The from hell letter

[DVV]

Hi Sam,

human or not, this kidney couldn't be that of Eddowes, according to Gordon Brown.
Has anybody suggested that it could be a pig's kidney in 1888 ?
Lusk thought it was a sheep's.
He didn't eat pork, I guess.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

one would think they did look close enough to determine the species.

Not if that knowledge was not readily available to them at the time.

[Sam Flynn]

The description of the visual condition of the kidney left in Kate, which was confirmed as being afflicted with Brights Disease or Nephritis, and the sample that Lusk received, was said to have the same visual indications of the organ left inside her.

But the reference to Bright's Disease only comes from Major Smith, Mike, so beware!

Openshaw, even in the iffy press reports that came out immediately after the news of the Lusk Letter broke, isn't attributed with any such pronouncement, yet - as we've seen - certain very dubious claims as to the sex and the age of the "donor" were attributed to him at the time, most of which he seems to have refuted contemporaneously.

Major Henry "Bright's Disease" Smith, it should be noted, doesn't credit Openshaw at all when he came to write his memoirs years later. In suspiciously pleading fashion, he attributes the examination of the kidney to "the greatest living authority on the kidney and its diseases", Mr Sutton. Nothing but the best for Major Smith.

Pigs can suffer nephritis due to a range of causes, just like people. Visual indicators would include (not exhaustively) flaccid tissue, spotting, usually white, patchy discolouration, and a variety of histological changes which probably aren't relevant here. At a glance, not dissimilar from the visible changes possible for a diseased human kidney.

At a glance, too, to be honest, there aren't sizeable differences between healthy human and porcine kidneys. But one would hope they would have taken more than a glance, comparing existing kidney attributable to victim with the portion they had. However, one can expect some small visual alterations given the preservation in alcohol, making comparison a little more tricky on sight alone.

Thanks for that Claire.....and I think since we have multiple medicos that looked at that sample, as you said, one would think they did look close enough to determine the species.

My best regards

[Phil Carter]

that's not to deny that it is, but perhaps it's "ginny" or something

Gareth,

Deimshitz had a penchant for Sheep's kidney's... got any pics of them?

I have an x-ray of my right kidney, which has "jagged" edges....

(no, it's not through drink...) hahahaha

best wishes

Phil

[claire]

Pigs can suffer nephritis due to a range of causes, just like people. Visual indicators would include (not exhaustively) flaccid tissue, spotting, usually white, patchy discolouration, and a variety of histological changes which probably aren't relevant here. At a glance, not dissimilar from the visible changes possible for a diseased human kidney.

At a glance, too, to be honest, there aren't sizeable differences between healthy human and porcine kidneys. But one would hope they would have taken more than a glance, comparing existing kidney attributable to victim with the portion they had. However, one can expect some small visual alterations given the preservation in alcohol, making comparison a little more tricky on sight alone.

The description of the visual condition of the kidney left in Kate, which was confirmed as being afflicted with Brights Disease or Nephritis, and the sample that Lusk received, was said to have the same visual indications of the organ left inside her.

Do pigs get Nephritis? And if so, are the indicators visually similar to that of a human kidney?

Best regards

[DVV]

You're better than me Sam,

I enjoy raw liver (almost a national dish for drinkers in Ethiopia), but can't swallow raw kidneys.
Even not from a Corsican pig.


Amitiés
David

[Sam Flynn]

Garry - I've eaten a lot of offal in my time, and I swear that the red, splotched thing you posted isn't like any pig's kidney I've ever seen*. Here's a tray of them:




* that's not to deny that it is, but perhaps it's "ginny" or something

[Garry Wroe]

I pulled the following images from the internet a couple of days ago, Mike. First, a healthy human kidney:-



Next, the porcine equivalent:-



I don't know about you, but they look superficially dissimilar to me.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Just to put things in their proper historical perspective, Mike, it wasn't until Paul Uhlenhuth developed a serological test in 1901 that scientists were able to differentiate between human and rabbit blood. Frustrating as it might be, science and technology were, by today's standards, at a relatively rudimentary level back in 1888.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

I get your point, but were talking in this case about a physical organ that can be visually compared.

In fact, they were very progressive for their time and their efforts led to the unparalleled growth of knowledge in both Science and Medicine over the past 120 plus years. We have learned more in that time than was learned from the previous 1000 years of medical practice.

These men knew that preventing infection was the key to successful operations of all types, and they performed surgeries that in some cases haven't changed dramatically in that elapsed period.

They were far closer to being able to determine some of these questions than we are....they were doctors, and they physically examined the women and this organ specimen.

Most of us arent doctors, ...and none of us have the benefit of their hands on observations.

Best regards Gary

[Garry Wroe]

Just to put things in their proper historical perspective, Mike, it wasn't until Paul Uhlenhuth developed a serological test in 1901 that scientists were able to differentiate between human and rabbit blood. Frustrating as it might be, science and technology were, by today's standards, at a relatively rudimentary level back in 1888.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

What we do know is that the kidney could not be matched to Kate by what state it was in and what percentage of the renal artery remained in Kate.

We know it was preserved. We know that it was a human kidney...I think Gary that the more we denounce the rather simple task of a medical man to determine a human organ from a barnyard animals...no matter how closely related the "animals" in question are....the more peril we face trying to assess what if anything the medical men could know.

In fact they certainly knew more than they are being given credit for by some folks......thats clear enough. These men knew about microscopic bacteria....they knew tissues, blood, the fact that they didnt have a 21st century crime lad should be held against them, or as a tool to disparage their knowledge.

Openshaw is the only problematic statement, and he later denied it....no-one else that saw the organ concluded it was a pigs.

Best regards Gary, all.

[Archaic]

The "ginny kidney" idea has been largely scotched

Good one, Sam.

Best regards, Archaic

[Hunter]

The Bright's Disease and ginny kidney "diagnoses" are contentious, if not somewhat of a myth in themselves, Mike - as I'm sure you know.

The "ginny kidney" idea has been largely scotched (pardon pun) by the revelation - if that's the word - that the kidneys aren't damaged by alcohol. Indeed, I believe Openshaw, to whom the "ginny kidney" pronouncement was attributed by a press agency, largely refuted it himself in another press interview at the time.

The "Bright's Disease" bit, on the other hand, came from Major Smith's memoirs. Nuff said.

Ah Major Smith, who personally chased Jack all over Whitechapel that night- even nearly nabbing him at a public sink.

Best Wishes,
Hunter