Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Supe]

Michael,

For what it is worth, I did a little research today at our local historical society while waiting for my car to be fixed. I began examining the mortuary records for my town from 1875-1890. The town was then just a village of a steady 2,000 or so souls and except for one year when 11 children died of diphtheria in one neighborhood in five weeks, annual deatrhs averaged 50 with little variation.

Anyway, Bright's disease was the primary cause of death flisted on 6.2% of the certificates. The range over the 15 years I got through was a low of 3% and a high of nearly 14%. Of interest as well is that the number of deaths annually attrributed to Bright's rose over the period. Whether this was due to better diagnostic techniques I cannot say. Nor does it include, as mentioned earlier, instances of people dying from other causes with undiagnosed Bright's.

The sample was small, 786, but it would suggest that in a large metropolis like London in 1888 that several people dying with Bright's (and remember, if Kate did manifest Bright's symptoms there were undiagnosed) at roughly the same time was not a longshot by any means.

As for Tony Williams's exercise in ancestor character assassination, it was Polly Nichols, not Kate Eddowes, he alleged was given an abortion by Sir John. You should buy the back issue of Ripper Notes (Oct. 2005 - #24) from Dan and read the article by Jennifer Pegg ("Uncle Jack under the Microscope") in which she thoroughly gaffes and then guts Tony Williams and his embarrassingly bad book. As it was, the Nichols entry was a patent forgery.

Don.

.

We don't have the original doctor's notes from the examination of the kidney, so we don't know that. Major Smith later claimed a doctor who examined it said it had Bright's Disease, but Smith also claimed, for example, that the artery attached had been cut in a specific way to match the artery part left in the body, which we know was not true because the kidney's artery had actually been trimmed up.

We also know that Smith said a great many things that turned out to be false.

I realize its an unsubstantiated observation Dan, but with retractions and revisions of opinions, it can be difficult to know who meant what they said...if they said it.

In looking into Nephritis a bit, as Chris said, it is usually a catalyst condition for other diseases, including some affecting kidneys, the heart, and some affecting fertility issues, ... I wonder in Kates case what that Brights Disease might have indicated. I dont think I saw anything that linked the condition with alchohol abuse....as the alledged "ginny kidney" line did.

Is Tony Williams allegation that his "Uncle Jack", John Williams may have aborted a child for Catherine true....does anyone know?

Best regards.

You know,.. we've only touched on the note so far, and some good analysis was proffered, but script and style and grammatical accuracy aside....is it relevant whom the author chose to send this message too...with respect to The Whitechapel Murderer being suspected a local...and what of the missing sign-off?

Is there a familiarity implied perhaps? Like Lusk wouldnt need "clues", or the introduction to the killer. The note starts up like a simple note to George,...and is fairly benign overtly,...albeit with some underlying menace.

Any thoughts? Was this a hoax "joke", hoax "scare", or a note from one local man to another.

Cheers all.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sorry to hear that, Sam.
My suggestion is a fine brandy, mixed equally with Stones ginger wine, no ice, and a spit of elderflower cordial, squeeze a lime into it, and you'll feel lickety split in five minutes.
I wish you well, Sam... always.

[Sam Flynn]

Lightweight.

I'm actually not feeling very well, AP, and haven't the energy for a ding-dong with you. Perhaps when I feel better, eh?

Without any doubt whatsoever the female kidney tends to be smaller than the male

Yes, but there's huge variation. Read the research you quoted yesterday. No, better still - brush up on some basic stats and then go back and read it.

Yours recuperatively.

[Cap'n Jack]

Lightweight.
Without any doubt whatsoever the female kidney tends to be smaller than the male, the only exception being that a castrated male's kidney may mimic the smaller female kidney.
Perhaps, Sam, in your world, Eddowes was a castrated male in drag?

[Sam Flynn]

You tread on fearful sacred ground here, Sam.

I'm assuredly not.

I've had enough of this anyway.

[Cap'n Jack]

'The Curator of the Pathological Museum of the London Hospital generally agrees with Dr. Sedgwick Saunders' opinion of the affair. The article - which was the anterior of the left kidney - and had been, according to him in spirit for ten days. The Curator believes it to be a human organ, but he says that until it has undergone a more minute examination it is almost impossible to say whether it has been extracted from the body of a male or female.'

That is from the 'Echo' of 20th October 1888, Sam, and it does appear to indicate that Openshaw could reliably distinguish a male kidney from a female, if allowed the time to do so.

