Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[DVV]

If it is a pork's kidney, it has to have been sent by someone who knew how similar it looks to that of a human...

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Investigator,

To put forward a pigs kidney in his collection would be like claiming the elephant man a deformed elephant.

One would have to assume that Openshaw had heretofore taken an especial interest in the inner structure of the kidney. I see no reason to suppose as much, especially at a time when anything other than the gross anatomy of the kidney would have been of little practical interest, and when this estimable curator of the pathological museum was destined to specialise not in nephrology, but in orthopaedics.

[DVV]

Hi Investigator,
as far as I know, proving that at in 1888 nobody could distinguish between a human and a porcine kidney has nothing to do with scpeticism, excessive or not. It is neither an offense to any physician or medical institution!

[Investigator]

Sam,
Of course, after so many years past there will always be some doubts over the events that took place. Until Openshaws report surfaces, if it ever does, there is always room for sceptism. However we should realise that Openshaw was the curator of a pathology museum - meaning that the specimens collected requires an acute sense of discriminating macroscopic and microscopic differences in tissues and cells. To put forward a pigs kidney in his collection would be like claiming the elephant man a deformed elephant. The London hospital is a major teaching establishment and while mistakes very possibly were made I cannot accept that a porcine kidney would be one of them. The probability stacks much more in favour of Openshaw being right and is supported by a reputable colleague like Dr Brown. I think it was Saunders who originally raised the possibility of it being a pigs kidney and he had'nt even seen it. Maybe his announcement was made to refute the wild press reports. If experienced butchers were given a human kidney they would probably pass it over to Sweeney Todd for processing.
Taken collectively, the Goulston St. writing plus apron and the Lusk letter plus kidney, both relating to Eddowes murder suggest that they are the only real evidence from the killer. Possibly arising from the publicity of the Jack the Ripper letters demeaning the seriously minded ego of the real killer. Unfortunatly his message is difficult to decipher.
Being too sceptical, as Nat points out, begins to take on a "knocking" flavour that does not open doors, but closes them. On the other hand it is necessary to frame a possible hypothesis that can flexibly be modified as the evidence accumulates. Regards all DG

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Nats,

it does appear to me that as it is you who have decided that Openshaw, is "confused" as you put it, it is up to you to prove this allegation, not anybody else to have to prove Openshaw was nothing of the kind.

If I must prove something, it is that research findings into comparative pig anatomy might not have been available to him at the time, such that the subtle differences between the pig's kidney and the morphologically similar human kidney might not have registered with him. If this information was not widely available until the mid/late 20th Century, then Openshaw can hardly be blamed.

I would certainly not say he was "confused", anymore than I'd say that Thomson was "confused" when he came up with his (in hindsight) simplistic "plum pudding" model of the atom. One can hardly be criticised today for failing to apply knowledge that will not be known until tomorrow - still less many decades in the future, or years after one's death.

And, again, I am only keeping the possibility open. I'm not saying it wasn't a human kidney, only that I firmly believe that the possibility can't be lightly dismissed. All that can be safely said, at this remove in time, is that it's impossible to prove either way.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;29642]Thanks, Investigator, for that useful summary. Forgive me if I remain open-minded to the possibility that Openshaw may have been confused, as I've yet to see any sources on comparative anatomy that pre-date the second half of the 20th Century. The points of interest given in your summary of that research hang largely upon subtle differences in spatial parameters or angles of very specific renal regions. If these had not been measured and documented until a mere few decades ago, then I see no reason to believe that the significance of such nuances would have been appreciated a hundred years or more previously.

Sam,
While nobody doubting your intelligence and general knowledge,it does appear to me that as it is you who have decided that Openshaw, is "confused" as you put it, it is up to you to prove this allegation, not anybody else to have to prove Openshaw was nothing of the kind.After all we could all go round retrospectively calling various of these qualified medics such as Openshaw and Dr Phillips " confused" or" incompetent" if we chose to, but for anybody to take such allegations seriously, you would need to provide rock solid evidence of their "confusion" or "incompetence",since their qualifications and training was sound.So far you have not provided any evidence whatsoever, only spurious argument of the "it could have been" type-that really is not good enough Sam,-in fact its a bit like a vandal going round trashing things for the sake of it!
Cheers
Norma.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Investigator, for that useful summary. Forgive me if I remain open-minded to the possibility that Openshaw may have been confused, as I've yet to see any sources on comparative anatomy that pre-date the second half of the 20th Century. The points of interest given in your summary of that research hang largely upon subtle differences in spatial parameters or angles of very specific renal regions. If these had not been measured and documented until a mere few decades ago, then I see no reason to believe that the significance of such nuances would have been appreciated a hundred years or more previously.

Thank you, once again, for sharing the information.

