Was Kidney removal mentioned in the Press?

[I1ariusz]

There's a large library of Press Reports in casebook from about that time, after Catherine Eddowes was murder, and I'm wondering if there was any mentioning of the organ removal - specifically kindey?I have always assumed that the sender of Lusk letter must have known that either by himself or from press reports. Anybody knows, went through those reports, and can confirm? Ofc apart from press reports there could be other sources from which the sender could've know about the kidney. If it wasn't mentioned anywhere then we should have an additional proof that Lusk letter could've been a work of the killer. My guess is that we know that kidney WAS mentioned in reports only that I have not seen the specific article. Can anyone help with that?

[FrankO]

There's a large library of Press Reports in casebook from about that time, after Catherine Eddowes was murder, and I'm wondering if there was any mentioning of the organ removal - specifically kindey?I have always assumed that the sender of Lusk letter must have known that either by himself or from press reports. Anybody knows, went through those reports, and can confirm? Ofc apart from press reports there could be other sources from which the sender could've know about the kidney. If it wasn't mentioned anywhere then we should have an additional proof that Lusk letter could've been a work of the killer. My guess is that we know that kidney WAS mentioned in reports only that I have not seen the specific article. Can anyone help with that?

Hi I1ariusz,

Yes, it was at least in these few newspapers.

The Daily Telegraph of 5 October:

"Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found."

The East London Observer of 6 October:

"The left kidney, the witness went on to explain, had been removed in a particular manner. "Do you," said the City Solicitor, Mr. Crawford, "draw any conclusions from that?" and the answer evidently received the deepest attention. "I think that somebody who knew the position of the kidney and how to cut it out must have done it." It had been manifest for some little time that the City Solicitor in his cross examination of the witness had been leading up to what he knew would prove sensational, and the profoundest interest was displayed by all in court as the fact of the anatomical knowledge of the assassin became established by repeated answers of the surgical expert; and when at length in answer to explicit inquiry he stated that precisely the same organ - the uterus with its ligaments - as had been found missing in the case of Annie Chapman was also missing here, together with the left kidney, the sensation in court was profound."

The Morning Advertiser of 12 October:

"To the lay mind the medical opinion is in the teeth of the medical evidence, for, notwithstanding the unpleasantness of having to give prominence to facts that one would wish to pass over in silence, we must remind the public that parts of the woman's body were absent, and that with regard to the missing kidney, Dr. Gordon Brown himself said that this particular mutilation "must have been done by someone who knew its position and how to take it out," and that its extraction showed "great knowledge of its position."

Cheers,
Frank

[I1ariusz]

Thanks Frank! So there's an answer.

[FrankO]

Thanks Frank! So there's an answer.

You're welcome!