Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, do you remember 'The Times' story from March 1985 where the handwriting expert Derek Davis pronounced on the Lusk letter?

If not, I'll quote:

'The letter to Mr Lusk showed evidence of a natural slant to the left'.

Thanks, AP. Tis pity, then, that - contrary to your perception - no such left-slanting bias occurs in the 17th September letter. I've drawn some red lines through the "axis" of each of the characters, as you can see below:



I've only done half the letter, because (a) I was getting tired; and (b) the rest of it carries on in the same vein. Whatever, you'll note that the majority of the strokes are right-leaning. Looking at the strokes on their own, in a slightly more eye-friendly shade, confirms this:



...no joy there, I fear. Out of 102 strokes in this sample, I count 25 sloping more-or-less to the left, 26 more-or-less vertical, whilst the majority (a total of 51) slope to the right.

[perrymason]

If this cant be accurately determined by the sciences available at the time, then isnt the answer likely to be one that involves passion....or emotions?

Whats the visceral reaction from Openshaw...supposedly human/female/adult. Was that provable? Apparently not. Does that mean he was wrong, even if so? Nope. What then becomes the "official" line? One that is provable...that a kidney section accompanied a note to Lusk, most likely human. And the duration from when it was last inside a human, based on the preservation methods and its state.

So ....What they could prove, and all that we can...does not eliminate Kate as being the donor, nor the note being from her killer. Its human, the right age from its rightful location, and its trimmed, as the author suggested by his contention he ate some. The author also suggests that Lusk will have other opportunities to "Catch him". Which seems in keeping with a serial killers desire to continue killing until stopped.

Its IMHO the best bet for a real communique from a killer of a Canon victim. And it addresses only one victim, at least from the "Double" Night. For any people who think Stride is a mistake in the Canon, an interesting detail.

Best regards all.

[Cap'n Jack]

Well done, Sam, but would it not be correct to say that the result of your handiwork shows the writing to be of a disguised nature?
Which is why I thought this statement to be of import:

'The letter is in a peculiar sloping backhand writing which its writer sometimes employed'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Procedures

I meant, Stewart, that there would not have been medical students involved unless the body had gone to a hospital for dissection purposes; which is what I said in the first place.
By the time the medical students got their grubby little hands on the body the kidney would have been no longer in the well preserved state it was.
Unless someone around here is speculating that a police surgeon might have nicked it at autopsy?

I fear that you misunderstand the procedures here. The very fact that the piece of kidney was not charged with a preserving fluid indicates that it was not from a body that had been used for dissection instruction.

That fact that it had been placed in spirits of wine does indicate that it was probably from an autopsied body. As was pointed out at the time, such specimens would have been easily available to medical staff ranging from mortuary attendants to medical students. It is also worth noting that during an autopsy the kidneys are sectioned (for examination) and this, too, could be a pointer to its origin.

[Investigator]

Hello folks, just popped in and noticed your debate on differences between a pig and human kidney, thought you may be interested in another opinion. Only the pig kidney could have any possibility of deceiving an experienced anatomist. Both the pig and human kidney is bean shaped, elongated and smooth. In the preserved state (in alcohol) they would have similar loss of colour to a grayish, fawn pink becoming grayish white over time in preservative. A human kidney measures about 11 cm long x 6 cm wide x 3 cm thick at the middle of the concave region (hilux). The pig kidney has a similar length and width but is thinner at the hilux. The pig has 10 – 12 papillae protruding into calyces while humans have 5 to 11 papillae. The plane of the non-vascular structure of the pig kidney, is transverse while that of the human kidney it is longitudinal. It is common that the pig kidney has two renal veins leaving the hilux, in humans, only one.
While Drs Openshaw and Brown may not necessarily be familiar with the pig kidney, they most certainly would be able to recognize any departure from normal human characteristics.
Perhaps another interesting point, using alcohol as a preservative is decidedly "scientific" since domestically there are a number of possible preservatives that could have been more readily available. Absolute alcohol has always attracted "excise duty" since Henry VIII and is not easily picked up without the law breathing down the neck. Would have been simpler to have salted the piece, even alcoholic tissues have a very offensive odour. The use of ethanol to preserve cadavars requires several months soaking before being released to medical students, additionally many corpses would have been injected with colouring agents to show up the vasculature system. Regards to all

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks for that, Investigator, very interesting indeed.
I trust Sam has taken note of your worthy comments.
The contention that the reports on this kidney are nowt but press hype and tripe has always struck me as being slightly out of balance with the true situation. If one examines this press clipping from the 'Evening News' of the 19th October it is obvious that we are dealing with a statement made by 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:

'
MR. AARON'S STATEMENT.

Mr. J. Aarons, the treasurer of the Whitechapel Vigilance Association, made the following statement, last evening: "Mr. Lusk, our chairman, came over to me last (Wednesday) night in a state of considerable excitement. I asked him what was the matter, when he replied, 'I suppose you will laugh at what I am going to tell you, but you must know that I had a little parcel come to me on Tuesday evening, and to my surprise it contains half a kidney and a letter from "Jack the Ripper."' To tell you the truth, I did not believe in it, and I laughed and said I thought that somebody had been trying to frighten him. Mr. Lusk, however, said it was no laughing matter to him. I then suggested that as it was late, we should leave the matter over till the morning, when I and other members of the committee would come round. This morning, at about half-past nine, Mr. Harris, our secretary, Mr. Reeves, Mr. Lawton, and myself went across to see Mr. Lusk, who opened his desk and pulled out a small square box, wrapped in brown paper. Mr. Lusk said, 'Throw it away; I hate the sight of it.' I examined the box and its contents, and being sure that it was not a sheep's kidney, I 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. 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. Our committee will meet again tonight, but Mr. Lusk, our chairman, has naturally been much upset."

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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 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

[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!

[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 !