Dr. Thomas Openshaw

[Sam Flynn]

Dan, with respect, I have used that police memo confirming that the kidney was indeed human in an attempt to prevent Sam from claiming that it was a porcine kidney, but he still does not accept that police memo.

No I don't - but that's a topic that we've discussed already, so let's not bring it up here, 'cos I ain't ever going to close off that possibility.

Let's just stick to the question posed at the beginning of this thread, namely whether it would have been possible for a journalist (or, as I added, a retired police officer) to have known the length of the renal artery, etc. The answer is simply - yes, a journalist (or retired police officer) could have found out those facts in books, or asked a medical friend, and used the information to dress up their narratives.

[Cap'n Jack]

Simon, I'm quite sure that Stewart would be able to supply the actual police document that I reference here:

'If the kidney was not from a murder victim why would Inspector McWilliam have said in a confidential police document, specifically discussing this kidney:
'But it is not desirable that publicity should be given to the Doctor's opinion'.

[Sam Flynn]

Simon, I'm quite sure that Stewart would be able to supply the actual police document that I reference here:

'If the kidney was not from a murder victim why would Inspector McWilliam have said in a confidential police document, specifically discussing this kidney:
'But it is not desirable that publicity should be given to the Doctor's opinion'.

...because he thought that the piece of kidney was from a murder victim, perhaps, AP? He could not have known that it was, because the knowledge and technology required to prove that simply did not exist at the time. Come to think of it, nobody alive on earth at that time possessed the sperm cells and ova to have conceived even the parents of the people who went on to discover the necessary techniques.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Cap'n Jack,

Many thanks.

It's those pesky cops again.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Why are you so keen to pin this on a journalist or retired policeman? Eddowes' renal artery details were common currency.

Evening News, 5th October—

"The renal artery was cut through about three quarters of an inch."

And at the inquest Doctor Brown said it was the left kidney that had been removed.

It's all quite meaningless to me, but a doctor would understand the implications. How much more information would a hoaxer need?

The origins of the story that it was the left kidney from a female suffering from an overindulgence of alcohol can be traced directly back to Doctor F.S. Reed—

Evening News, 19th October—

[Aarons, WVC Treasurer]: "I examined the box and its contents, and being sure that it was not a sheep's kidney, I advised that, instead of throwing it away, we should see Dr. Wills, of 56, Mile End-road. We did not, however, find him in, but Mr. Reed, his assistant, was. He gave an opinion that it was a portion of a human kidney which had been preserved in spirits of wine; but to make sure, he would go over to the London Hospital, where it could be microscopically examined. On his return Mr. Reed said that Dr. Openshaw, at the Pathological Museum, stated that the kidney belonged to a female, that it was part of the left kidney, and that the woman had been in the habit of drinking. He should think that the person had died about the same time the Mitre-square murder was committed."

Armed with "Openshaw's opinion" as reported by Dr. F.S. Reed, Lusk and his merry band first went to the offices of the Evening News before going to Scotland Yard and thence to Leman Street police station where they finally turned in the letter and kidney.

The Star, 20th October—

"We are now informed that the information of the receipt of the parcel was sold at a high figure, so that the hoax does not appear so stupid as it seemed at first".

Tom Wescott's publicity stunt is looking good.

Maybe you can help here, Sam. I've looked for a directly attributable quite from Openshaw either confirming or denying Dr. F.S. Reed's story, but have had no luck.

I haven't yet seen the police memo, so who originally said the kidney might have been from a pig?

Regards,

Simon

[Dan Norder]

But this still does not move us away from the crucial element here, that it was in Scotland Yard's best interests to refute Openshaw's findings through the examination by their own police surgeons.

Except that, based upon earlier posts, you seem to think that Openshaw's findings were that whole female, ginny kidney, Bright's Disease, matching parts, etc. nonsense the paper printed. We know that that's not what his actual findings were.

[Magpie]

I haven't yet seen the police memo, so who originally said the kidney might have been from a pig?

Regards,

Simon

That would be Dr. Saunders.

Although several Drs opined in the Lancet et. al. that it could be the kidney of a pig or a dog.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Magpie,

Many thanks.

I shall be checking him out.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dan,

Sorry to be dim, but how do we know what Openshaw's findings actually were?

I still cannot find a statement of his either confirming or refuting the genus of the kidney.

Regards,

Simon

[paul emmett]

Hello, Simon, all.

There is the old microscope quote from The Star of the 19th: "DR. Openshaw told a Star reporter today that after having examined the piece of kidney under the microscope he was of the opinion that it was half of a human kidney. He couldn't say, however, whether it had been that of a woman, nor how long it had been removed from the body, as it had been preserved in spirits."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for that.

But still no hint of a pig—flying or otherwise.

Regards,

Simon

[Cap'n Jack]

'The Sunday Times', 21st October 1888:
'Calling on Dr Brown of the City Police, last night, our reporter found that he had not quite completed his examination of the kidney, which had been submitted to him. He said:
'So far as I can form an opinion, I do not see any substantial reason why this portion of kidney should not be the portion of the one taken from the murdered woman. I cannot say that it is the left kidney. '

Now that is an actual quote from a police surgeon.
Not a journalist making a pig's ear.

Police report by Inspector McWilliam, A493018b, October 27th 1888:
'He accordingly took it (the kidney) to Mr Reed, 56 Mile End Road, & subsequently to Dr Openshaw of the London Hospital, both of whom expressed the opinion that it was a portion of the kidney of a human being... The kidney has been examined by Dr Gordon-Brown who is of the opinion that it is human.'

Now that is a police report.
Not a flying pig.
So can we give up with the pig in the shed, please?

[perrymason]

Hello all,

It seems as Ive been following AP's arguments about the doctors "opinions', that he has made a credible case for a scenario which has Openshaw, a very well respected and trained authority, indeed suggesting the kidney was human and that it might well have come from the murdered woman.

That is is retracted indicates either a retroactive discretion in releasing sensitive information, an unwillingness to be held up to public scrutiny for such speculative comments....or the inability to prove the contentions, among some other possibilities.

But, there is no indication in that data that the kidney section and the note could not have been authentic.

What has been questioned is the 1888 capacity of a medical professional to determine such answers from that partial sample. By information AP has provided, it appears that there were indeed tests that could be run.

His initial opinion was likely correct, incorrect, or unprovable. Two of those options do not rule out an authentic communique.

Before these are classified as hoaxes, note and section... there should be some evidence that the section could not have been Kates, and I dont see that point as proven anywhere.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

It seems as Ive been following AP's arguments about the doctors "opinions', that he has made a credible case for... suggesting the kidney was human and that it might well have come from the murdered woman.

If you'd followed some of the other (factual) arguments, Mike, you'd know that it was scientifically impossible for any doctor alive at that time - or for the rest of the 19th Century, for that matter - to have identified an anonymous portion of kidney as female, still less that it belonged to a given individual, murdered or otherwise.

By information AP has provided, it appears that there were indeed tests that could be run.

No, there weren't.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Just for clarity's sake, are you saying that in 1888 there was no test a doctor could employ to establish if the Lusk package contained part of [a] a woman's left kidney, [b] a man's right kidney, [c] a pig's right or left kidney, or [d] any possible variation of the foregoing?

Regards,

Simon