New information/research?

[Elamarna]

Where were they getting the human kidneys from ?

Not that difficult Dave, plenty of oppotunity for possible donation so to speak.
Medical schools, Hospitals, undertakers even.
It was not as controlled as it is today.

That you are convinced the kidney was that of Eddowes is clear, and a view held by many. Many others however, consider it a hoax.
I personally would not take Smith's writing as proof of anything.


Steve

[DJA]

Crikey,hope that wasn't the Batsignal for Trev to appear

[DJA]

Where were they getting the human kidneys from ?

[Elamarna]

Who was preserving human kidneys in ethanol?

Rather alot of people could have.
Doctors, Medical students, in fact anyone with access to ethanol, wanting to commit a convincing hoax .

Journalists even.


Steve.

[DJA]

On the final point, having been put in spirits within hours, in no way discounts a hoax.
It simply shows the kidney was preserved, actually adding weight to a hoax in my view.

Steve

Who was preserving human kidneys in ethanol?

[DJA]

It had approximately 1 inch of renal artery adhering to it. Our sources for this point of identification are Major Smith and the Daily Telegraph of 20 October. Both appear to be trumped by Dr Brown's statement that the Lusk Kidney had been "trimmed up," and as he was in the midst of examining the organ when he said this, we might take this as definitive. Yet perhaps the verdict on this point should be a very guarded "possible," bearing in mind that the kidney had passed at the least from Lusk to Reed to Openshaw to Abberline before being examined by Brown. It must remain a possibility (though no more than a remote one) that the renal artery was "trimmed up" before Brown saw it

[Elamarna]

You do realize RLS and Smith were cousins.
IIRC correctly Smith had rheumatic fever when young in Scotland.
Smith was newly appointed Police Superintendent in 1885.



Within the pages of his From Constable to Commissioner, he purports to settle the matter of the Lusk Kidney once and for all:

1. I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the Profession, and to send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney. The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease; the kidney sent me was in an exactly similar state. But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it.

The problem with the first section of the above, is that when received by Brown, there were no vessels attached.
They had been trimmed off.

Are we suppose to believe, that these were removed somewhere between Sutton and Brown?

On the final point, having been put in spirits within hours, in no way discounts a hoax.
It simply shows the kidney was preserved, actually adding weight to a hoax in my view.

Steve

[DJA]

Gull–Sutton Syndrome (chronic Bright's disease)


In 1872, Sir William Gull and Henry G. Sutton, M.B., F.R.C.P. presented a paper^[35] that challenged the earlier understanding of the causes of chronic Bright's Disease.

The symptoms of Bright's Disease had been described in 1827 by the English physician Richard Bright who, like Gull, was based at Guy's Hospital. Dr. Bright's work characterised the symptoms as caused by a disease centred on the kidney. Chronic Bright's disease was a more severe variant, where other organs are also affected.

In their introduction, Gull and Sutton point out that Dr. Bright and others "have fully recognised that the granular contracted kidney is usually associated with morbid changes in other organs of the body" and that these co-existent changes were commonly grouped together and termed "chronic Bright's disease." The prevailing opinion at the time was that the kidney was the organ primarily affected, inducing a condition that would spread to other parts of the body and thereby cause other organs to suffer.

Gull and Sutton argued that this assumption was incorrect. They presented evidence to show that the diseased state could also originate in other organs, and that the deterioration of the kidney is part of the general morbid change, rather than the primary cause. In some cases examined by Gull and Sutton, the kidney was only marginally affected while the condition was far more advanced in other organs.

Gull and Sutton's main conclusion was that the morbid change in the arteries and capillaries was the primary and essential condition of the morbid state known as chronic Bright's disease with contracted kidney. They stated that the clinical history may vary according to the organs primarily and chiefly affected; the condition could not be expected to follow a simple and predictable pattern.

[DJA]

DJA, you’ve been following these boards for some time, and I would think it apparent by now that one man’s “is obviously “ is another man’s “hmm, that’s not very likely, do you have a source for that?”

Ok, take care!

You do realize RLS and Smith were cousins.
IIRC correctly Smith had rheumatic fever when young in Scotland.
Smith was newly appointed Police Superintendent in 1885.



Within the pages of his From Constable to Commissioner, he purports to settle the matter of the Lusk Kidney once and for all:

1. I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the Profession, and to send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney. The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease; the kidney sent me was in an exactly similar state. But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it.

[DJA]

Debra Arif found him, it wasn’t George but Thomas Lawrence, born December 8th, baptized 22nd.

kind of odd for Catherine to spend an entire month in hospital at that point, wouldn’t you say?

Thanks for that.

What do you suggest she should have done?She had a high grade fever and a pulse of 120 bpm.

Sure she would have preferred to be with her family for New Year for that matter.Unfortunately she became ill on the 23rd.

[Kattrup]

RLS wrote Dr J & Mr H because he considered the latter to be a hypocrite.Dr J is obviously Dr Gull who resided at Finsbury Square with Mr H/Sutton living next door.

Inspector Newcomen is obviously Major Henry Smith.Most likely RLS's source of details.

The young girl trampled .......

I have to pull up stumps due to ill health,however I'll be back.

DJA, you’ve been following these boards for some time, and I would think it apparent by now that one man’s “is obviously “ is another man’s “hmm, that’s not very likely, do you have a source for that?”

Ok, take care!

[Kattrup]

Their ages are approximate.
Gull had problems with dates,hence almost everyone has his age wrong.
IIRC he was baptized at West Acklam August 1835.

What was George Conway's birth date?

Debra Arif found him, it wasn’t George but Thomas Lawrence, born December 8th, baptized 22nd.

kind of odd for Catherine to spend an entire month in hospital at that point, wouldn’t you say?

[DJA]

Should read Sutton not Gull.

[DJA]

Hmm, their ages are off and Catherine C. had just given birth, but her condition is not mentioned?

Their ages are approximate.
Gull had problems with dates,hence almost everyone has his age wrong.
IIRC he was baptized at West Acklam August 1835.

What was George Conway's birth date?

[DJA]

Any kind of evidence would be nice.Any contemporary document supporting your notion that Sutton was gay, Sutton was the inspiration for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the C5 knew each other, MJK was Mary Ann Kelly, that BS Man was Simon Morgenstern etc.

No, I don't wonder about those things because there's no reason to. There's nothing to indicate that the women knew each other, or that the events you mention were connected at all. I'm hoping you will show me a reason - that is, something more than just a fanciful theory.

Hmm, their ages are off and Catherine C. had just given birth, but her condition is not mentioned?

RLS wrote Dr J & Mr H because he considered the latter to be a hypocrite.Dr J is obviously Dr Gull who resided at Finsbury Square with Mr H/Sutton living next door.

Inspector Newcomen is obviously Major Henry Smith.Most likely RLS's source of details.

The young girl trampled .......

I have to pull up stumps due to ill health,however I'll be back.