Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Natalie Severn]

All we have on any sort of authority is that Openshaw thought it to be a human kidney. All the rest - from its "ginniness", the remnant of the renal vasculature, to the supposed sex and age of its owner - derives from press agency reports regurgitated in various papers, or from demonstrably suspect memoirs written years after the event....how about an eighteen year-old male's? Don't forget that, as far as the kidneys and most other organs are concerned, "maturity" might span several decades.

Besides, it's worth repeating, we are not talking about "A" kidney - we are talking about a "PIECE" of kidney that had been soaked in absolute alcohol for some time before it was examined.

Henry Gawen Sutton was a physician and lecturer in pathological anatomy at London hospital.This has a very particular relevance to what Major Smith wrote on the subject.......for Sutton was indeed THE leading authority on Brights disease and with no less a chap as William Withey Gull,[the William Gull of Ripper fame] they both published a revolutionary paper "on the pathology of the morbid state commonly called Brights" Disease with contracted kidney[arterio-capillery fibrosis].Indeed, Gull and Sutton gave their names to "Gull -Sutton syndrome" ie -arteriosclerotic fibrosis of the kidney.
Paul Begg reminds readers therefore in his book "Jack the Ripper: The Facts",that Major Smith may well have been talking" with the backing of Henry Gawen Sutton" and that one must therefore give credit to what Smith says and accept the possibility that the lusk kidney had been extracted from Catherine Eddowes.

[Dan Norder]

Paul Begg reminds readers therefore in his book "Jack the Ripper: The Facts",that Major Smith may well have been talking" with the backing of Henry Gawen Sutton" and that one must therefore give credit to what Smith says and accept the possibility that the lusk kidney had been extracted from Catherine Eddowes.

In other words, Paul Begg made a highly speculative hypothesis about what could have happened without anything to back it up and expects it to be given serious consideration just because he came up with it. This is a particularly odd idea to believe when important parts of what Smith said about the kidney can be shown to be false by consulting far more reliable sources. In general Smith's comments are quite unreliable.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry, Nats, but I don't see that this follows at all. For one thing, as mentioned, there was no definitive test available at the time that could have identified the organ as having come from a woman, still less from Catherine Eddowes.

Secondly, we believe - from contemporary sources - that Dr Brown, FS Reed and Thomas Openshaw saw the offending article. Where was Sutton in all this?

Thirdly, where were any of them in confirming that Catherine Eddowes suffered from Bright's Disease, and where is the contemporary evidence that the Lusk kidney-portion showed evidence of the same syndrome? The best the contemporary press give us, for what it's worth, is that the kidney was "ginny" - and we know that deduction to be dubious.

The rest comes from Major "Gurgling-Plughole" Smith in 1910. It's worth remembering that Smith's reference to Sutton has the good doctor commenting only on the state of preservation of the specimen, rather than bringing his considerable expertise to bear on the diagnosis of Bright's Disease. One would have thought he might have done so - being as he was an acknowledged expert in that syndrome, as opposed to being a world authority on the finer points of pickled offal.

All this smacks of the usual "impressive detail" that is sometimes wheeled out to give the tang of credibility to urban legends, I'm sorry. And we have more than our fair share of those in the Ripper case.

Lest any doubt exist about the reliability of Smith's memoir, it's worth bearing in mind that not once does George Lusk get a mention therein. Neither for that matter do FS Reed and - remarkably! - Thomas Horrocks Openshaw. As if that weren't enough, let's see precisely what "Gurgling-Plughole" has to say for himself about what happened immediately the package was received:

"some days after the murder what purported to be that kidney was posted to the office of the Central News, together with a short note of rather a jocular character unfit for publication. Both kidney and note the manager at once forwarded to me."

Some points to note:

1) We know that the kidney was sent to George Lusk, not the Central News;

2) The content of the letter was far from jocular; in fact, it was one of the most sinister missives of them all. Either Smith never saw the "From Hell" missive (probably), or he had forgotten the gist of what it said (how could one forget that?). Either way, he appears to have cottoned on to the myth of "Joker Jack", much as the "Maybrick" diarists seem to have done, and erroneously attributed this jocularity to the Lusk Letter;

3) The notion that the letter was unfit for publication is nonsensical - most newspapers printed the text of the Lusk Letter practically in its entirety, including the Star, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and the Times.

4) Finally, the manager of the Central News did not send Smith the kidney/letter combo - least of all "at once" - simply because the manager of the CN never received it in the first place.

All those bits I posted in bold, taken directly from Gurgling-Plughole's memoirs, are either delusional, or outright lies on his part.

[Cap'n Jack]

By this, Sam: "Gurgling-Plughole", are you not doing that:
'All this smacks of the usual "impressive detail" that is sometimes wheeled out to give the tang of credibility to urban legends, I'm sorry. And we have more than our fair share of those in the Ripper case.'

'Gurgling Plughole'... where you going with that?

Total disrespect to you.

