Letters to Police

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

And if he wasn't where does that leave the issue?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Gut, I know you haven't. Your posts are usually quite sensible. But there's books and endless posts from others who have. I'm not as convinced as Stewart that Smith was talking out of his bum though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

I for one have certainly not said that:

that the Lusk kidney was Eddowes

.

What I have repeated ad nauseum is that you can't say that it was never said that the Kidney was female or "Ginny". By all means attack the reports but at least acknowledge that there is a different version than you contend for.

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day JB

So we are, are we not, back to the same question have, and will, come up against in this case forever and a day. Which account is to be believed?

Why should one paper be more or less accepted than the other? ie the Star, The Post, The evening News.

Hi Gut. It's not the papers that were in error in this case, it was their source.

Now if individuals wish to ignore all that I have shown and accept dubious, conflicting, press reports and fanciful memoir accounts written over twenty years later, so be it. That is up to them. I suggest that a study of the interpretation of historical data might be useful. It's fine to quote press reports. Totally believing in them is another matter.

Hi Stewart, this is pretty much what I was saying. I'm amazed anyone can look at the same evidence you and I do and be able to say with full confidence that the Lusk kidney was Eddowes or that it wasn't Eddowes. Only the now impossible DNA test could conclude that once and for all. What is beyond doubt is that the press reports stating it was a female 'ginny' kidney were blatant lies.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
__________________

[pinkmoon]

I agree with Stewart Evans that the Lusk kidney was most likely a sinister hoax. Unfortunately, it has become such an integral part of Ripper folklore that many people are emotionally attached to the idea that it was genuine and cannot let it go.

In my opinion, this applies to several other aspects of the case as well. When I first became interested in it around 1988, much of the attraction was that the Ripper seemed like a Satanic figure. He was frequently depicted as a criminal mastermind who escaped from the murder scenes like magic, left cryptic messages behind on walls, wrote taunting letters to the police and even indulged in cannibalism. We now that the reality was almost certainly a lot more mundane.

I am grateful to researchers like Mr Evans for bringing us closer to the truth, but I must admit there are times when I miss the myth - and I suspect I am not alone.

Hi Andrew,I think that is why the royal ripper is such a popular theory for a lot of people because last face it that is a cracking yarn to say the least.

[AndrewL]

I agree with Stewart Evans that the Lusk kidney was most likely a sinister hoax. Unfortunately, it has become such an integral part of Ripper folklore that many people are emotionally attached to the idea that it was genuine and cannot let it go.

In my opinion, this applies to several other aspects of the case as well. When I first became interested in it around 1988, much of the attraction was that the Ripper seemed like a Satanic figure. He was frequently depicted as a criminal mastermind who escaped from the murder scenes like magic, left cryptic messages behind on walls, wrote taunting letters to the police and even indulged in cannibalism. We now that the reality was almost certainly a lot more mundane.

I am grateful to researchers like Mr Evans for bringing us closer to the truth, but I must admit there are times when I miss the myth - and I suspect I am not alone.

[pinkmoon]

My final assessment of the Lusk episode appeared at the end of chapter six of my 2001 book, Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell. I see no reason to change my conclusion as it appeared there.

'Thus the mysterious episode of the 'Lusk letter and kidney' was consigned to the pages of history and there it remains unresolved, as do many of the mysteries of this case. For some the 'From hell' letter accompanied by a section of human kidney plus the views of Henry Smith of the City Police indicate the killer himself sent it. For others the opinions of Dr Brown, the police, and the belief of George Lusk himself tend to tilt the balance in favour of a macabre practical joke.'

Hi Stewart,is it possible that Mr lusk had a very good idea who the prankster was who sent the kidney?could this explain why he was reluctant to go to the police with it?

[GUT]

G'Day Stewart

'Thus the mysterious episode of the 'Lusk letter and kidney' was consigned to the pages of history and there it remains unresolved, as do many of the mysteries of this case. For some the 'From hell' letter accompanied by a section of human kidney plus the views of Henry Smith of the City Police indicate the killer himself sent it. For others the opinions of Dr Brown, the police, and the belief of George Lusk himself tend to tilt the balance in favour of a macabre practical joke.'

There we are in total agreement.

[Stewart P Evans]

My Assessment

My final assessment of the Lusk episode appeared at the end of chapter six of my 2001 book, Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell. I see no reason to change my conclusion as it appeared there.

'Thus the mysterious episode of the 'Lusk letter and kidney' was consigned to the pages of history and there it remains unresolved, as do many of the mysteries of this case. For some the 'From hell' letter accompanied by a section of human kidney plus the views of Henry Smith of the City Police indicate the killer himself sent it. For others the opinions of Dr Brown, the police, and the belief of George Lusk himself tend to tilt the balance in favour of a macabre practical joke.'

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that one point can be made about this correspondence and specimen.....although the sample cannot be conclusively attributed to Kate Eddowes...(it was a sample, not a complete specimen),...that the possibility it was from her killer cannot be excluded.

As I mentioned, the Police were actively looking at Medical Students as a possible source for the skills sets seen in the first 2 Canonical murders at that time, and as Stewart pointed out, a possible occupation that would put someone in contact with such an organ sample were Medical Students, ...so I think it would be unwise to eliminate this a possible genuine article without further evidence to assess.

