Letters to Police

[GUT]

G'Day Stewart

Eastern Post and City Chronicle of 20 October

Dr Openshaw was reported to have pronounced the kidney a "ginny kidney" - that is, one coming from someone who was a heavy drinker - as well as being from a woman approximately 45 years old.

Police Commissioner Major Sir Henry Smith.

I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the Profession, and to send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney. The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease; the kidney sent me was in an exactly similar state. But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it.

If you want to take issue with the Star or Smith that I may understand but to state categorically that:

No medical man gave the opinion that it was diseased, this is an assumption, and one that has never been proven. Also there is no real evidence that Eddowes' remaining kidney was diseased.

I simply can't as there is contemporaneous evidence that they may have.

[Stewart P Evans]

'The Lusk Kidney'

Dr Openshaw, according to The Star, stated that he was of the 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. It is believed that the 'revolting parcel' is not from the murderer but is merely a medical student's practical joke.'

Inspector James McWilliam, head of the City Police detectives, stated that Dr. Reed, of Mile End Road, and Dr. Openshaw, both 'expressed the opinion that it was a portion of the kidney of a human being.' He further stated, 'The kidney has been examined by Dr. Gordon-Brown who is of opinion that it is human.' McWilliam, in summary, stated, 'It might turn out after all, to be the act of a Medical Student who would have no difficulty in obtaining the organ in question.'

Chief Inspector Swanson also noted, '...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, as it would have been in the case of a body handed over for purposes of dissection to an hospital, but rather as it would be in a case where it was taken from the body not so destined. In other words similar kidneys might & could be obtained from any dead person upon whom a post mortem had been made from any cause by students or dissecting room porter.'

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was interviewed regarding his opinion on the section of kidney, and he stated, 'So far as I can form an opinion, I do not see any substantial reason why this portion of kidney should not be the portion of the one taken from the murdered woman. I cannot say that it is the left kidney. It must have been cut previously to its being immersed in the spirit which exercised a hardening process. It certainly had not been in spirit for more than a week. As has been stated, there is no portion of the renal artery adhering to it, it having been trimmed up, so, consequently, there could be no correspondence established between the portion of the body from which it was cut. As it exhibits no trace of decomposition, when we consider the length of time that has elapsed since the commission of the murder, we come to the conclusion that the probability is slight of its being a portion of the murdered woman of Mitre Square.'

Much nonsense has been, and still is, propagated concerning this episode and certain points should be internalized.

(1) The half-kidney was pronounced to be human, but not that it was from a female. It was not even certain that it was a left kidney.

(2) No medical man gave the opinion that it was diseased, this is an assumption, and one that has never been proven. Also there is no real evidence that Eddowes' remaining kidney was diseased.

(3) The official opinion indicates a tendency to the belief that the episode was a hoax and that the section of kidney had been obtained by a medical student from a corpse.

(4) To indicate the state of medical analysis in 1888 we merely have to realize that they could not even distinguish whether blood was human or animal, but merely that it was 'mammalian'.

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

You KNOW who sent the letter?

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Tom

Drs have assured me that specialists would be able to tell male from female, and probably do so in '88, but I accept that some may disagree.

When you say "specialists" I assume you mean modern medical professionals? They may not have a clue about the London medicos of 1888. There was I believe all of two microscopes in the whole city at that time. And it was the most powerful city on earth. Perhaps you're right though. Since I know who sent the letter, I'd love to know if I actually found the Ripper...and to know that I'd need to know if the kidney was Eddowes'. But I'll never know that. However, more details to swing it one way or the other would be most welcome.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

Drs have assured me that specialists would be able to tell male from female, and probably do so in '88, but I accept that some may disagree.

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day again Tom

But as I read it that was exactly what Michael was saying at post 14, that it was disputed that it was from a woman with Kidney disease.

That should be disputed. Because I don't think they could tell a female from a male kidney. Other than saying that, I'll say that not every poster with a lot of posts to their name actually knows what they're talking about.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day again Tom

But as I read it that was exactly what Michael was saying at post 14, that it was disputed that it was from a woman with Kidney disease.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just to be clear I don't say it had to be from Eddowes just the reason given to reject it is spurious.

It was definitely a human left kidney (I believe left is correct). That much isn't debated. I'm always amazed whenever anyone feels totally confident either way (Eddowes or not Eddowes) because it can't be known for sure.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

Just to be clear I don't say it had to be from Eddowes just the reason given to reject it is spurious.

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

My problem was with the bland statement:

Because so many Ripperologists refute the possibility that the organ section could be categorized accurately...from a human female with a form of nephritis.

Compared to what I am told be experienced medicos.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Gut. It would be very inconvenient for a number of Ripperologists if the Lusk letter/kidney were actually from the killer. Or if modern opinion favored that. And not inconvenient just for those with suspects but also for many without, simply because it clashes with their views on what kind of a person the killer was. There are two contemporary sides to the argument: One appearing in a document coming from a high police source which states the medical opinion was that it came from Eddowes. The other side comes from press reports. This is one of those very rare cases where even the most fastidious of Ripperologists choose to side with press reports vs an official source. I remain on the fence because even these sources present only opinions and not absolutes. Only a DNA comparison between the kidney and Eddowes' exhumed remains could prove it beyond a doubt. And that kidney is long gone.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

Hard to figure, it is

Roy

[GUT]

G'Day Michael

And most Doctors say it's highly possible to do so. at least those I've spoken to have and on questions of anatomy I'd rather listen to a doctor than a Ripperologist, I know silly of me.

[Michael W Richards]

G'Day Michael

I've never understood why so many are willingly to out of hand dismiss the Lust Letter.

Because so many Ripperologists refute the possibility that the organ section could be categorized accurately...from a human female with a form of nephritis.

Cheers

[GUT]

On the other hand if Dear Boss and the PostCard weren't from Jacky then it seems that only a conspiracy at the "News" could account for the information therein, otherwise how the accuracy, the writer must have known facts.

As I see it only two choices open to us.