Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[perrymason]

Well, I found some modern stats for Nephritis mortalities, which is what Brights Disease is called now, and in 2000 in the United States, 37,251 deaths were attributed to Nephritis, representing 1.5 % of the Total Deaths recorded.

Less common than Death by Influenza and Pneumonia, Diabetes, Heart aand Lung conditions, and slightly more than Septicimia, with 31, 224 attributed Deaths that year.

The source was the CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System. The Census Bureau says that on April 1, 2000, the population of the United States was 281,421,906.

Now the population of London in 1881 was 3,816,483, but Ive yet to find the number of deaths recorded, or causes.

But even these preliminary findings of modern case fatalities indicates it is "uncommon" at 1.5 % of the total deaths. How uncommon in 1888,.... I dont know yet.

Cheers.

[Christine]

Well, it wouldn't just be deaths due to Bright's disease (which is actually now several different diseases, or, if you prefer, a symptom of several different diseases). It would include people who died for any reason who had Bright's disease. And I'm sure it was more common then, as pretty much all infections were more common. If it were truly that uncommon, then the kidney would have been traceable.

But the key point is that even if these medical students, or mortuary workers, or whatever they were, only saw once case a year, they probably didn't set out to find a kidney. They had a kidney, and they decided to use it. So while it is a weird coincidence, if you want to start talking about odds, you have to look at other possible coincidences that could lead to a "good" practical joke, like sending Lusk a heart, or a uterus, or some other strange thing I can't even think of, or even playing a non-Ripper joke on Lusk, or playing some sort of Ripper joke that didn't even involve Lusk.

Personally, I'm torn on the Lusk letter. It has "bad joke" written all over it, but it's so ghastly that I can't imagine anyone remotely normal doing such a thing. Maybe it was Jack who pretended he couldn't spell or write neatly. Of course my attitude may be colored by the fact that nowadays the kidney would be tested and the police would quickly know if it was Eddowes or not, and if it wasn't, the kidney would be traced and the hoaxer would be lucky if being expelled from medical school was the worse thing that happened. I don't think we can conclude much from the scarcity of diseased human kidneys though.

[Ben]

Hi Christine,

Maybe it was Jack who pretended he couldn't spell or write neatly

What about a Jack who really couldn't spell or write neatly?

Regards,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

but wasnt there some indication that the kidney section showed Brights Disease onset..

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.

[Christine]

Hi Ben.

Hi Christine,



What about a Jack who really couldn't spell or write neatly?

Regards,
Ben

Diana's post, #69, a few pages back, summarizes the spelling problems far better than I could. The poor handwriting is also inconsistent. Whoever wrote that letter had lessons in fancy handwriting, and his teacher would have made him write neatly. Of course he could have had a stroke or similar problem, but it all looks suspicious.

I can see an educated Jack sending it off saying "Hee hee, I'll make them think I'm stupid, and crazy enough to eat a woman's kidney when actually I'm smart and completely sane!"

[Ben]

Hi Christine,

I'm decidedly undecided when it comes to the question of Jack being responsible for the letter (or not), but on the author's literacy levels I tend to be swayed by the views of document examiner Thomas J. Mann whose experience led him to believe that a semi-literate author was a better bet than an educated person trying to disguise his hand.

On a tangential note, I believe the killer possessed inate intelligence without being educated.

Best regards,
Ben

[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!

[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.

[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, '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]

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]

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]

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]

'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]

You tread on fearful sacred ground here, Sam.

I'm assuredly not.

I've had enough of this anyway.