Dr. Thomas Openshaw

[Sam Flynn]

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?

Certainly "a" and "b", Simon - both of which would have required knowledge and techniques relating to chromosomes and the DNA within them that would not be discovered until well into the 20th Century.

As to "c", it would depend on whether there was sufficient knowledge of the comparative anatomy of the pig and human kidney available at the time. I still have reason to doubt that such was the case, as most of the detailed studies in that area also didn't happen until well into the 20th Century.

Leaving "c" to one side, there is more than enough in "a" and "b" alone to rule out the possibility that Openshaw could have linked the portion of kidney to an individual of either sex.

[Dan Norder]

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.

Or the possibility that's the accurate representation of what originally happened: The original press report that made claims about what Openshaw said was not what Openshaw had actually said in the first place, so there was no "retraction."

[perrymason]

Or the possibility that's the accurate representation of what originally happened: The original press report that made claims about what Openshaw said was not what Openshaw had actually said in the first place, so there was no "retraction."

Thats certainly one of the possibilities Dan, he was misquoted or his words were misrepresented or someone made it up. What I cannot concede though is that this is the most reasonable explanation, when as AP has shown, two press accounts mention a gender in connection with the kidney, and a species categorization.

There may be knowledge that Dr Openshaw had that was of specific use in this case that we dont know about....and although Sam disagrees, there may have been diagnostics available that could determine genus and/or gender.

If there was a test, or a series of them, that could be run on a biological sample to potentially determine its species and gender, that implies that it was a neccesary one...that identification by visual inspection alone was impossible or very difficult,..that also implies that it was used in such a manner in order to validate its usefulness. Meaning it would have been tested on different species samples. Meaning at least the evaluators were privy to the answer of how accurate conclusions were that were arrived at through visual inspections, and if it was possible to identify species and gender using that method alone.

Do we know that was beyond their capability?

Best regards.

[Dan Norder]

What I cannot concede though is that this is the most reasonable explanation, when as AP has shown, two press accounts mention a gender in connection with the kidney, and a species categorization.

So, two press accounts in your mind overrules what the doctor in question himself is documented to have actually said? It just doesn't work that way.

Do we know that was beyond their capability?

Deciding whether it was human or not would have depended upon visual inspection. Openshaw and others thought they had enough expertise to be able to make that determination, although others (then and now) dispute that. But we absolutely know that it was beyond their capability at the time to test for gender. Male and female specimens look the same, so visual inspection couldn't get anywhere on the Lusk kidney, and the tests that could clear it up only came along much later.

Not only do the reports that it was a female kidney not match up with what Openshaw said, they also contradict what any scientist at the time could have said.

But then we've already covered this again and again on this thread...

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm still of the opinion that if Openshaw was aware of the height and weight of the victim he would have been able to safely claim that the kidney was human, and female, in origin.
The press reports do not do what Dan says, they do what Openshaw says.