Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Cap'n Jack]

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.
If you look at the various reactions of the members of the WVC when Lusk opened up his 'box of toys' you'll note that one of 'em remarked:
'Well, it's not a sheep kidney.'
I dont imagine that Openshaw's intial reaction would have been any different; and then he would have turned to his microscope.

Let's see then.
Murder a woman, rip her open, locate the left kidney, surgically remove it.
How long, Victor?
Five minutes, or less?
Slice a kidney, mount it on a slide, put it under microscope.
One minute?

[Victor]

Simon
I would say that Openshaw would have reached his conclusions in about five minutes flat.
It was that easy.

I'd like to meet the person who can slice a thin sliver of kidney (pig or human I'm not bothered) and prepare a slide and then mount it and confirm its identity "in about five minutes flat"

[Sam Flynn]

and profoundly hogwashed!

Not in the least, Nats. I'm comforted by the fact that, far from being the last word in kidney anatomy, Openshaw was rather "raw" in 1888, being 32 years old. After getting the MRCS/LSA qualifications in 1882, he went on to complete his medical degree at Durham University in the Winter of 1883. After briefly getting some experience as a physician, he eventually returned to Durham around 1886, obtaining a Master of Surgery qualification from that University in 1887. As we know, he went on to become the curator of the London Hospital Pathological Museum shortly afterwards, and it was in this capacity that he was consulted about the "Lusk" kidney.

A clever chap, therefore, but not a nephrological whizz-kid by any means. Indeed, the bulk of his published legacy was almost exclusively in the area of orthopædics. So, if you needed advice on subjects such as the re-seating of dislocated joints, how to treat curvature of the spine, or the best way to use a specific kind of splint (all subjects on which he published), Openshaw was your man.

[Sam Flynn]

You have been informed, Sam, that even in the hand any pathologist would be able to make the distinction between a pig and human kidney.
You have also been informed that once under the microscope the distinction would have been evident immediately.
But you remain uninformed.

Not quite, AP. I remain informed by a scientific research paper, published in 1996, that states quite clearly that:

"the pig possesses a kidney that most closely resembles the structural and functional features of the human kidney. In particular, kidneys from both are classified as multipapillary or multilobar with an identical papillary and calyceal organization. The adult organs have similar weight, size, and number of nephrons."

...that same paper goes on to cite other sources which found that research on the structure of the pig's renal artery was somewhat lacking, these findings being reported by two studies which were published in 1994 and 1979 respectively.

Whether one wishes to subtract 1888 from 1996, 1994, or 1979 is largely academic, because it's evident that there's quite a large gap, in knowledge as well as time, between Openshaw's day and the more detailed studies that emerged some decades later, long after he'd been sucked into that great dialysis machine in the sky.

[Natalie Severn]

So Sam me old mucker, when Openshaw sat down for his liver and onions of a Friday night you are honestly telling me that he would not have known whether he was eating pig, lamb or human liver for dinner?
You have been informed, Sam, that even in the hand any pathologist would be able to make the distinction between a pig and human kidney.
You have also been informed that once under the microscope the distinction would have been evident immediately.
But you remain uninformed.

and profoundly hogwashed!

[Cap'n Jack]

So Sam me old mucker, when Openshaw sat down for his liver and onions of a Friday night you are honestly telling me that he would not have known whether he was eating pig, lamb or human liver for dinner?
You have been informed, Sam, that even in the hand any pathologist would be able to make the distinction between a pig and human kidney.
You have also been informed that once under the microscope the distinction would have been evident immediately.
But you remain uninformed.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi AP,

Thanks for that.

I am inclined towards Aarons rather than Swanson [who wrote various piles of hogwash in his reports], but I am certain that lots of people will disagree.

My glass is raised, charged with a large measure of "Old Tennis Shoes".

Kind regards,

Simon

I tend to agree over Swanson.But then he wouldnt be alone-a few others seem to prefer to write a load of hogwash than anything of any substance !

[Sam Flynn]

I would say that Openshaw would have reached his conclusions in about five minutes flat.

Surely it would have taken him longer to trawl his extensive library of research papers on the anatomy of pig organs, to rule out the possibility of being hog-winked, AP? Having said that, I seem to recall reading that detailed research on the comparative morphology of pig and human kidneys was pretty thin on the ground until the middle of the 20th Century. So, whilst we can't say for certain, the possibility remains that his conclusion (singular) that it was human may have been incorrect. Curses!

