Letters to Police

[Patrick S]

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.

Evidence. Ah, yes. Is there evidence that the Lusk kidney was human. As it stands now, I'd say yes (or at least those that examined the kidney at the time felt there was evidence). The consensus at the time was that it was and a believe that such a finding was likely possible in 1888 (as opposed to it being "ginny" or from someone with Bright's disease, or from a female). So, that's what I'll go with.

Is there evidence that Saunders was "feeling his oats" when he stated that he wished others might simply said "I don't know"? That's another matter. Thus, based on what I know, I'll continue to believe the kidney came from a human being while holding some reservations based upon Saunder's statement at the time. Is that okay with you and Fisherman? I want to be sure the two of you approve of my thinking, after all.

[Fisherman]

From the obituary of William Sedgwick Saunders:

"Though genial and courteous to all, he was fearless in his opinions and conduct, and ever refused to compromise where he felt his position right."

You are - as always - welcome to think whatever you want, Patrick. Myself, I think that this has turned into a non-issue, and I am perfectly at ease to regard the kidney as proven to have come from a human being.

I prefer to move on, so I will duck out of any further discussion of the topic.

[Patrick S]

From the obituary of William Sedgwick Saunders:

"Though genial and courteous to all, he was fearless in his opinions and conduct, and ever refused to compromise where he felt his position right."

You are - as always - welcome to think whatever you want, Patrick. Myself, I think that this has turned into a non-issue, and I am perfectly at ease to regard the kidney as proven to have come from a human being.

I prefer to move on, so I will duck out of any further discussion of the topic.

What's the obit quotation meant to convey? Sounds like my kind of guy.

Agreed it's a non-issue. I'm not sure we disagree on this. I wouldn't say it's been "proven" to have come from a human being. Rather, I'd say it's likely to have come from a human. It's not really an argument worth having, in my view.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: What's the obit quotation meant to convey?

That it seems Saunders was a man who was not prepared to compromise, and that this may - or may not - have had a bearing on his view about the kidney. What else?

Sounds like my kind of guy.

Are you sue, or is it something you are ready to discuss?

Agreed it's a non-issue. I'm not sure we disagree on this. I wouldn't say it's been "proven" to have come from a human being. Rather, I'd say it's likely to have come from a human. It's not really an argument worth having, in my view.

As I said, I have nothing further to add on the issue.

[Abby Normal]

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.

hi Patrick and thanks!
yes I agree with you for the most part, but for me personally I don't really have any written in stone "beliefs" about the case. I keep an open mind and look at the totality of any particular point about the case and think about it in terms of what seems most likely in my mind. I'm not a research guy, I tend to look at big picture, how things are connected, woven together etc.

[Harry D]

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.

Abby, you questioned how easy it would be for hoaxers to obtain a human kidney. My response is that they needn't have to, because of the anatomical similarities between a human & pig kidney and the limitations in medical science at the time. Yes, the examining doctors opined that the half-kidney belonged to a human, but they could not know that for a fact, let alone identify its owner's gender.

Either way, it doesn't prove anything about the authenticity of the 'From Hell' letter.

[Abby Normal]

Abby, you questioned how easy it would be for hoaxers to obtain a human kidney. My response is that they needn't have to, because of the anatomical similarities between a human & pig kidney and the limitations in medical science at the time. Yes, the examining doctors opined that the half-kidney belonged to a human, but they could not know that for a fact, let alone identify its owner's gender.

Either way, it doesn't prove anything about the authenticity of the 'From Hell' letter.

hi Harry
the examining doctor said it was human. Ill go with that. and yes it does add authenticity to the letter, obviously.

If he had concluded it wasn't human, then I would say the letter was probably a hoax.

[Harry D]

hi Harry
the examining doctor said it was human. Ill go with that. and yes it does add authenticity to the letter, obviously.

If he had concluded it wasn't human, then I would say the letter was probably a hoax.

And if it was human, does that mean it was genuine?

[Fisherman]

Abby, you questioned how easy it would be for hoaxers to obtain a human kidney. My response is that they needn't have to, because of the anatomical similarities between a human & pig kidney and the limitations in medical science at the time. Yes, the examining doctors opined that the half-kidney belonged to a human, but they could not know that for a fact, let alone identify its owner's gender.

Either way, it doesn't prove anything about the authenticity of the 'From Hell' letter.

Actually, those who examined the kidney COULD and WOULD know for a fact that it was human. It was morphologically establishable, and not only that - it was EASILY establishable too, as per the article written by experts in the field I posted formerly.

[Fisherman]

And if it was human, does that mean it was genuine?

Why do you ask?

[Abby Normal]

And if it was human, does that mean it was genuine?

not neccesarily of course

[Bridewell]

Actually, those who examined the kidney COULD and WOULD know for a fact that it was human. It was morphologically establishable, and not only that - it was EASILY establishable too, as per the article written by experts in the field I posted formerly.

I agree. My recollection is that the length of renal artery attached to the kidney was consistent with the length missing from the body, thus suggesting (though not proving) that it was what remained of the Eddowes kidney. I don't see any reason to conclude that it was anything other than a human kidney, even if not hers.