Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Cap'n Jack]

So Sam me old mucker, when Openshaw sat down for his liver and onions of a Friday night you are honestly telling me that he would not have known whether he was eating pig, lamb or human liver for dinner?
You have been informed, Sam, that even in the hand any pathologist would be able to make the distinction between a pig and human kidney.
You have also been informed that once under the microscope the distinction would have been evident immediately.
But you remain uninformed.

[Natalie Severn]

So Sam me old mucker, when Openshaw sat down for his liver and onions of a Friday night you are honestly telling me that he would not have known whether he was eating pig, lamb or human liver for dinner?
You have been informed, Sam, that even in the hand any pathologist would be able to make the distinction between a pig and human kidney.
You have also been informed that once under the microscope the distinction would have been evident immediately.
But you remain uninformed.

and profoundly hogwashed!

[Sam Flynn]

You have been informed, Sam, that even in the hand any pathologist would be able to make the distinction between a pig and human kidney.
You have also been informed that once under the microscope the distinction would have been evident immediately.
But you remain uninformed.

Not quite, AP. I remain informed by a scientific research paper, published in 1996, that states quite clearly that:

"the pig possesses a kidney that most closely resembles the structural and functional features of the human kidney. In particular, kidneys from both are classified as multipapillary or multilobar with an identical papillary and calyceal organization. The adult organs have similar weight, size, and number of nephrons."

...that same paper goes on to cite other sources which found that research on the structure of the pig's renal artery was somewhat lacking, these findings being reported by two studies which were published in 1994 and 1979 respectively.

Whether one wishes to subtract 1888 from 1996, 1994, or 1979 is largely academic, because it's evident that there's quite a large gap, in knowledge as well as time, between Openshaw's day and the more detailed studies that emerged some decades later, long after he'd been sucked into that great dialysis machine in the sky.

[Sam Flynn]

and profoundly hogwashed!

Not in the least, Nats. I'm comforted by the fact that, far from being the last word in kidney anatomy, Openshaw was rather "raw" in 1888, being 32 years old. After getting the MRCS/LSA qualifications in 1882, he went on to complete his medical degree at Durham University in the Winter of 1883. After briefly getting some experience as a physician, he eventually returned to Durham around 1886, obtaining a Master of Surgery qualification from that University in 1887. As we know, he went on to become the curator of the London Hospital Pathological Museum shortly afterwards, and it was in this capacity that he was consulted about the "Lusk" kidney.

A clever chap, therefore, but not a nephrological whizz-kid by any means. Indeed, the bulk of his published legacy was almost exclusively in the area of orthopædics. So, if you needed advice on subjects such as the re-seating of dislocated joints, how to treat curvature of the spine, or the best way to use a specific kind of splint (all subjects on which he published), Openshaw was your man.

[Victor]

Simon
I would say that Openshaw would have reached his conclusions in about five minutes flat.
It was that easy.

I'd like to meet the person who can slice a thin sliver of kidney (pig or human I'm not bothered) and prepare a slide and then mount it and confirm its identity "in about five minutes flat"

[Cap'n Jack]

As we have seen, Victor, the obvious visual differences between a human and porcine kidney would have been obvious to a pathologist as soon as he clapped his eye on the beast.
If you look at the various reactions of the members of the WVC when Lusk opened up his 'box of toys' you'll note that one of 'em remarked:
'Well, it's not a sheep kidney.'
I dont imagine that Openshaw's intial reaction would have been any different; and then he would have turned to his microscope.

Let's see then.
Murder a woman, rip her open, locate the left kidney, surgically remove it.
How long, Victor?
Five minutes, or less?
Slice a kidney, mount it on a slide, put it under microscope.
One minute?

[Sam Flynn]

As we have seen, Victor, the obvious visual differences between a human and porcine kidney would have been obvious to a pathologist as soon as he clapped his eye on the beast.

Openshaw was not a pathologist, AP. As I found out, and posted, yesterday (see above), much of his interest seems to have been focused on orthopædics. That's not to say that he wouldn't have learned the structure of the kidney - as indeed I once did - but that does not mean that Openshaw was au fait with comparative mammalian anatomy; and neither does it make him a "kidney expert", as one might be forgiven for believing.

and then he would have turned to his microscope...

...if he'd turned to, or recalled, his copy of Gray's Anatomy that might not have helped much, since some of the detailed illustrations of the fine structure of the kidney within it were based on samples taken from pigs. This was true even in editions of the early 20th Century, where such drawings appeared in Gray's with due credit to the pig involved, but with no disclaimer to the effect of "Note: This is rather different in humans".