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Thanks for that.

I am inclined towards Aarons rather than Swanson [who wrote various piles of hogwash in his reports], but I am certain that lots of people will disagree.

My glass is raised, charged with a large measure of "Old Tennis Shoes".

Kind regards,

Simon

[Cap'n Jack]

Simon
I would say that Openshaw would have reached his conclusions in about five minutes flat.
It was that easy.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

My approach to the WM is to believe that everyone [however dubious] was telling the truth. In this way, by sifting different versions of the truth, falsehoods start falling out of the woodwork.

By his own account Mr. Aarons first saw the letter and kidney on the night of [Wednesday] 17th October, by which time they had been in Lusk's possession for twenty-four hours, the letter and parcel allegedly having arrived at about 5.00 pm on [Tuesday] 16th October. George Lusk must have been one truly unperturbed person to sit on them for a day.

[Aarons]: "It was then agreed that we should take the parcel and the letter to the Leman-street Police-station, where we saw Inspector Abberline. Afterwards some of us went to Scotland-yard, where we were told that we had done quite right in putting the matter into Mr. Abberline's hands . . ."

Chief Inspector Swanson agreed—"On [Thursday] 18th October Mr. Lusk brought a parcel which had been addressed to him to Leman Street [police station]".

So when exactly did the following events happen?

[On the night of Wednesday, 17th October] "I [Aarons] advised that, instead of throwing it away, we should see Dr. Wills, of 56, Mile End-road. We did not, however, find him in, but Mr. Reed, his assistant, was. He gave an opinion that it was a portion of a human kidney which had been preserved in spirits of wine; but to make sure, he would go over to the London Hospital, where it could be microscopically examined. On his return Mr. Reed said that Dr. Openshaw, at the Pathological Museum, stated that the kidney belonged to a female, that it was part of the left kidney, and that the woman had been in the habit of drinking. He should think that the person had died about the same time the Mitre-square murder was committed."

Are we to believe that Openshaw's pronouncement on [Eddowes?] kidney was a done deal by the time Lusk and Aarons arrived at Leman Street police station on [Thursday] 18th October?

If so, why did Swanson subsequently conclude that—" . . . similar kidneys might & could be obtained from any dead person upon whom a post mortem had been made from any cause by students or a dissecting room porter." [Swanson's underlining].

It doesn't make sense.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Sam
if you don't mind me saying so, your argument is a pig's ear, rather than a pig's kidney.

I don't mind you saying so at all, AP - except that my argument is nudging towards the silk purse end of the scale. I know that my suggestions have a sound basis in fact, and that's good enough for me. On that basis, I have little choice but to maintain a degree of scepticism on the matter of the organ's origin.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam
if you don't mind me saying so, your argument is a pig's ear, rather than a pig's kidney.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for that, Investigator, very interesting indeed.
I trust Sam has taken note of your worthy comments.

I have indeed, AP, and with thanks. I still maintain that Openshaw might have been "hog-winked", however - not saying that he was, but that I firmly believe that there's a reasonable possibility that he might have been.

Such a hoax would be easily set up - all one needed was a visit to an unwitting butcher, and a bit of judicious knife-work on a penn'orth of offal to "dress" or "trim" it up. As I found out, and wrote on the pre-crash boards, "spirits of wine" was put to different uses by all sorts of trades and callings. It doesn't even necessarily follow that the hoaxer had medical or mortuary connections, therefore.

Put these ingredients together, and you'd be good to go. The only missing piece would be to make a suitable parcel to send it in - not that the material chosen was particularly robust. Perhaps a specimen jar wasn't at hand, although I grant that using one might have clashed with the faux-illiterate tone of the letter. Then again, the letter could have been written in an entirely different "voice" if the hoaxer had such a container readily available.

[Dan Norder]

a senior member of the WVC, who appears to me at great pains to present a fair and reasonable summary of the events surrounding the examination of the kidney

...and yet makes several dramatic claims about what Openshaw allegedly said about the kidney which Openshaw himself personally disputed. Based upon that it's clear that either the senior member of the WVC or the reporter who wrote the account was making things up as he went along.