Letters to Police

[Abby Normal]

I have no idea how they arrived at that conclusion in 1888, especially when the kidney was incomplete to start with.

I think Dr. Saunders had the right of it:

"It is a pity some people have not got the courage to say they don't know. You may take it that there is no difference whatever between the male and female kidney. As for those in animals, they are similar, the cortical substance is the same, and the structure only differs in shape. I think it would be quite possible to mistake it for a pig's."

thanks Harry
but whats the context of his statement? did he examine the kidney? did he examine eddowes?

[Fisherman]

thanks Harry
but whats the context of his statement? did he examine the kidney? did he examine eddowes?

T H Openshaw did. And he opined that it was a human kidney from the left side of the body.

[Abby Normal]

T H Openshaw did. And he opined that it was a human kidney from the left side of the body.

thanks fish

[Harry D]

thanks Harry
but whats the context of his statement? did he examine the kidney? did he examine eddowes?

He was asked his opinion of the Lusk kidney by the press. He was present at Eddowes' post-mortem examination and claimed that her right kidney was "perfectly normal" and had no sign of disease.

It was only the medico's opinion that the Lusk kidney was from a human female. They wouldn't have been able to determine that in 1888. You have to question how much their findings were influenced by the murder.

[Abby Normal]

He was asked his opinion of the Lusk kidney by the press. He was present at Eddowes' post-mortem examination and claimed that her right kidney was "perfectly normal" and had no sign of disease.

It was only the medico's opinion that the Lusk kidney was from a human female. They wouldn't have been able to determine that in 1888. You have to question how much their findings were influenced by the murder.

thank Harry.
That's a good point. But I think you also have to take these general type statements from doctors (or anybody for that matter) with a grain of salt.
was their politics involved, rivalries, personal pride or gain? again hes speaking to a reporter-feeling his oats a bit perhaps?

[c.d.]

Hi harry

got it-yes he had some strange encounters. and then there was tall irish guy who was inquiring about Lusks address at the shop.

I agree the crooks thugs and weirdos might have a thing against a vigilance committee, but would that type have access to a human kidney?

Ive never bought the idea that a human kidney could be easy to come by-even by a Medical student.

Hello Abby,

I imagine that if medical students were behind it that they would be smart enough to distance themselves from being identified. So all they had to do was to find some rough drunk and offer him a few drinks and some money to make inquiries.

c.d.

[Harry D]

thank Harry.
That's a good point. But I think you also have to take these general type statements from doctors (or anybody for that matter) with a grain of salt.
was their politics involved, rivalries, personal pride or gain? again hes speaking to a reporter-feeling his oats a bit perhaps?

That's a possibility, Abby. The kidney will forever remain one of the many unknowns in the Ripper case. However, it was beyond the medicos at the time to establish the kidney as human, and Dr. Saunders had a valid point that a pig's kidney could've easily been mistaken for a human one.

[Sam Flynn]

Dr. Saunders had a valid point that a pig's kidney could've easily been mistaken for a human one.

Indeed so. They are rather similar.

[Patrick S]

thank Harry.
That's a good point. But I think you also have to take these general type statements from doctors (or anybody for that matter) with a grain of salt.
was their politics involved, rivalries, personal pride or gain? again hes speaking to a reporter-feeling his oats a bit perhaps?

It seems we're always looking for extraneous reasons why a person associated with some aspect of the murders said or did something that may contradict an opinion or position we hold. Here you opine that a doctor speaking to a reporter, espousing a position that may not support your opinion with respect the kidney is "feeling his oats". Thus, it carries less weight. This isn't a criticism of you. Just an observation of how we in the "Ripperology" game clutch to our beliefs until they're RIPPED from our cold, dead hands.

[Sam Flynn]

It was only the medico's opinion that the Lusk kidney was from a human female. They wouldn't have been able to determine that in 1888.

Not until 1905, in fact, when the significance of the X and Y chromosomes was discovered.

[Abby Normal]

It seems we're always looking for extraneous reasons why a person associated with some aspect of the murders said or did something that may contradict an opinion or position we hold. Here you opine that a doctor speaking to a reporter, espousing a position that may not support your opinion with respect the kidney is "feeling his oats". Thus, it carries less weight. This isn't a criticism of you. Just an observation of how we in the "Ripperology" game clutch to our beliefs until they're RIPPED from our cold, dead hands.