[Investigator]

Seems the discussion is becoming a bit bogged down on belief systems so I thought I'd butt in again.
The interest in body part transplants has generated a lot of research as to the possibility of using the pig kidney in humans but for immunological reasons a cross-species transplant is as yet not possible. Functional differences may also preclude such a transfer to humans, like blood pressure and osmotic characteristics of the glomular apparatus. There are distinct morphological differences between the pig and human and a number of functional and biochemical differences. The use of pigs for modern anatomical training is a cheaper alternative to human cadavers.
Two references from PubMed relating to comparative differences indicate that Openshaw would have had no difficulty in seeing that the portion of kidney was not otherwise human, he didn't need to have an in-depth knowledge of the pig.
His relative youth in the field of anatomy is a distinct advantage since his training would have been on the scientific model of medicine rather than the myths of phlogistic theory using blood letting and bat piss. We shouldn't underestimate the capability of yesteryears medical people, even todays light microscope has only marginally improved since 1887. In fact the use of modern technology has eroded some basic understanding of practical concepts.
(1) Comparative Anatomy of the Pig. Professor M. Michael Swindle, Department of Comparative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 2002 available at www.sinclairresearch.com
(2) Proportional analysis of pig kidney arterial segments: differences from the human kidney. Pereira-Sampaio M,et al. Department of Morphology, Fluminense Federal University, Niteroi, Brazil.J Endourol. 2007 Jul;21(7):784-8. PMID: 17705772 (PubMed)
(3). The pig kidney as an endourologic model: anatomic contribution.
Sampaio FJ, Pereira-Sampaio MA, Favorito LA. Urogenital Research Unit, Biomedical Center, State University of Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
J Endourol. 1998 Feb;12(1):45-50

Brief conclusions quoted are:
“Also different from humans, in pigs, we found only angles smaller than 90 degrees between the caudal (lower) infundibulum and the renal pelvis. Except for the length, the means of the other morphometric measurements of the pig kidney are smaller than those of humans.” (probably an adaptation because the pig is an all-fours animal while primates tend to be upright)

“The distribution and size of the renal-arterial segments in pigs are not similar to those of the human kidneys.”

As for the alcohol question. Ethyl alcohol (95%) was legislatively controlled and permits were, and still are required to ration its use. Cadavers and mortuary work used methylated spirit that contained methyl alcohol or in those days wood naphtha - a distillate of wood containing pyridines and noxious substances to prevent drinking. It also has a rotten fish smell.
The licencing of ethyl alcohol restricts its use to distillatories, "Methylators" liquor manufacture, apothecary, medical, hospital, laboratory and perfumaries and such like. That is not to say that there were no opportunities for pilfering or private distillation. Absolute ethyl alcohol is 99.8% and requires special treatment to remove the water so is not usually needed outside of laboratories. Guess the devil is in the detail.
Hope this is may help to clear up a few points, Regards G.D.

[Victor]

And do you not think, Sam, that the reason the good surgeon opted for a pig's kidney was that human kidney's were very rare to find?
A dead pig doesn't require a police investigation or an inquest.
This kidney did.

No AP, the reason they opted for a pig's kidney is BECAUSE they are so morphologically similar! They'd never have tried it if they weren't so similar.

In other words, they look the same, they feel the same, this transplant was to see if they worked the same.

Slice a kidney, mount it on a slide, put it under microscope.
One minute?

Did you never do this at school? If you wanted to get an image good enough to tell the difference between a human and porcine kidney you'd have to be pretty accurate in getting that very thin slice, and not just wildly slashing round with a knife without a care for collateral damage.

[Sam Flynn]

And do you not think, Sam, that the reason the good surgeon opted for a pig's kidney was that human kidney's were very rare to find?

Human kidneys aren't rare in hospitals, AP, where this French medic presumably carried out the procedure. Cross-species transplants (between animals and humans) had been carried out as early as the 1900s, and the concept had been mooted before then. In fact, such experiments as these on the transplantation of animal organs predated the first human to human kidney transplants. Whatever their reasons were for doing so, I doubt that it would have been due to a shortage of humans.

[Cap'n Jack]

And do you not think, Sam, that the reason the good surgeon opted for a pig's kidney was that human kidney's were very rare to find?
A dead pig doesn't require a police investigation or an inquest.
This kidney did.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, your efforts to make us believe that medics of the time period would not have been able to make a distinction between a human and porcine kidney - and that they didn't have the science available to them until recent times - is somewhat negated by the fact that a French medic transplanted a porcine kidney into a woman in 1906, and she lived for an hour.
He knew it was a porcine kidney.
How did he know that?

Evidently because they knew where they got it from, AP. I can't imagine that they'd have gone ahead with the procedure had the organ arrived in an anonymous cardboard box, with the plumbing trimmed up and all.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam, your efforts to make us believe that medics of the time period would not have been able to make a distinction between a human and porcine kidney - and that they didn't have the science available to them until recent times - is somewhat negated by the fact that a French medic transplanted a porcine kidney into a woman in 1906, and she lived for an hour.
He knew it was a porcine kidney.
How did he know that?
I'd say because it came from a pig.
He knew that as well.

[Sam Flynn]

And none of the three examining medics, that's three, Sam, had any doubt about the human origin of the kidney they examined.

I wouldn't necessarily expect them to have done, AP. Morphological similarity, lack of detailed research on comparative biology, etc etc...

[Cap'n Jack]

I think it worth keeping in mind the strange case of the Bear's leg, which took place right in the middle of the police investigation into the Whitechapel Murders in 1888; where a senior police officer from Scotland Yard was sent down to Surrey to investigate the finding of human remains, supposedly linked to the murders.
This officer returned in triumph, with his human remains, linked to the Whitechapel Murders, only to be told by the London pathologist that what he had was in fact the body parts of a brown bear, which had been grilled up by a member of the local gentry and then tossed away.
Openshaw would have done exactly the same thing.
'It's a pig's ear,' he would have said.
But that is not what he said.
And none of the three examining medics, that's three, Sam, had any doubt about the human origin of the kidney they examined.