Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Sam Flynn]

So you want others to believe that he was in charge of the pathology collection but had no appreciable experience or knowledge of pathology

That does not follow from what I said

was fully certified in surgery and anatomy but didn't know jack about either

Neither does that. Plus, he was no more qualified in anatomy than others who undertook the same training - but that did not make him an anatomical specialist. Neither does being the curator of a pathological museum make him a pathologist - which you said he was.

and, despite that professional background and one of the world's largest collections of medical specimens under his direct control, he wouldn't be able to make an informed decision on some basic features of a piece of kidney because he never wrote a paper specifically about kidneys.

No. I'm saying that it's possible that he did not know much about the comparative anatomy of the pig kidney.

You know, I'm still frankly surprised sometimes at the kinds of things you'll try to argue just to back up some conclusion you've already made.

I've not concluded anything. I'm keeping the option that this might have been a pig kidney open, because I see no reason to believe that Openshaw, or any other ordinarily-qualified surgeon of his day, would have definitely known the difference between the two, as it seems not to have been a burning topic of research until the next century. Scientific papers posted in the last decade of the 20th Century would seem to back that up, and those I've found I shared in the spirit of collaboration and openness.

But I guess with that argument already out there as your criteria for whether someone should be taken seriously or not I would have to ignore you until you write a medical paper about kidneys.

I never shall, but I did choose to talk on the anatomy and physiology of the kidney when I was interviewed to study medicine at Cambridge. I didn't get in, by the way, but it had nothing to do with that part of the interview I can assure you. I've always been fascinated by the kidney - it's my third favourite organ.

[Dan Norder]

So you want others to believe that he was in charge of the pathology collection but had no appreciable experience or knowledge of pathology, was fully certified in surgery and anatomy but didn't know jack about either, and, despite that professional background and one of the world's largest collections of medical specimens under his direct control, he wouldn't be able to make an informed decision on some basic features of a piece of kidney because he never wrote a paper specifically about kidneys.

You know, I'm still frankly surprised sometimes at the kinds of things you'll try to argue just to back up some conclusion you've already made. But I guess with that argument already out there as your criteria for whether someone should be taken seriously or not I would have to ignore you until you write a medical paper about kidneys.

[Sam Flynn]

I also note that the quote you pulled from that website seems almost calculated to leave out all mention of his qualifications in surgery and anatomy.

...missed this. I can assure you it wasn't calculated at all, Dan. I posted that information yesterday in a separate post (this one). Besides, I haven't found any qualifications in anatomy as such. That he was an assistant demonstrator in anatomy in 1888 is one thing, but that doesn't mean that he'd had any more specialist training at that point than his standard medical qualifications had bestowed upon him.

In fact, he'd received a pretty ordinary grade in that training. Durham University's MB BCh listings in the Times of 13th December 1883 show that he had merely "passed" - i.e. he had fallen short of even 2nd Class honours. This is not to disparage him, only to point out that he was a good, honest surgeon. There is no evidence that he was another Vesalius.

[Sam Flynn]

I hope it's just that you only skimmed one paragraph and copied out some text quickly that you thought would support you and not that you read the rest and decided not to mention it.

I read the whole thing, Dan, precised the biographical part (without significant elision) and posted a link so that others could read the original for themselves.

My earlier points remain unchanged by the information I found, viz.:

* Openshaw was a 32 year old surgeon in 1888, and thus at the beginning of his career. There is no evidence that he was as renowned in 1888 as one might believe, and which he might later have become;

* He later published mainly on orthopaedics, not anatomy and certainly not on kidneys;

* Whilst I have no doubts that he was a good surgeon and (briefly) a pathological museum curator, he was not, according to any evidence I've found, a pathologist or anatomist by specialism;

* He had been an anatomical demonstrator, but I don't know which aspect(s) of anatomy he majored in demonstrating;

* As a good surgeon, he would have been well aware of the gross anatomy of the kidney - however, it is uncertain whether he was aware to a sufficient degree in the comparative anatomy of pigs' kidneys;

* Some illustrations of the fine structure of human kidneys in anatomical texts were based on pigs' kidneys - without caveats or disclaimers as to cross-species variance in morphology - until the early decades of the 20th Century;

* He cannot be presumed to have been a particular "authority" on the kidney, and there is no evidence of this.

[Dan Norder]

Sam,

Doctors can be young and well respected, as Openshaw certainly was. He didn't get to be in charge of the London Hospital's pathological collection, where he would have studied and cataloged all the various medical specimens held by that body, if he hadn't already demonstrated his skills. In fact, holding the job that he had would make him one of the better choices to examine organs to determine their origin, as he dealt with such specimens on a daily basis. I also note that the quote you pulled from that website seems almost calculated to leave out all mention of his qualifications in surgery and anatomy before the Ripper murders happened, which are listed right there on that same page. I hope it's just that you only skimmed one paragraph and copied out some text quickly that you thought would support you and not that you read the rest and decided not to mention it.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,
THINK......

...I do, Nats. It's one of my failings.

