The from hell letter

[Dave James]

Ultimately, however, the mystery surrounding the Lusk kidney is unlikely to be resolved to universal satisfaction. Hence, it is the psychology of the concomitant letter that I find most fascinating, particularly the disinclination of its author to ape the idiomatic peculiarities of the Dear Boss letter. Although others clearly disagree, it doesn’t, to my way of thinking, bear the attributes of a hoax. But, as I’ve already said, this isn’t a view to which some would readily subscribe.

At the end of the day, does it matter if it was a pig or human kidney?

Surely the whole point of the incident was to create more shock/horror in a district that was already in shock.

Was it from the killer? Possibly, but if the killer was, as has been proposed, a local working class person, would he understand the horror of what he was doing sending the kidney. Or was he just thinking - here's the proof I did it!

It didn't have to be the missing kidney to have the required effect.

All the best
Dave

[DVV]

Was it from the killer? Possibly, but if the killer was, as has been proposed, a local working class person, would he understand the horror of what he was doing sending the kidney.
Dave

Hi Dave,

I can't see why a local working class guy wouldn't understand the "horror" of what he was doing... The letter itself alludes to cannibalism. And sending such a parcel to an individual was clearly a nasty thing to do.
But who was the real target?
Lusk only, as it seems, or the public in general ?
Personally, I'm undecided.

Amitiés,
David

[Cap'n Jack]

Like you, Garry, I'm reluctant to dismiss this as a hoax, irrespective of whether the kidney was of porcine or human origin. I think that unimportant, when they went through Richard Chase's fridge in Sacramento they found bovine, canine and human remains, including kidneys. The forensic team struggled even then to correctly identify the various remains which included liquidised rabbit.
I see no good reason why the killer of Eddowes might not substitute a porcine kidney for a human kidney before posting the bundle off, simply because porcine kidneys were available at the many butchers whilst one had to murder someone to obtain the human variety. He might have been reluctant to part with such a rarity.
The letter is just too damn good to be a fake.

[The Good Michael]

Do pigs often have Bright's disease or a "ginny" kidney? And is that something a medical "expert" ca. 1888 determine?

Cheers,

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

It didn't have to be the missing kidney to have the required effect.

That’s certainly true, Dave. But, as I suggested in an earlier post, a non-human kidney would have been readily available and therefore would have required no preservation in spirits of wine. If this element of Major Smith’s narrative was untrue, it would introduce justifiable suspicion concerning the rest of his claimed version of events.

Like you, Garry, I'm reluctant to dismiss this as a hoax, irrespective of whether the kidney was of porcine or human origin … The letter is just too damn good to be a fake.

Agreed, Cap’n. And one of the most interesting aspects of the present debate, as far as I’m concerned, is that the issue of the From hell letter is nowhere near as cut and dried as some posters appear to think. It just goes to show, you can’t always believe what you read.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

Do pigs often have Bright's disease or a "ginny" kidney? And is that something a medical "expert" ca. 1888 determine?

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.

[Sam Flynn]

In the heat of the present debate, it seems to me that Sam’s original point has been largely misunderstood. He isn’t stating categorically that the kidney came from a pig; merely that, during the Ripper’s operational timeframe, medical science lacked the ability to discriminate between a human and porcine kidney.

Thanks, Garry - and that's precisely my point. Indeed, I'll go further, and state that it was nigh-on impossible to tell the difference between a male or female kidney (irrespective of species) until much later on - X and Y chromosomes, and all that. Given that there were contemporary press accounts that had Openshaw definitely describing the kidney as both human AND female, we should be very wary indeed about the reliability of the data that have passed down to us via the press, not to mention later police memoirs.

[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

[Archaic]

The "ginny kidney" idea has been largely scotched

Good one, Sam.

Best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[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

[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