Why disguise the fact that JtR was educated?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Curious
That's a great point-hadn't thought about it before!

also, why would someone in the medical field preserve it in "spirits"? wouldn't they use what would be available and normally used by someone in the profession?


and why cut it in half? and why wait approx. three weeks?
and it just happens to be from a female?

you would think a hoaxer would send it as soon as, after hearing about eddowes kidney being taken, he could get their hands on it.

ive always thought the kidney From Hell letter had a good chance of being authentic.

"and why cut it in half?" Because 'tother half they fried & ate.

And I don't think at the time it would be possible to know the kidney was from a woman. It might have been from a small man.

[Errata]

"and why cut it in half?" Because 'tother half they fried & ate.

And I don't think at the time it would be possible to know the kidney was from a woman. It might have been from a small man.

The only way to know it was even human is a DNA test.

And the timing on the preservation is highly changeable. Higher alcohol content, different additives, temperature, a vacuum... if you've ever tried to pickle something you know how delicate such processes are.

[Harry D]

Isn't a pig's kidney very similar in both size and anatomy as that of a human?

[ChrisGeorge]

Isn't a pig's kidney very similar in both size and anatomy as that of a human?

I believe so. See this discussion by Christopher-Michael DiGrazia, "Another Look at the Lusk Kidney" originally published in Ripper Notes:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

Best regards

Chris

[Rosella]

I don't think there is any way to distinguish a male from a female kidney, anyway, if the kidney was human. Nevertheless, it is an extraordinalily elaborate hoax to pull, and if meant as a practical joke, not funny in the least. And, if the kidney was human then there is at least a chance that the parcel and Lusk letter came from the Ripper.

[Shaggyrand]

Isn't a pig's kidney very similar in both size and anatomy as that of a human?

All mammals have fairly identical kidneys with all the variations being based on species diet. Almost any omnivore kidney could pass for human. Maybe even some decent sized carnivores could pass after marinating for a couple weeks.

[Mirandola]

'Many animals have been used as experimental models
for urological procedures but the pig is more
often used because its kidney most closely resembles
the structural features of the human kidney.1,2 Pig
kidneys are frequently used as a model for search3 and
training4,5 in nephrolithotomy'

http://www.fisiocirurgiauerj.org/Pig_Kideny_Veins[1].pdf

'Stomach, spleen, bile duct system, small intestines, kidneys, bladder, etc. - the remainder of the abdominal organs found in the fetal pig are basically the same as found in humans.'

https://www.goshen.edu/bio/pigbook/humanpigcomparison.html

[Abby Normal]

who keeps an animal kidney in spirits (not formaldehyde as someone in the medical profession would)just starting at about the time eddowes was murdered?

right. no one.

a kidney by the way that matches up with the victim in time and how it was cut.


if it was an animal, or human kidney for that matter, hoax, surely, SURELY the doctors could have ruled it out as being from Eddowes.

[Sam Flynn]

Isn't a pig's kidney very similar in both size and anatomy as that of a human?

Yes, it is. In my view, it's a strong bet that the Lusk kidney was that of a pig.

[Harry D]

Yes, it is. In my view, it's a strong bet that the Lusk kidney was that of a pig.

In which case, the Lusk kidney isn't such an elaborate hoax, after all.

[Mirandola]

Preservation of Viscera 1. Stomach and its contents 2. 30 cm small Interline and contents 3. Liver > 500 gms 4. One kidney/Half of each 5. Blood 100 cc (in NaF), (Minimum 10 ml)* 6. Urine > 100 cc–(in Thymol)* [Toulene* is the best preservative for urine examination] • The best preservative for preservation of viscera is rectified spirit. • Most commonly used preservative is saturated sodium chloride. • Rectified spirit is not used in: – Alcohol – Phenol – Phosphorous – Paraldehyde. • Formaldehyde is used for preservation of Museum specimens and not for preservation of viscera for toxicological analysis. - See more at: http://doctorsumitseth.blogspot.com/...wd4r8m3G.dpuf; 'Review of Forensic Medicine'

The Anatomical Museum of Guy's Hospital for one had many thousands of animal viscera preserved in spirits,

'A Catalogue of the Preparations in the Anatomical Museum of Guy's Hospital
1'
Guy's Hospital. Museum, 1828.

