The from hell letter

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[Garry Wroe]

The problem, though, Mike, is that the available information relating to the Lusk kidney emerged from what could hardly be described as impeccable sources. 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. Given this deficiency, there remains the possibility that the kidney was wrongly defined as human. To my mind, this is an intriguing proposition, to say nothing of a solid piece of research that ought to be accorded due respect.

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.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

Suffice to say that if this package was a hoax it can only have come from the area medical students, practitioners, undertakers or from an organ thief. Since many feel the last possibility is slim in that so enlightened age, I suggest youre stuck with people in the medical field with some anatomical knowledge and access to said organ. If a hoax.

Or Jack, of course. Unless he also studies medicine............

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Folks, My but we can get upset can't we over a pig's (?) kidney?

I think it's rather a case about getting upset about somewhat different matters, GS. It will pass... it always does

[jason_c]

Does the kidney still exist in evidence files? Thanks

If only.

Eddowes' Kidney was destroyed as late as the 1950's. I believe this was the remainder of the kidney left in her body rather than the one sent to Lusk.

What Sam seems to believe is that 121 years ago was the stone age of Medicine and they couldnt tell anything about a crime through the forensics available to them.

Which is of course, nonsense.

The advent of the alliance of Science and Medicine, rather than Medicine and Religion, allowed for the last 150 years of medical practice to be a virtual boom time for Medical advancements. Ive heard it said that the medical advancements made in the last 100 years are more dramatic than what was accomplished in the 2000 years of practice up until that time....illustrating that in historical terms, we are accustomed to seeing far less progress per hundred year increment. Had the last 121 years been as the years before them, without a boom of innovation and study, we would not be far beyond what they were capable of then.

The men in charge of making medical evaluations did say on record at the Inquest that they thought the killer in C1 and C2 had the same ultimate goal but that the first victims poor venue prohibited the completion. Since all that really separates the 2 attacks is the extraction of a uterus...that seems reasonable.

No-one claimed similar things about later victims in comparison for one simple, vital reason....there was no evidence that was seen that might lead any expert to that conclusion.

We have on record senior medical men that venture a motive for the murders of Polly and Annie, and no such data for any other Canonical....leading to what I said before, there is evidence that suggests that the motives for those 2 murders was not the same as the rest of the Canonical Group.

I suppose the next thing Ill see is that killers change their reason for killing often....something Id get a chuckle from seeing explained.

Best regards

[ghoulstonstreet]

Already Examined 1888?

Keep your wig on, Michael... Sam's only chosen a pig because he knows they can fly.

Hi Folks, My but we can get upset can't we over a pig's (?) kidney? I just read Sugden's book and there is a line stating that the very first thing the authorities did was to try to identify the kidney as some animal's. I believe it's stated there that the length of the kidney (it was sliced in half lengthwise) was good for a human but didn't figure for an animal's. Have you already gone over this ground? Thanks

[Cap'n Jack]

Keep your wig on, Michael... Sam's only chosen a pig because he knows they can fly.

[Sam Flynn]

And neither murders suggest similar possible motives for the killer as seen by them both in the first 2 Canonicals.

Utter nonsense. Eddowes and Kelly had their uteri removed, and organs were taken away by their killer - THAT'S MORE THAN CAN BE SAID FOR POLLY NICHOLS.

In FACT, it is possible that both Polly and Annie were killed for their uteri, as suggested by the men in question

... it's a FACT that neither of the men in question were asked, or volunteered, to pronounce on the "canonicity" of Eddowes and Kelly.

How many times do you have to be told this before it sinks in?

If you have some evidence that the kidney was indeed a pigs

The point is, we don't have any evidence that it WAS a human kidney - because it's quite probable that Openshaw WAS NOT EQUIPPED TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE. Indeed, he would have been ill-equipped to pronounce it a pig's kidney, as well. The reason for this, as I've pointed out UMPTEEN TIMES is that the comparative microscopic anatomy of human versus pig (or canine or bovine) kidneys WAS NOT WELL-RESEARCHED UNTIL the 20th Century... DECADES AFTER Openshaw made his examination.

How many times to you have to be told THAT before it sinks in?