Hi Patrick
The statement of this doctor kinds of reminds me of the kinds of things a lot of "higher ups" said in the case when espousing their own well thought opinions. Like the dr. I think it was bond, who said the ripper displayed no skill whatsoever, not even that of a butcher. Smells of someone trying to distance their profession from having anything to do with the killer. Or dew or Anderson or MM with their self serving locutions. Grain of salt.

Oh and before you all get too carried away with the mistaken for a pigs kidney thing...let's not forget the DOCTOR WHO ACTUALLY EXAMINED THE KIDNEY said it was human. I'll go with him then.

[Fisherman]

Hi Patrick
The statement of this doctor kinds of reminds me of the kinds of things a lot of "higher ups" said in the case when espousing their own well thought opinions. Like the dr. I think it was bond, who said the ripper displayed no skill whatsoever, not even that of a butcher. Smells of someone trying to distance their profession from having anything to do with the killer. Or dew or Anderson or MM with their self serving locutions. Grain of salt.

Oh and before you all get too carried away with the mistaken for a pigs kidney thing...let's not forget the DOCTOR WHO ACTUALLY EXAMINED THE KIDNEY said it was human. I'll go with him then.

That sounds wise to me. This excerpt is from an article named "A kidney from hell? A nephrological view of the Whitechapel murders in 1888"

It was published in Nephrol Dial Transplant Volume 23, issue 10, in October 2008.

The link is

https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/23/10/3343/1850338

and the excerpt goes like this:

"It appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the renal segment sent to George Lusk was human and this could be easily determined by morphological criteria in 1888."

So if we are to go by what the nephrological experts say, it would be easy enough to establish the morphology of the kidney part back in 1888, and thereby establish that it was human. Plus we know that Openshaw made an extensive examination of it, using a microscope.

There is therefore no reason at all to suspect that the kidney was anything but human.

[Abby Normal]

That sounds wise to me. This excerpt is from an article named "A kidney from hell? A nephrological view of the Whitechapel murders in 1888"

It was published in Nephrol Dial Transplant Volume 23, issue 10, in October 2008.

The link is

https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/23/10/3343/1850338

and the excerpt goes like this:

"It appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the renal segment sent to George Lusk was human and this could be easily determined by morphological criteria in 1888."

So if we are to go by what the nephrological experts say, it would be easy enough to establish the morphology of the kidney part back in 1888, and thereby establish that it was human. Plus we know that Openshaw made an extensive examination of it, using a microscope.

There is therefore no reason at all to suspect that the kidney was anything but human.

Thanks fish and bingo.
I think some people here get too caught up in taking the other side of anything deemed somewhat controversial that points to the killer.Regardless of the evidence.

[Fisherman]

Thanks fish and bingo.
I think some people here get too caught up in taking the other side of anything deemed somewhat controversial that points to the killer.Regardless of the evidence.

Nah - they would never, would they...?

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick
The statement of this doctor kinds of reminds me of the kinds of things a lot of "higher ups" said in the case when espousing their own well thought opinions. Like the dr. I think it was bond, who said the ripper displayed no skill whatsoever, not even that of a butcher. Smells of someone trying to distance their profession from having anything to do with the killer. Or dew or Anderson or MM with their self serving locutions. Grain of salt.

Oh and before you all get too carried away with the mistaken for a pigs kidney thing...let's not forget the DOCTOR WHO ACTUALLY EXAMINED THE KIDNEY said it was human. I'll go with him then.

I'm not getting carried away. I don't know if it was a pig's kidney or human kidney. I'll go with human for now, though, based on what was said and by whom contemporarily.

As for the rest of my post......It's just an observation - one for which I can provide many examples - that we tend to infer, assign motives, make assumptions about character, so long as it helps us maintain a grasp on what we want to believe. For instance, I read a post recently that speculated that Robert Paul "big upped" his Lloyd's interview because the interview may have been conducted in Buck's Row as Paul returned home. Thus, he felt compelled to exaggerate his role. All well and good. Perhaps fun to talk about, but completely invented. I'm not complaining about it. In fact, I think it leads to interesting debates. I assume it's the natural course of events when so little read data exists and one must fill in the blanks with - in many cases - imagination.