The hobby clearly hasn't died out yet,

How to preserve animal organs in a jar?
Best Answer: The best preservation is treatment with formalin (formaldehyde solution), followed by storage in 70% alcohol (either ethyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol - not methyl alcohol). Most folks don't have access to formalin though, and it can be dangerous in inexperienced hands. In that case, direct storage in 70% alcohol is the best way. The first change of alcohol will almost always become discolored. After a couple of weeks, replace it with fresh alcohol, and for some specimens it may be necessary to repeat this a couple of times, but eventually the alcohol will remain clear. You can save the discolored alcohol and use it for the first step on additional specimens. Rubbing alcohol from the pharmacy works well. Note that this is usually 70% already, so don't dilute it further

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111102144649AAArlZM

[Errata]

who keeps an animal kidney in spirits (not formaldehyde as someone in the medical profession would)just starting at about the time eddowes was murdered?

right. no one.

a kidney by the way that matches up with the victim in time and how it was cut.


if it was an animal, or human kidney for that matter, hoax, surely, SURELY the doctors could have ruled it out as being from Eddowes.

They didn't judge the amount of time the kidney had been in spirits. Thy judged how long it had been out of the body before preserving it in spirits. So a kidney out of a body for a day and in spirits for a month is going to be almost identical to a kidney that had been out of the body for a day and in spirits for a week. So a prankster who almost immediately put a kidney in spirits and left it there for about 48 hours was going to look like it could have been Eddowes kidney.

They couldn't tell what species it was, they couldn't tell what gender it was, they couldn't actually tell if it was a right or left kidney despite the fact they thought they could, and they weren't working with a whole kidney, just a part. And it might not have been a big enough part to know for sure it was a kidney, though given the differences of the average kidney I would trust that determination. And unfortunately the preservation technique used creates the same kind of damage to the organ as kidney disease. So they couldn't even tell if the kidney had been damaged before being immersed unless somehow they found scar tissue, which wasn't found in Eddowes other kidney, so that would be weird. They really had nothing other than there was a kidney missing and heres a nub of a kidney. Which is absolutely suggestive, but clearly they had been getting a boatload of prank letters, so a certain amount of suspicion would be warranted...

I get that a guy looking at it under a microscope would find enough there to feel dread. But the biology and the optics of the era simply weren't good enough. The could tel a chicken kidney from human one because of size differences. But without either seeing the kidney come out, or being able to match the piece they had with a kidney in situ, the way they matched the piece of cloth to the apron, they had no way to know. They could make guesses, and in certain instances make good guesses. But they couldn't know for sure. So if we want to doubt, we have good reason to.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, it is. In my view, it's a strong bet that the Lusk kidney was that of a pig.

what was it in the view of the doctors that looked at it Sam?

[Abby Normal]

They didn't judge the amount of time the kidney had been in spirits. Thy judged how long it had been out of the body before preserving it in spirits. So a kidney out of a body for a day and in spirits for a month is going to be almost identical to a kidney that had been out of the body for a day and in spirits for a week. So a prankster who almost immediately put a kidney in spirits and left it there for about 48 hours was going to look like it could have been Eddowes kidney.

They couldn't tell what species it was, they couldn't tell what gender it was, they couldn't actually tell if it was a right or left kidney despite the fact they thought they could, and they weren't working with a whole kidney, just a part. And it might not have been a big enough part to know for sure it was a kidney, though given the differences of the average kidney I would trust that determination. And unfortunately the preservation technique used creates the same kind of damage to the organ as kidney disease. So they couldn't even tell if the kidney had been damaged before being immersed unless somehow they found scar tissue, which wasn't found in Eddowes other kidney, so that would be weird. They really had nothing other than there was a kidney missing and heres a nub of a kidney. Which is absolutely suggestive, but clearly they had been getting a boatload of prank letters, so a certain amount of suspicion would be warranted...

I get that a guy looking at it under a microscope would find enough there to feel dread. But the biology and the optics of the era simply weren't good enough. The could tel a chicken kidney from human one because of size differences. But without either seeing the kidney come out, or being able to match the piece they had with a kidney in situ, the way they matched the piece of cloth to the apron, they had no way to know. They could make guesses, and in certain instances make good guesses. But they couldn't know for sure. So if we want to doubt, we have good reason to.

Thanks Errata
Did any of the doctors at the time say they thought it wasn't human?

[Errata]

Thanks Errata
Did any of the doctors at the time say they thought it wasn't human?

Not to my knowledge, but they were primed to think it was human. Frankly the most scientifically honest answer would be to say that they couldn't determine the origin of the kidney. And had they handed it off to some biologist without telling him where it came from, that's the answer they would have gotten. Possibly human was the most they could get.

And it may have been human. It may have been a very good guess. But it was still a guess.