Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Observer 3 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Sam Flynn 7 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Observer 25 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Simon Wood 6 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by rjpalmer 7 hours ago.
Other: Ripper Novel? - by WastelandOfTheRipper 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Police Discussion: Kelly inquest/Smithkey - (32 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (20 posts)
Other: Ripper Novel? - (12 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Strictly personal ID - (6 posts)
Witnesses: Value of a lie - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Letters and Communications > General Letters or Communications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-13-2017, 05:05 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
It seems we're always looking for extraneous reasons why a person associated with some aspect of the murders said or did something that may contradict an opinion or position we hold. Here you opine that a doctor speaking to a reporter, espousing a position that may not support your opinion with respect the kidney is "feeling his oats". Thus, it carries less weight. This isn't a criticism of you. Just an observation of how we in the "Ripperology" game clutch to our beliefs until they're RIPPED from our cold, dead hands.
Hi Patrick
The statement of this doctor kinds of reminds me of the kinds of things a lot of "higher ups" said in the case when espousing their own well thought opinions. Like the dr. I think it was bond, who said the ripper displayed no skill whatsoever, not even that of a butcher. Smells of someone trying to distance their profession from having anything to do with the killer. Or dew or Anderson or MM with their self serving locutions. Grain of salt.

Oh and before you all get too carried away with the mistaken for a pigs kidney thing...let's not forget the DOCTOR WHO ACTUALLY EXAMINED THE KIDNEY said it was human. I'll go with him then.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-13-2017, 10:30 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi Patrick
The statement of this doctor kinds of reminds me of the kinds of things a lot of "higher ups" said in the case when espousing their own well thought opinions. Like the dr. I think it was bond, who said the ripper displayed no skill whatsoever, not even that of a butcher. Smells of someone trying to distance their profession from having anything to do with the killer. Or dew or Anderson or MM with their self serving locutions. Grain of salt.

Oh and before you all get too carried away with the mistaken for a pigs kidney thing...let's not forget the DOCTOR WHO ACTUALLY EXAMINED THE KIDNEY said it was human. I'll go with him then.
That sounds wise to me. This excerpt is from an article named "A kidney from hell? A nephrological view of the Whitechapel murders in 1888"

It was published in Nephrol Dial Transplant Volume 23, issue 10, in October 2008.

The link is
https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/23/10/3343/1850338
and the excerpt goes like this:

"It appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the renal segment sent to George Lusk was human and this could be easily determined by morphological criteria in 1888."

So if we are to go by what the nephrological experts say, it would be easy enough to establish the morphology of the kidney part back in 1888, and thereby establish that it was human. Plus we know that Openshaw made an extensive examination of it, using a microscope.

There is therefore no reason at all to suspect that the kidney was anything but human.

Last edited by Fisherman : 07-13-2017 at 10:37 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-14-2017, 04:20 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
That sounds wise to me. This excerpt is from an article named "A kidney from hell? A nephrological view of the Whitechapel murders in 1888"

It was published in Nephrol Dial Transplant Volume 23, issue 10, in October 2008.

The link is
https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/23/10/3343/1850338
and the excerpt goes like this:

"It appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the renal segment sent to George Lusk was human and this could be easily determined by morphological criteria in 1888."

So if we are to go by what the nephrological experts say, it would be easy enough to establish the morphology of the kidney part back in 1888, and thereby establish that it was human. Plus we know that Openshaw made an extensive examination of it, using a microscope.

There is therefore no reason at all to suspect that the kidney was anything but human.
Thanks fish and bingo.
I think some people here get too caught up in taking the other side of anything deemed somewhat controversial that points to the killer.Regardless of the evidence.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-14-2017, 05:08 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Thanks fish and bingo.
I think some people here get too caught up in taking the other side of anything deemed somewhat controversial that points to the killer.Regardless of the evidence.
Nah - they would never, would they...?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-14-2017, 05:11 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi Patrick
The statement of this doctor kinds of reminds me of the kinds of things a lot of "higher ups" said in the case when espousing their own well thought opinions. Like the dr. I think it was bond, who said the ripper displayed no skill whatsoever, not even that of a butcher. Smells of someone trying to distance their profession from having anything to do with the killer. Or dew or Anderson or MM with their self serving locutions. Grain of salt.

