Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Sam Flynn]

precisely. though what else is he supposed to do when presented with the kidney, and asked for his opinion.

All we have on any sort of authority is that Openshaw thought it to be a human kidney. All the rest - from its "ginniness", the remnant of the renal vasculature, to the supposed sex and age of its owner - derives from press agency reports regurgitated in various papers, or from demonstrably suspect memoirs written years after the event.

though in fairness an experience doctor in this field would see the difference between an adult and immature kidneys.

...how about an eighteen year-old male's? Don't forget that, as far as the kidneys and most other organs are concerned, "maturity" might span several decades.

Besides, it's worth repeating, we are not talking about "A" kidney - we are talking about a "PIECE" of kidney that had been soaked in absolute alcohol for some time before it was examined.

[joelhall]

All we have on any sort of authority is that Openshaw thought it to be a human kidney. All the rest - from its "ginniness", the remnant of the renal vasculature, to the supposed sex and age of its owner - derives from press agency reports regurgitated in various papers, or from demonstrably suspect memoirs written years after the event....how about an eighteen year-old male's? Don't forget that, as far as the kidneys and most other organs are concerned, "maturity" might span several decades.

Besides, it's worth repeating, we are not talking about "A" kidney - we are talking about a "PIECE" of kidney that had been soaked in absolute alcohol for some time before it was examined.

i thought it was the renal artery which was attached?

anyway, the rough age could be determined simply through the signs of 'wear' it had seen. size is not the only change, with aging. theres the sizes and structural changes to the internal structures, amount of remaining kidney tissues, hardness of the blood vessels, number of filtering units, etc. in short, the doctor wouldnt just look at one sign, but many together, to give a higher probability. i doubt any doctor will diagnose anything on one symptom. he certainly wouldnt give legal evidence based on it.

remember this isnt something you or i could grasp immediately reading books, these things require experience. the medical profession does not require learning, remembering, then work, it requires constant learning over the whole career, examination of case studies, and of the cases brought forward. the chances of a mistake, whilst not completely absent, are far lower than they appear to the layman.

these signals will also give the expert information on the lifestyle, health, diet, etc of the person... in short it is not pure guess work by glancing at the organ on a tray.

these characteristics and changes are as obvious and confusing to us as in many other fields. which is why they require expert opinion. for example im sure our new member the anthropologist, could tell us that there are skeletons of various animals that the layman, despite his book collection could not tell apart. only an experienced expert can. (i believe lions and tigers display this). indeed i doubt id have a hope of giving someones probable age at death by examining the skeleton.

medical disciplines are not as straight forward as reading books. it requires a high level of learning both in the classroom and on the job. i have no reason to doubt that he was correct to a good degree of accuracy.

however as stated im not a qualified doctor (if i ever do ), and not an expert. i dont have as in depth a knowledge of renal physiology as a doctor.

[Sam Flynn]

i thought it was the renal artery which was attached?

Openshaw had about as much to go on as one might have in buying a steak from the butchers and trying to sex the beast from which it came.

You'd better read this: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

[joelhall]

Openshaw had about as much to go on as one might have in buying a steak from the butchers and trying to sex the beast from which it came.

You'd better read this: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

perhaps. though again to an expert more things are apparent than to the layman. fact is i dont believe it was eddowes kidney in the first place.

[Sam Flynn]

perhaps. though again to an expert more things are apparent than to the layman.

You might be interested to read, in that article I referred to, the opinions of Nick Warren, a qualified surgeon, on this matter.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam, you are being very overbearing here.
Openshaw had the science to determine right or left kidney, without question; he also had the science to tell him that the kidney came from a person who took too much alcohol, that without question.
The Victorian doctors believed they had found a reliable indicator from kidney secretions in determining the sexual origins of that kidney.
You are arguing with them, not me.
You are out of date by over one hundred years, and you are introducing modern research into a subject that died with the victims.
I believe that Openshaw was making an opinion based on the science of his time, and I believe that his opinion was right.
To credit the most eminent clinical pathologist of his age as not being able to distinguish the difference between a pig and human kidney, does you no credit, Sam, and if the old boy could stand up from his grave I'm sure he would punch you for that.

[joelhall]

You might be interested to read, in that article I referred to, the opinions of Nick Warren, a qualified surgeon, on this matter.

ok. thanks for the link

joel

[Cap'n Jack]

I wouldn't let Nick Warren anywhere near my brandy let alone me kidlies.