[Natalie Severn]

...AP is so crafty he'd probably swap it for a bungee while I wasn't looking. In case he does, I'd better warn him that repeatedly ricocheting off the ceiling isn't a particularly fun thing to do. Besides, God forbid that AP came to any harm - I'd be utterly distraught.

Sam,
THINK......

[Sam Flynn]

Take care Sam,AP is a crafty so and so and methinks he is simply giving you sufficient rope to hang yourself!

...AP is so crafty he'd probably swap it for a bungee while I wasn't looking. In case he does, I'd better warn him that repeatedly ricocheting off the ceiling isn't a particularly fun thing to do. Besides, God forbid that AP came to any harm - I'd be utterly distraught.

[Natalie Severn]

Take care Sam,AP is a crafty so and so and methinks he is simply giving you sufficient rope to hang yourself!

[Sam Flynn]

Sam
Openshaw had a long practise of dealing with unfortunates who got their throats cut a long time before 1888

I knew that, AP. Well, at least I knew he "did the rounds" in between graduating MB BCh, as most doctors or surgeons would do before going on to specialise. The fact that he dealt with the case of a prostitute with a cut throat in 1884 is interesting, but it doesn't contradict anything I've said. As I'm sure you'd agree, assessing such a wound requires very little knowledge of kidney anatomy, and the fact that he attended the victim personally mercifully avoids the vexed question of the specimen's sex or species.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam
Openshaw had a long practise of dealing with unfortunates who got their throats cut a long time before 1888 as this 1884 case demonstrates:

THOMAS HORACE OPENSHAW . I am a surgeon at the London Hospital—I saw the prosecutrix there on the morning of the 22nd; I admitted her—she was suffering from a wound on the left side of the neck—it was about half an inch in the deepest part—no arteries were cut, only some superficial veins—it might have been self inflicted or otherwise—there was nothing in the wound itself that I could tell by; it was an ordinary clean-cut wound inflicted by a knife—she had lost a fairly large quantity of blood, the usual amount amount, about six or eight ounces—she was not unconscious at all—it was not a dangerous wound.

That was some bad back, eh Sam?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes he was. A quite well respected one at that.

I'm sure he was splendid, Dan, but he was neither of those things - at least not in 1888. He was a young surgeon, whose years of respect lay ahead of him. True, he had been an assistant anatomical demonstrator in 1886, but I haven't been able to ascertain which aspect(s) of anatomy he majored in during his relatively short tenure in his assistive role. An excerpt of a biography taken from here, where other goodies may be found:

"Thomas Horrocks Openshaw was born in Bury, Lancashire on 27 March 1856, eldest son of John Lomax Openshaw and Mary Horrocks. He attended Bristol Grammar School and originally began training as an engineer. However, he soon gave this up and entered Durham University to study medicine with practical experience at The London Hospital. He gained the following qualifications MRCS (1882), LSA (1882), MB BS Durh. (1883), MS Durh. (1887) and FRCS (1886). Openshaw was appointed assistant demonstrator of anatomy in 1886 and curator of the medical college's Pathology Museum in 1888. During his time as curator he developed the collection and comprehensively catalogued it. He was appointed assistant surgeon to the London Hospital in 1890, surgeon in 1902 and consulting surgeon in 1922."

I agree that we shouldn't disparage him or his good work, and I don't intend for this to come across as such. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit of a stretch to call him "well-respected" at such a comparatively early stage in his career; that he was not by profession a pathologist; and that he had no particular specialism in the kidney. That's not to say he didn't know his calyx from his medulla - he clearly would have - but that's not the same as saying he was hoax-proof.

[Cap'n Jack]

Nicely, and politely said, Dan.

[Dan Norder]

Openshaw was not a pathologist, AP.

Yes he was. A quite well respected one at that.

As I found out, and posted, yesterday (see above), much of his interest seems to have been focused on orthopædics.

He had many interests and focused on orthopaedics later in life, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was the doctor in charge of the pathological collection at the London Hospital and already a well accomplished anatomist and surgeon at the time of the Whitechapel murders.

Whether you want to believe someone at that time could tell the difference between a human and pig kidney or not, let's not disparage the reputation of very well respected medical doctor who donated his time at the London Hospital helping the poor and who improved the lives of countless thousands of people who otherwise couldn't afford it.

[Sam Flynn]

As we have seen, Victor, the obvious visual differences between a human and porcine kidney would have been obvious to a pathologist as soon as he clapped his eye on the beast.

Openshaw was not a pathologist, AP. As I found out, and posted, yesterday (see above), much of his interest seems to have been focused on orthopædics. That's not to say that he wouldn't have learned the structure of the kidney - as indeed I once did - but that does not mean that Openshaw was au fait with comparative mammalian anatomy; and neither does it make him a "kidney expert", as one might be forgiven for believing.

and then he would have turned to his microscope...

...if he'd turned to, or recalled, his copy of Gray's Anatomy that might not have helped much, since some of the detailed illustrations of the fine structure of the kidney within it were based on samples taken from pigs. This was true even in editions of the early 20th Century, where such drawings appeared in Gray's with due credit to the pig involved, but with no disclaimer to the effect of "Note: This is rather different in humans".