Oh and before you all get too carried away with the mistaken for a pigs kidney thing...let's not forget the DOCTOR WHO ACTUALLY EXAMINED THE KIDNEY said it was human. I'll go with him then.
I'm not getting carried away. I don't know if it was a pig's kidney or human kidney. I'll go with human for now, though, based on what was said and by whom contemporarily.

As for the rest of my post......It's just an observation - one for which I can provide many examples - that we tend to infer, assign motives, make assumptions about character, so long as it helps us maintain a grasp on what we want to believe. For instance, I read a post recently that speculated that Robert Paul "big upped" his Lloyd's interview because the interview may have been conducted in Buck's Row as Paul returned home. Thus, he felt compelled to exaggerate his role. All well and good. Perhaps fun to talk about, but completely invented. I'm not complaining about it. In fact, I think it leads to interesting debates. I assume it's the natural course of events when so little read data exists and one must fill in the blanks with - in many cases - imagination.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 07-14-2017, 05:21 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Thanks fish and bingo.
I think some people here get too caught up in taking the other side of anything deemed somewhat controversial that points to the killer.Regardless of the evidence.
Evidence. Ah, yes. Is there evidence that the Lusk kidney was human. As it stands now, I'd say yes (or at least those that examined the kidney at the time felt there was evidence). The consensus at the time was that it was and a believe that such a finding was likely possible in 1888 (as opposed to it being "ginny" or from someone with Bright's disease, or from a female). So, that's what I'll go with.

Is there evidence that Saunders was "feeling his oats" when he stated that he wished others might simply said "I don't know"? That's another matter. Thus, based on what I know, I'll continue to believe the kidney came from a human being while holding some reservations based upon Saunder's statement at the time. Is that okay with you and Fisherman? I want to be sure the two of you approve of my thinking, after all.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 07-14-2017, 05:35 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

From the obituary of William Sedgwick Saunders:

"Though genial and courteous to all, he was fearless in his opinions and conduct, and ever refused to compromise where he felt his position right."

You are - as always - welcome to think whatever you want, Patrick. Myself, I think that this has turned into a non-issue, and I am perfectly at ease to regard the kidney as proven to have come from a human being.

I prefer to move on, so I will duck out of any further discussion of the topic.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 07-14-2017, 05:42 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
From the obituary of William Sedgwick Saunders:

"Though genial and courteous to all, he was fearless in his opinions and conduct, and ever refused to compromise where he felt his position right."

You are - as always - welcome to think whatever you want, Patrick. Myself, I think that this has turned into a non-issue, and I am perfectly at ease to regard the kidney as proven to have come from a human being.

I prefer to move on, so I will duck out of any further discussion of the topic.
What's the obit quotation meant to convey? Sounds like my kind of guy.

Agreed it's a non-issue. I'm not sure we disagree on this. I wouldn't say it's been "proven" to have come from a human being. Rather, I'd say it's likely to have come from a human. It's not really an argument worth having, in my view.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-14-2017, 05:52 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Patrick S: What's the obit quotation meant to convey?

That it seems Saunders was a man who was not prepared to compromise, and that this may - or may not - have had a bearing on his view about the kidney. What else?

Sounds like my kind of guy.

Are you sue, or is it something you are ready to discuss?

Agreed it's a non-issue. I'm not sure we disagree on this. I wouldn't say it's been "proven" to have come from a human being. Rather, I'd say it's likely to have come from a human. It's not really an argument worth having, in my view.

As I said, I have nothing further to add on the issue.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-14-2017, 07:26 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
I'm not getting carried away. I don't know if it was a pig's kidney or human kidney. I'll go with human for now, though, based on what was said and by whom contemporarily.

As for the rest of my post......It's just an observation - one for which I can provide many examples - that we tend to infer, assign motives, make assumptions about character, so long as it helps us maintain a grasp on what we want to believe. For instance, I read a post recently that speculated that Robert Paul "big upped" his Lloyd's interview because the interview may have been conducted in Buck's Row as Paul returned home. Thus, he felt compelled to exaggerate his role. All well and good. Perhaps fun to talk about, but completely invented. I'm not complaining about it. In fact, I think it leads to interesting debates. I assume it's the natural course of events when so little read data exists and one must fill in the blanks with - in many cases - imagination.
hi Patrick and thanks!
yes I agree with you for the most part, but for me personally I don't really have any written in stone "beliefs" about the case. I keep an open mind and look at the totality of any particular point about the case and think about it in terms of what seems most likely in my mind. I'm not a research guy, I tend to look at big picture, how things are connected, woven together etc.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.