[Dan Norder]

Openshaw was not a pathologist, AP.

Yes he was. A quite well respected one at that.

As I found out, and posted, yesterday (see above), much of his interest seems to have been focused on orthopædics.

He had many interests and focused on orthopaedics later in life, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was the doctor in charge of the pathological collection at the London Hospital and already a well accomplished anatomist and surgeon at the time of the Whitechapel murders.

Whether you want to believe someone at that time could tell the difference between a human and pig kidney or not, let's not disparage the reputation of very well respected medical doctor who donated his time at the London Hospital helping the poor and who improved the lives of countless thousands of people who otherwise couldn't afford it.

[Cap'n Jack]

Nicely, and politely said, Dan.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes he was. A quite well respected one at that.

I'm sure he was splendid, Dan, but he was neither of those things - at least not in 1888. He was a young surgeon, whose years of respect lay ahead of him. True, he had been an assistant anatomical demonstrator in 1886, but I haven't been able to ascertain which aspect(s) of anatomy he majored in during his relatively short tenure in his assistive role. An excerpt of a biography taken from here, where other goodies may be found:

"Thomas Horrocks Openshaw was born in Bury, Lancashire on 27 March 1856, eldest son of John Lomax Openshaw and Mary Horrocks. He attended Bristol Grammar School and originally began training as an engineer. However, he soon gave this up and entered Durham University to study medicine with practical experience at The London Hospital. He gained the following qualifications MRCS (1882), LSA (1882), MB BS Durh. (1883), MS Durh. (1887) and FRCS (1886). Openshaw was appointed assistant demonstrator of anatomy in 1886 and curator of the medical college's Pathology Museum in 1888. During his time as curator he developed the collection and comprehensively catalogued it. He was appointed assistant surgeon to the London Hospital in 1890, surgeon in 1902 and consulting surgeon in 1922."

I agree that we shouldn't disparage him or his good work, and I don't intend for this to come across as such. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit of a stretch to call him "well-respected" at such a comparatively early stage in his career; that he was not by profession a pathologist; and that he had no particular specialism in the kidney. That's not to say he didn't know his calyx from his medulla - he clearly would have - but that's not the same as saying he was hoax-proof.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam
Openshaw had a long practise of dealing with unfortunates who got their throats cut a long time before 1888 as this 1884 case demonstrates:

THOMAS HORACE OPENSHAW . I am a surgeon at the London Hospital—I saw the prosecutrix there on the morning of the 22nd; I admitted her—she was suffering from a wound on the left side of the neck—it was about half an inch in the deepest part—no arteries were cut, only some superficial veins—it might have been self inflicted or otherwise—there was nothing in the wound itself that I could tell by; it was an ordinary clean-cut wound inflicted by a knife—she had lost a fairly large quantity of blood, the usual amount amount, about six or eight ounces—she was not unconscious at all—it was not a dangerous wound.

That was some bad back, eh Sam?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam
Openshaw had a long practise of dealing with unfortunates who got their throats cut a long time before 1888

I knew that, AP. Well, at least I knew he "did the rounds" in between graduating MB BCh, as most doctors or surgeons would do before going on to specialise. The fact that he dealt with the case of a prostitute with a cut throat in 1884 is interesting, but it doesn't contradict anything I've said. As I'm sure you'd agree, assessing such a wound requires very little knowledge of kidney anatomy, and the fact that he attended the victim personally mercifully avoids the vexed question of the specimen's sex or species.

[Natalie Severn]

Take care Sam,AP is a crafty so and so and methinks he is simply giving you sufficient rope to hang yourself!

[Sam Flynn]

Take care Sam,AP is a crafty so and so and methinks he is simply giving you sufficient rope to hang yourself!

...AP is so crafty he'd probably swap it for a bungee while I wasn't looking. In case he does, I'd better warn him that repeatedly ricocheting off the ceiling isn't a particularly fun thing to do. Besides, God forbid that AP came to any harm - I'd be utterly distraught.

[Natalie Severn]

...AP is so crafty he'd probably swap it for a bungee while I wasn't looking. In case he does, I'd better warn him that repeatedly ricocheting off the ceiling isn't a particularly fun thing to do. Besides, God forbid that AP came to any harm - I'd be utterly distraught.

Sam,
THINK......