Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[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]

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.

[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

[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!

[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]

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]

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...

Good point, David, although this might simply have been a matter of seeing a drawing of a human kidney in a library book and noticing the similarity with those on display in any number of butchers' shops throughout London.

[DVV]

So a saucy medical student fond of kidney sauce madère would fit the bill...

[Sam Flynn]

So a saucy medical student fond of kidney sauce madère would fit the bill...

...sans doute!

[Cap'n Jack]

Exactly Sam!
Your proposition is that Openshaw would have pulled a kidney out of a human specimen, fried it, thrown ketchup on it and declared it was the best pig's kidney he ever eaten in his life.
On your bike, Sam, steep rolling hillside, boyos singing in the background, you in lake and one fish out of water.

[Sam Flynn]

Your proposition is that Openshaw would have pulled a kidney out of a human specimen, fried it, thrown ketchup on it and declared it was the best pig's kidney he ever eaten in his life.

I have been accused of calling Openshaw many things, AP, but I think I'm safe in saying that I never once suggested he was a cannibal.

[Investigator]

Hi Sam, You wrote
"One would have to assume that Openshaw had heretofore taken an especial interest in the inner structure of the kidney."
No assumption about it, that was his job. He wasn't a museum janitor and his eventual transition into orthopaedics is irrevelent. I'm not an evangelist trying to change your beliefs Sam, your opinion is a valid expression of your learning in life, wish you well. DG

[Dan Norder]

I should probably stress that believing that Openshaw was capable of identifying whether the kidney came from a human instead of a pig in no way proves that the kidney actually came from Eddowes and was sent by the Ripper.

[Cap'n Jack]

Nicely done, Sam.
It is wise to remember that pig's kidney was a popular dish amongst the East End population of London during the LVP, and as it was served sliced then one would imagine that the majority of Londoners were quite familiar with the porcine kidney slice.
Another consideration that occured to my good self while I was at the Old Bailey last night is that many of the medics of the period did actually have the final word in the question of fresh meat quality when they were called in by either the police or meat inspectors to pronounce on the quality of meat offered for sale in the markets.
It was my understanding - though I had taken a few draughts of fine brandy at the time with a few learned counsel, and as a consequence of tripped over a judge and fallen into a fireplace, that was lit at the time, merely burning my fingers until the brandy hit the flame, but that is another story - that a normal pig, lamb or beef carcass offered for sale would always retain a single kidney, as this was a reliable indicator of the age and condition of the beast being offered for sale.
Therefore I do conclude that the vast majority of the medics of the period would have been extremely familiar with a porcine kidney.

[Investigator]

Absolutely right Dan, there is no way in that day and age to support it having come from Eddowes. It's validity as a human kidney serves only to substantiate the odds against the letter being a hoax. Likewise Jack, the medics at that time were called upon to vet "meat inspectors". Even in the 50's I recall them being the last word as you put it.
I have a copy of an article published in 1881 "Journal of Anatomy & Physiology" about the "granular disease of the kidney" that shows quite clearly there was a high degree of sophistication in the knowledge of histology. Just for interest, If I can get time to work out how I can get a PDF file onto this meassage system I would be happy to make it available.
The purpose of presenting modern research is not to indicate that such information was available at that time but to demonstrate there are clear anatomical differences albeit subtle, that distinguish the pig from human. Of itself, the value of the kidney issue is but one variable among others to verify the provenance of the letter. This, I believe has the same mark as the Goulston St apron - it is used as a signature the killer is using to validate his message. Whether the kidney is actually Eddowes or not, looses relevance if the writing on the wall and the Lusk letter are linked. In this respect both events would be synergistic, 1+1 =3. Regards dg