Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Stewart P Evans]

Flawed

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

There is no evidence, other than what Smith wrote, of any involvement of Dr. Sutton in the examination of the kidney section. That said, the fact that the piece of kidney 'had been put in spirits within a few hours of being removed from the body' does not dispel the idea that it may have been a hoax. Any such reasoning is basically flawed as the kidney could easily have been taken from any body that had been autopsied.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Stewart,
Clearly differences of opinion do exist as to whether Smith can be taken seriously over this,and Paul Begg believes he could be right in what he says, and explains his reasons.But I take your point .... no "evidence" exists .
Best Regards
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

It wasn't his legacy to be tampering with in the first place - it was Lusk's, Openshaw's and the policemen trudging dangerous streets, doing proper work. That Smith took credit for work he had patenly not done is disgraceful....that might be alright for a B-list comedian or actor (although that in itself is questionable), but not for a public servant and high-ranking officer of the law.

Whether you like it or not Henry Smith was Acting Commissioner for the City of London Police at the time of the Jack the Ripper"s murders and became Chief Commissioner of the City Police himself in 1890,so to say Smith was "taking credit" as you put it for the kidney business ,just sounds silly and inappropriate.
To me anything Smith wrote in his entire autobiography totally pales in significance compared with the irresponsible and despicable remarks made by Anderson about the Polish "low class" Jewish Community in 1888,alleging they knew they were harbouring in their midst a grotesque murderer such as Jack the Ripper,and refusing to give him up to gentile justice.Henry Smith at least got his priorities right of that matter by refuting in the strongest terms,the racist and elitist filth Robert Anderson was spouting in his autobiography.
Norma

[timsta]

One dumb hoaxer?

There is no evidence, other than what Smith wrote, of any involvement of Dr. Sutton in the examination of the kidney section. That said, the fact that the piece of kidney 'had been put in spirits within a few hours of being removed from the body' does not dispel the idea that it may have been a hoax. Any such reasoning is basically flawed as the kidney could easily have been taken from any body that had been autopsied.

It seems to me that a strong possibility of the Lusk kidney being the product of a hoax is taken somewhat as an article of faith by most researchers, the reasoning being that a human kidney (if the kidney was indeed human) would be an item readily available to, for example, "doctors, medical students, mortuary attendants", etc.

My issue with this scenario is - and please correct if I'm wrong - that the information that the police were particularly interested in "doctors, medical students, mortuary attendants" etc. had been revealed in the press well before the arrival of the Lusk letter.

That being the case, would it not be a ridiculously rash venture for someone in one of those professions (or similar) to concoct such a hoax? It surely would take only the establishing of some link between the perpetrator and the kidney (perhaps someone could have noticed the absence of said organ, but only gave consideration to the event in hindsight, for example), and the hoaxer, I think, would have a lot of explaining to do.

I realize that the danger inherent wouldn't necessarily deter anyone - Wearside Jack springs to mind - but I do feel that it might make the hoax scenario a little less likely than seems to be widely assumed.

timsta

[Sam Flynn]

Whether you like it or not Henry Smith was Acting Commissioner for the City of London Police at the time of the Jack the Ripper"s murders and became Chief Commissioner of the City Police himself in 1890,so to say Smith was "taking credit" as you put it for the kidney business ,just sounds silly and inappropriate.

But, Nats - he simply DID take credit for things that he didn't do. Smith said that the manager of the Central News agency "at once" brought the kidney to HIM personally; that the "solons of the metropolis enjoyed themselves at the expense of my humble [sic.] self" in connection with the kidney; and that HE personally handed over the kidney to the police surgeon for inspection; that HE, personally, instructed the surgeon to consult with various experts, and to report back to HIM immediately. It's hard to tell where the "me, me, me" bits end and the baloney begins.

[Natalie Severn]

But, Nats - he simply DID take credit for things that he didn't do. Smith said that the manager of the Central News agency "at once" brought the kidney to HIM personally; that the "solons of the metropolis enjoyed themselves at the expense of my humble [sic.] self" in connection with the kidney; and that HE personally handed over the kidney to the police surgeon for inspection; that HE, personally, instructed the surgeon to consult with various experts, and to report back to HIM immediately. It's hard to tell where the "me, me, me" bits end and the baloney begins.

Well Sam,I certainly dont recall this stuff being particularly offensive that you are citing .Anyway what about giving Henry Smith some cedit for standing out against the disgusting anti -semitism of Anderson ?

[Natalie Severn]

It seems to me that a strong possibility of the Lusk kidney being the product of a hoax is taken somewhat as an article of faith by most researchers, the reasoning being that a human kidney (if the kidney was indeed human) would be an item readily available to, for example, "doctors, medical students, mortuary attendants", etc.

My issue with this scenario is - and please correct if I'm wrong - that the information that the police were particularly interested in "doctors, medical students, mortuary attendants" etc. had been revealed in the press well before the arrival of the Lusk letter.