[joelhall]

Sam, you are being very overbearing here.
Openshaw had the science to determine right or left kidney, without question; he also had the science to tell him that the kidney came from a person who took too much alcohol, that without question.
The Victorian doctors believed they had found a reliable indicator from kidney secretions in determining the sexual origins of that kidney.
You are arguing with them, not me.
You are out of date by over one hundred years, and you are introducing modern research into a subject that died with the victims.
I believe that Openshaw was making an opinion based on the science of his time, and I believe that his opinion was right.
To credit the most eminent clinical pathologist of his age as not being able to distinguish the difference between a pig and human kidney, does you no credit, Sam, and if the old boy could stand up from his grave I'm sure he would punch you for that.

to be fair to both of you...

sam - i would take the opinion of a pathologist over the opinion of a surgeon, as he is more qualified and experience to make pathological calls, whereas a surgeon would not have this.

jack - sam i feel is on stronger ground here. the science may have changed but human body structure has been the same for quite a few millenia.

joel

[Cap'n Jack]

Joel, Sam is always on stronger ground than me, they have hills in Wales, and all I have is a flat earth theory.

[joelhall]

Joel, Sam is always on stronger ground than me, they have hills in Wales, and all I have is a flat earth theory.

they also have close-harmony singing not all good in wales haha

[Sam Flynn]

To credit the most eminent clinical pathologist of his age as not being able to distinguish the difference between a pig and human kidney, does you no credit.

I'm not doing anything of the sort, AP. Apart from the fact that Openshaw himself may well have blushed at being called "the most eminent clinical pathologist of his age", my quibble is with Major Smith, the Central News Agency and - possibly - the sorcerer's apprentice himself, FS Reed. All we have with any reasonable certainty from Openshaw is that the kidney - sorry, HALF kidney, trimmed - was likely to have been human.

We don't know the extent of Openshaw's scrutiny of the organ - he may just have looked at it in its box, or dangled it from a pair of tweezers, for all we know. It's worth bearing in mind the possibility that the story of Catherine Eddowes' nephrectomy was so well-publicised that his judgment may have been swayed in this matter. I certainly wouldn't put it past the press to have "managed expectations" - the public's, if not Openshaw's - in this regard.

One thing we can say for certain is that in 1888, with all his training, he would have been completely unable to sex the organ - sorry, HALF organ, trimmed - without getting into a TARDIS and speeding forward into the 20th Century to analyse its sex-chromosomes. Even then, he would have been unable to ascertain its age with any great certainty, and might even have found to his horror that it belonged to a creature more used to snaffling acorns than quaffing gin.

[joelhall]

One thing we can say for certain is that in 1888, with all his training, he would have been completely unable to sex the organ - sorry, HALF organ, trimmed - without getting into a TARDIS and speeding forward into the 20th Century to analyse its sex-chromosomes. Even then, he would have been unable to ascertain its age with any great certainty, and might even have found to his horror that it belonged to a creature more used to snaffling acorns than quaffing gin.

im still not completely convinced this is the case, as i still doubt hed give a legal-medical opinion if he wasnt more certain than not. im not saying that he knew 100% but it seems unlikely hed take this risk and lead the police up the garden path.

i still think there may be something missing from this puzzle, which lead him to deduce it was female, but as i said already, i do not believe it came from eddowes.

[Sam Flynn]

i still think there may be something missing from this puzzle, which lead him to deduce it was female.

We don't know that Openshaw did deduce as much, other than from sources of dubious authenticity or integrity. I say again, there was nothing that could have identified a piece of kidney as female in 1888. There still isn't today - at least not anatomically, or even within the grasp of a light microscope.

Just in case, I've just read the entire relevant chapter in my copy of Gray's Anatomy (36th Edition, 1980; pp. 1,387-1,402) and it has nothing at all to say about anatomical sex differences in the kidney. In fact, all it mentions is the average weight (females approx. 135g, males approx. 150g), which we've been through already.

[joelhall]

We don't know that Openshaw did deduce as much, other than from sources of dubious authenticity or integrity. I say again, there was nothing that could have identified a piece of kidney as female in 1888. There still isn't today - at least not anatomically, or even within the grasp of a light microscope.

Just in case, I've just read the entire relevant chapter in my copy of Gray's Anatomy (36th Edition, 1980; pp. 1,387-1,402) and it has nothing at all to say about anatomical sex differences in the kidney. In fact, all it mentions is the average weight (females approx. 135g, males approx. 150g), which we've been through already.

correct... though my puzzle was why he believed it to be female. youve now answered this for me thanks (yet again) i was of the belief that he stated this first hand live & learn eh?

joel