[Natalie Severn]

Maybe Sam, it is Paul Begg to whom you should direct your quarrel.He quotes reliable periodicals such as the British Medical Journal,The Lancet as well as Medico -Chirurgical Transactions regarding the reknowned expertise of Sutton and explains his reasons in quite a bit of depth----one regarding the City Police Surgeon ,Gordon Brown,whom Acting City Chief Commissioner of Police ,Henry Smith, called upon to examine the corpse of Catherine Eddowes and conduct a post mortem.Paul Begg states , as being of crucial significance here,the fact that this City Police Surgeon, Gordon Brown asked Dr Sutton as well "as another senior surgeon of the London Hospital" to meet with him,in consultation.The consensus being that the kidney had been put in spirits within a few hours of being removed from the body.Thus "dispelling of all hoaxes in connection with it" etc etc.
As I say your dispute should really be addressed to the author ,Paul Begg ,rather than myself,although I myself am perfectly happy to accept the surgeons opinions and therefore Paul"s reasoning over the matter in question.
Best
Norma

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe Sam, it is Paul Begg to whom you should direct your quarrel.

My only quarrel - if that it be - is with the ghost of Gurgling-Plughole Smith, and those of a sufficiently humourless disposition to say they disrespect me for coining that rather catchy nickname, Nats.

Everything I wrote above about Smith's account of himself, Sutton and the kidney still stands - because it's da facts.

[Natalie Severn]

In other words, Paul Begg made a highly speculative hypothesis about what could have happened without anything to back it up and expects it to be given serious consideration just because he came up with it. This is a particularly odd idea to believe when important parts of what Smith said about the kidney can be shown to be false by consulting far more reliable sources. In general Smith's comments are quite unreliable.

Dan,
Henry Smith has been given a bad name largely because of his love of hyperbole.But if you can brace yourself to get past that irritating trait ,he is certainly no more unreliable than Anderson or Machnaghten , and in my own view a lot MORE reliable over certain significant issues,such as whether or not the Ripper's identity was known to the police.
Regarding Paul Begg, isnt it best that you yourself read precisely what he states in his book and quote the actual bits you disagree with?The piece is quite lengthy and well backed up.[pages214-215 +footnotes].I am beginning to feel uncomfortable about these responses from yourself and Sam when neither of you seem to be referring to the same source I am quoting.
You do seem to have acquired a somewhat jaundiced view of Paul Begg's work . I find Paul to have many many excellent things to say in his book, which for me remains ,despite my own disagreements with some of his findings,one of the most outstanding contributions in the entire field.
Best
Norma

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam, you do not know the facts.
And it belittles this subject to pretend that you do.

[joelhall]

Sam, you do not know the facts.
And it belittles this subject to pretend that you do.

what part do you refer to cos it all seems pretty accurate from where im standing? its all on this site in black and... well, grey

joel

[Natalie Severn]

My only quarrel - if that it be - is with the ghost of Gurgling-Plughole Smith, and those of a sufficiently humourless disposition to say they disrespect me for coining that rather catchy nickname, Nats.

Everything I wrote above about Smith's account of himself, Sutton and the kidney still stands - because it's da facts.

Hi Sam,if you read the post above you will see why I disagree with your response.If you disagree,why not quote the specific words written that you disagree with?Stick to that rather than glossing over it jokingly-which isnt really helpful.Smith,in my view,is every bit as reliable as other police chroniclers of the period ,and a lot more honest than most when it comes to dispelling the nonsense that was being spouted by other police chiefs about them pretending they knew the identity of Jack the Ripper. I often wonder if this is why such an attempt has been made to trash him in recent years----by those with a vested interest in a Druitt or a Kosminski or whoever!

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, you do not know the facts.
And it belittles this subject to pretend that you do.

I consider myself suitably chastened, AP - although I find it perplexing that one such as yourself, who rails against partakers of the "Yankee Dollar", should take sides with a man who took the King's Shilling to produce such a heap of blatantly self-aggrandizing bollocks in 1910.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,if you read the post above you will see why I disagree with your response.If you disagree,why not quote the specific words written that you disagree with?Stick to that rather than glossing over it jokingly-which isnt really helpful.

I can't help being "jocular" myself, Nats - it's in my nature. If humility and truthfulness weren't foremost in Smith's mind when he wrote his memoirs, I don't see why I should defend him.

[Natalie Severn]

I can't help being "jocular" myself, Nats - it's in my nature. If humility and truthfulness weren't foremost in Smith's mind when he wrote his memoirs, I don't see why I should defend him.

OK Sam,I see where you are coming from.However I do think that because Smith talked about the bloody plughole in Dorset Street,all those with a vested interest in a particular suspect jumped on the band wagan to discredit every word he ever uttered.They were probably" all liars and errant knaves"-so best take Hamlet"s advice and believe none of them-----or better take what "sounds likely" and leave the rest!
Night
Nats

[Sam Flynn]

OK Sam,I see where you are coming from.However I do think that because Smith talked about the bloody plughole in Dorset Street,all those with a vested interest in a particular suspect jumped on the band wagan to discredit every word he ever uttered.

Well, there is that stuff about the manager of Central News receiving the kidney and jocular letter, taking it at once to Maj Smith; the content of the letter not being fit for publication, when all the papers at the time saw fit to do so; the mention of Sutton, but not of Reed or Openshaw; not even poor George Lusk seems to have been on Smith's radar, when he (as we all know) was the real recipient of the package in the first place.

Talk about bare-faced effrontery! I can only imagine that Smith dined out rather well on the back of his Munchausenine escapades, and gurgled a few complementaries down his own plughole in the process, no doubt.

G'night, Nats, AP, all...

[joelhall]

in fairness, memoirs, particularly of those who held positions in authority overseeing many events, changes and political decisions at any level, often contain errors, which although striking in one context are but minimal to the facts as a whole work.

joel