That being the case, would it not be a ridiculously rash venture for someone in one of those professions (or similar) to concoct such a hoax? It surely would take only the establishing of some link between the perpetrator and the kidney (perhaps someone could have noticed the absence of said organ, but only gave consideration to the event in hindsight, for example), and the hoaxer, I think, would have a lot of explaining to do.

I realize that the danger inherent wouldn't necessarily deter anyone - Wearside Jack springs to mind - but I do feel that it might make the hoax scenario a little less likely than seems to be widely assumed.

timsta

its good to see this put into its contemporary context and I agree,unless it was done by one of the three insane medical students referred to in the files,its unlikely for many reasons to have been the work of someone with something by way of a career to lose![strange how many "insane" people there were around Whitechapel in 1888-every second person by the sound of it!

[Sam Flynn]

Well Sam,I certainly dont recall this stuff being particularly offensive that you are citing .

Not only offensive, Nats, but irresponsible and self-serving tosh.

Anyway what about giving Henry Smith some cedit for standing out against the disgusting anti -semitism of Anderson?

Well, that could be interpreted as Smith slagging off his rivals at the Met to make himself look good - but, to be fair, his words in this specific context strike me as sincere. Not that this offers much in the way of compensation for his memoir's numerous other flaws.

[Lord Buckley]

the knif bit certainly shows that this is the work of an educated man pretending to be low class. if it was really the work of a low class person then they would have spelled knife "nife" not "knif"

[Jon Guy]

the knif bit certainly shows that this is the work of an educated man pretending to be low class. if it was really the work of a low class person then they would have spelled knife "nife" not "knif"

Unless it was someone who had seen the written word through his work, for example, a butcher or slaughterman who may have trouble spelling but has seen the word on notices, or in shop windows.

[Cap'n Jack]

Two questions for the assembled throng.
If the kidney sent with the letter to Lusk was not the kidney of Catherine Eddowes, then please explain these two points to me.

1) Accepting the generally held belief that the kidney was sent as some form of prank or hoax then why did Lusk seek 'police protection for some days after'?
Surely Lusk would have only sought, and been given police protection, if both parties felt that the kidney was from a murder victim?

2) If the kidney was not from a murder victim why would Inspector McWilliam have said in a confidential police document, specifically discussing this kidney:
'But it is not desirable that publicity should be given to the Doctor's opinion'.

If it was a hoax or prank, and the doctor had concluded thus, then that was exactly what the police would wish to be publicised.

[Sam Flynn]

If it was a hoax or prank, and the doctor had concluded thus, then that was exactly what the police would wish to be publicised.

Fear that it might just be true? There was precious little they could have done to prove it a certain hoax, as they didn't have the nous. As I've said, the requisite knowledge, and technology, simply was not available at the time, and would not be for some decades into the next century.

[Dan Norder]

1) Accepting the generally held belief that the kidney was sent as some form of prank or hoax then why did Lusk seek 'police protection for some days after'?

Whether he was being hassled by a serial killer or by one or more people trying to frighten him he'd still have reason to want police to watch out for crazies.

If the kidney was not from a murder victim why would Inspector McWilliam have said in a confidential police document, specifically discussing this kidney:
'But it is not desirable that publicity should be given to the Doctor's opinion'.

The actual report says "The kidney has been examined by Dr. Gordon-Brown who is of the opinion that it is human." That's what they didn't want the publicity given to.

When pullings quotes from statements by officials it'd be nice if you kept the context intact and didn't try to make them sound like they say something other than what they clearly say.

[Cap'n Jack]

Dan, Sam, you twins of terror, and with respect.
The Press knew it was a human kidney.
The medics knew it was a human kidney.
The police knew it was a human kidney.
So why should publicity be avoided in saying so?
Unless there was something persuasive to actually link the kidney to a murder victim?
And that could have been as simple as there were no other fresh human kidneys floating around at the time.

[Sam Flynn]

Dan, Sam, you twins of terror, and with respect.
The Press knew it was a human kidney.
The medics knew it was a human kidney.
The police knew it was a human kidney.

For "knew" read "believed". For "kidney" read "piece of kidney".

Believing a piece of kidney to be human is a degree removed from believing it to be female, which in turn is a degree removed to believing it was a piece Eddowes' kidney. And science was several DECADES removed from being able to know it was any of these things with any accuracy.

So why should publicity be avoided in saying so?

Well, it wasn't. The story was all over the newspapers.

Unless there was something persuasive to actually link the kidney to a murder victim?

Unless it was believed that there'd be a panic, no matter what the veracity of the "diagnosis". And I say again, for the squillionth time, the technology and knowledge required to karyotype a piece of kidney, to determine its owner, or even to determine its sex definitively, was NOT AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME.

You can speculate all you like, AP, but constantly picking at this scab in flagrant disregard of the history of science is utterly futile.