I should remind you, Sam, that in 1966, the eminent pathologist, Dr Francis Camps threw his considerable weight behind Openshaw's opinion.
You tread on fearful sacred ground here, Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

If you'll remember Chapman's case, Sam, you'll note that Phillips mentioned the large and anemic left kidney. Such anemia in the left kidney would have indicated that the kidney most likely came from a postmenopausal woman rather than a woman of child bearing age, or a man.

"Most likely" isn't definitive, though, AP. Besides, as far as we know, Eddowes' kidney showed no signs of anaemia (I don't readily recall that Chapman's had, either, but that's another matter). According to Major Henry "Reliable" Smith, Eddowes might have suffered from Bright's Disease, which was no respector of gender.

[Cap'n Jack]

If you'll remember Chapman's case, Sam, you'll note that Phillips mentioned the large and anemic left kidney.
Such anemia in the left kidney would have indicated that the kidney most likely came from a postmenopausal woman rather than a woman of child bearing age, or a man.
I'm quoting from a 1887 reference; and I'd suggest that Openshaw used this as his yardstick.

[Sam Flynn]

I have just been reading a case from 1882 in which two young children burnt to death in London, and unrecognisable corpses, it was found that congestion in the kidneys was able to determine the gender, successfully.

Kidney "congestion" is sometimes a sign of illness - remember Eddowes' right kidney, which was "pale, bloodless, with slight congestion at the base of the pyramids"? I'd question whether the presence, in one or other child's medical history, of an illness that caused congestion of the kidneys may have been what allowed the doctor to tell them apart, rather than the congestion itself. I wouldn't have thought that congestion of the kidneys looked any different in a boy than in a girl, anymore than one could "sex" a person by inspecting their boils or verrucas.

That said, I would be genuinely interested in reading that case, though, AP. Is it available online? If so, I'd be grateful for a link.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam, 'tis something I'm still looking at in some detail, but as I said I've agreed your point, but not your principle.
In 1882 Openshaw was quite able to distinguish a kidney that had been taken from a baby that had never taken breath; and one that had indeed lived a few days. This was determined by some form of 'marbling' in the specimen only detectable by using a Mikerscrope.
Such a determination may have have also been used in isolating gender from individual specimens, in that I have just been reading a case from 1882 in which two young children burnt to death in London, and unrecognisable corpses, it was found that congestion in the kidneys was able to determine the gender, successfully.
The male kidney and female kidney reacted in different ways to trauma.

[Sam Flynn]

the original point I was trying to put across was in response to the firm statements made here previously that Openshaw would not have been capable of distinguishing a gender for a particular kidney under his examination.

AP - he couldn't have done so with any precision. From what little we know Openshaw may only examined it visually or microscopically, which wouldn't have helped in distinguishing the sex of the "donor". Even if he had a fresh, whole kidney and weighed it the margin for error is considerable, and without the additional datum of knowing the owner's body mass index, practically useless. The research you kindly found and posted shows this perfectly well.

I would also imagine that he would have sought details on the victim, such as weight and height, and then used this to qualify his claim.

...after popping into his Tardis to read the recent research you posted, as well as educating himself as to precisely what this new-fangled "BMI" stuff was all about, presumably.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam & Christine
I hear what you are saying, and agree... but the original point I was trying to put across was in response to the firm statements made here previously that Openshaw would not have been capable of distinguishing a gender for a particular kidney under his examination.
I think that statement is a very broad assumption; and it is safer to agree that Openshaw might or might not have been able to make this distinction as to gender. Given that he was for many long years the 'Pathological Curator' of the hospital I would imagine that his knowledge on this subject was vast, up to date but probably unknown to the man in the street.
I believe it to be entirely possible that Openshaw was chancing his arm a bit, but he did have the knowledge and experience to make such a calculated declaration... and it is surely this combination which makes a good doctor a brilliant doctor.
I would also imagine that he would have sought details on the victim, such as weight and height, and then used this to qualify his claim.

[Christine]

Hi Ben, and others.

I agree that Jack shows intelligence. There are different kinds of intelligence though, and different parts of the brain are involved. Sexually compulsive serial killers often have abnormal or damaged limbic systems. Of course this is still very speculative stuff, but in certain contexts, he could have seemed quite normal and capable. On the other hand, whatever damaged his limbic system could have also harmed the rest of his brain, and if you interacted with a person like that, sooner or later he'd say or do something odd.

And of course it's hard to say whether outsmarting the police shows he was extremely intelligent and capable, as most of us would realize that along the way that just not murdering women was a good solution to that problem also!