Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Cap'n Jack]

Appreciated, Dan, but you'll find that all of the medics who examined the section of the kidney did reach one conclusive agreement, that the section of human kidney was very recent.
As was pointed out in 1888 by the medics, a body would not have been released to a London Hospital for dissection until after a Coroner's Inquest, and only then in a case of manslaughter or murder.
I think you know that I follow this kind of thing.

[Sam Flynn]

So according to you, Sam, the police did not want to publicise the fact that it was a pig's kidney because it was in fact a human kidney?

No - they might have genuinely believed that it was a piece (I reiterate, a PIECE) of human kidney. Doubtless the accompanying letter, and the fact that Eddowes had had her kidney removed, helped point their opinion in that direction. Ditto Openshaw. However, there's a possibility that he, and they, were mistaken in that belief.

Whether they were mistaken or not, the fact remains that neither the techniques nor the knowledge existed at the time to prove it was female, still less the person - or pig - that it might have been taken from. Openshaw could no more have done that than run an MRI scan on it, cloned it, injected its mitochondria into a rat embryo, or attached it to the back of a Von Neumann probe and fired it off to the outer reaches of the Solar System.

Is this "lack of science and technology" thing finally sinking in, AP?

[Dan Norder]

Be careful of lumping people and positions together, AP.

I'm not trying to argue that it wasn't a human kidney, or even that it might not have been. I only brought up the human kidney part to point out that that was what the police didn't want to get out, not your idea that the doctors claimed kidney really came from Eddowes.

Yes, Openshaw would have known more about human kidneys than Sam or I do. Openshaw said it came from a human. But that's all he said... he did not say that it was from a female, not that it had Bright's disease, not that it was of a certain age, etc.

So if you, AP, want to say that we should respect Openshaw's opinion, great -- but he and other doctors thought it was not taken from Eddowes and that it was probably a prank by a medical student. So if you respect Openshaw's opinion then you'll have to change your position, AP, because there's no medical evidence to support what you are trying to claim here.

[Cap'n Jack]

So according to you, Sam, the police did not want to publicise the fact that it was a pig's kidney because it was in fact a human kidney?
I would suggest a stiff brandy, Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not speculating with you, Sam, I'm disagreeing with you... that a fine pathologist like Openshaw would have known more about sections of kidney than you or Dan is absolutely bloody obvious.
Your arguments in this regard are becoming tedious.

Neither the science nor the techniques by which one could have sexed or karyotyped this portion kidney was available at the time. Period. Full stop. End of story. Openshaw could no more have said with certainty that it was part of a woman's kidney, still less Eddowes', than he could have analysed its DNA.

And - yes - since the pig's kidney is morphologically very similar to a human's, there is a legitimate reason to doubt whether, for all his knowledge, he might have been hoodwinked. If he had never studied the comparative anatomy of the pig, to the level where he understood the subtle difference between pork and human offal, then we have even more reason to question his opinion. I wish to God that Lusk and co. had taken the darned thing to the nearest vet, then we might have known for certain. As it is, I can't rule out the possibility.

If I have to repeat these points of fact to the point of tedium, it's because of your tedious refusal to accept them.

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm not speculating with you, Sam, I'm disagreeing with you... that a fine pathologist like Openshaw would have known more about sections of kidney than you or Dan is absolutely bloody obvious.
Your arguments in this regard are becoming tedious.
They start off with 'well it could have been a pig's kidney', then when it is established that the kidney is without a doubt a human kidney, you argue left and right kidney, when any decent pathologist will tell you that in a second; then it comes to male and female kidney and you claim that there is no distinction, when there has been a medical distinction between the male and female kidney since biblical times.
I'd trust you with a hill walk in Wales, Sam, but little else.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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"

[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.

[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!