catherine Eddowes
Mary Jane Kelly
Alice McKenzie
Pinchin st. torso
Frances Coles
At the Stride inquest, he was asked if there was any similarity to the Chapman case - "There is a great dissimilarity." or "There is very great dissimiliarity between the two"
After the Rose Mylett-murder, the Star speculated about Philips' theory:
Originally posted by The Star, 24th december 1888
During the inquest about the Pinchin St. case, Philips compared the torso with MJK and was not convinced they were connected:
I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case.
So Stride was dissimilar to Chapman, Pinchin was dissimilar to MJK, Coles was not connected to other cases at all.
Are there any sources about his thoughts on Eddowes or MJK compared to the others?
As mentioned, Philips formulated his opinion about several murderers in his report after the McKenzie murder. But does that mean he did or he did not consider McKenzie's murderer responsible for one or more of the others?
What did the McKenzie case make clear to him that enabled him to form the opinion about some murders being connected, but not all?
What would be the Ripper's tally according to Philips - Chapman, Eddowes, MJK?
Comment