Its also possible that the real killer sent a section of someone elses kidney.

[GUT]

G'Day

Five possible reasons for the paper to publish a recantation:

1. Openshaw didn't say what he was alleged to have said by Smith and Reed.

2. Openshaw [or Reed] had been "dragged over the coals" for releasing information the authorities wanted repressed.

3. Openshaw on consideration decided he had gone too far with his original statements.

4. He realized that one day he might be called upon in Court to defend his position and that some of his statements may be difficult to persuade a jury as to accuracy.

5. He was worried about his professional reputation.

And of course if by 20th he had decided he wanted to distance himself from his original position [if it was his original position] then his report of 27th won't contain that information.

[GUT]

G'Day Stewart

But I can think of at least 5 reasons the paper may have reported that Openshaw recanted his original position.

My point is attack the newspapers or Reed or Smith all you want.

But don't say there is no evidence that he said from a 45 year old Female and Ginny, because there are more accounts that he did than that he didn't.

Major Smith's 1910 remarks from his error-strewn account of the murders need not detain us and should be dismissed as unfounded.

Why? Even if one accepts that there are errors, why I repeat does that prove that it is entirely wrong?

Until one can put Openshaw, Reed, Smith and the reporters in the witness box and cross-examine them we 125 years later have no idea who is telling the truth.

[Stewart P Evans]

Response

The response was as I expected. This argument was made many, many, years ago and I thought we had seen the last of it.

As Phil Sugden stated in his book, 'Interviewed the same day for the Star, though, Openshaw himself repudiated most of what had been published: 'Dr Openshaw told a Star reporter today that after having examined the piece of kidney under the microscope he was of opinion that it was half of a left human kidney. He couldn't say, however, whether it was that of a woman, nor how long ago it had been removed from the body, as it had been preserved in spirits.'

Suffice to say, in support of the contention that Openshaw made no mention of a 'ginny kidney' is the report of Inspector McWilliam, dated October 27th 1888, summarizing the Eddowes evidence, in which he merely states, 'He [Lusk] accordingly took it to Mr. Reed, 56 Mile End Road, & subsequently to Dr. Openshaw of the London Hospital, both of whom expressed the opinion that it was a portion of the kidney of a human being.'

Chief Inspector Swanson wrote his report on 6th November 1888 and stated in it, '...submitted it for examination eventually to Dr. Openshaw curator of London Hospital Museum who pronounced it to be a human kidney. The kidney was at once handed over to the City Police, and the result of the combined medical opinion they have taken upon it, is, that it is the kidney of a human adult, not charged with a fluid, etc., ...'

Major Smith's 1910 remarks from his error-strewn account of the murders need not detain us and should be dismissed as unfounded. So -

(1) There is no evidence to show that piece of kidney could be 'sexed', but merely that it was human.

(2) There is no evidence whatsoever produced (nor any method known) that could show the age of the donor. I also seem to recall, several years ago, a highly qualified medical opinion on these boards that alcohol had no visible detrimental affect on the kidney.

(3) The renal artery argument proposed by Smith was actually dismissed by Dr. Gordon Brown himself, who stated that the artery had been 'trimmed off' the piece of kidney, ergo no correspondence could be shown.

(4) Many years ago efforts were made to try and trace any involvement of a 'Mr. Sutton', as claimed by Smith, and none could be found. Also the contemporary police evidence disposes of Smith's contention anyway.

Now if individuals wish to ignore all that I have shown and accept dubious, conflicting, press reports and fanciful memoir accounts written over twenty years later, so be it. That is up to them. I suggest that a study of the interpretation of historical data might be useful. It's fine to quote press reports. Totally believing in them is another matter.

[GUT]

G'Day JB

So we are, are we not, back to the same question have, and will, come up against in this case forever and a day. Which account is to be believed?

Why should one paper be more or less accepted than the other? ie the Star, The Post, The evening News.

[John Bennett]

From the Ripper Wiki entry (which I wrote):

The initial reports on Dr. Openshaw's findings were highly misleading. According to a press interview with Vigilance Committee member Joseph Aarons:

On his return Mr. Reed said that Dr. Openshaw, at the Pathological Museum, stated that the kidney belonged to a female, that it was part of the left kidney, and that the woman had been in the habit of drinking. He should think that the person had died about the same time the Mitre-square murder was committed. (Evening News, 19th October 1888)


The doctor examined it, and pronounced it to be a portion of a human kidney - a "ginny" kidney, that is to say, one that had belonged to a person who had drunk heavily. He was further of opinion that it was the organ of a woman of about 45 years of age, and that it had been taken from the body within the last three weeks. It will be within public recollection that the left kidney was missing from the woman Eddowes, who was murdered and mutilated in Mitre-square. (The Times, 19th October 1888)

However, interviewed in the press the following day, Dr. Openshaw refuted nearly all the claims attributed to him:

Dr. Openshaw told a Star reporter to-day that after having examined the piece of kidney under the microscope he was of opinion that it was half of a left human kidney. He couldn't say, however, whether it was that of a woman, nor how long ago it had been removed from the body, as it had been preserved in spirits.(The Star, 19th October 1888).

JB