A Ripper Notes Article

This article originally appeared in Ripper Notes. Ripper Notes is the only American Ripper periodical available on the market, and has quickly grown into one of the more substantial offerings in the genre. For more information, view our Ripper Notes page. Our thanks to the editor of Ripper Notes for permission to reprint this article.

Another Look at the Lusk Kidney
by Christopher-Michael DiGrazia

PERHAPS NO object associated with the Whitechapel Murders has been a catalyst for more myth-making than the gruesome piece of extracted viscera known to posterity as the Lusk Kidney. Whether considered for the ghastliness of its presumed origin or for the questions inherent in its authenticity or falsity, few other artefacts connected with Jack the Ripper incite more dispute; and few provide such an arena for opposing points of view, each armed with seemingly incontrovertible evidence.

The basic facts surrounding the kidney are well known, but in light of the following discussion, they bear a brief recapitulation. At about 5.00 pm on Tuesday, 16 October 1888, a small package was delivered to the home of George Akin Lusk, a builder who resided at 1 Alderney Road, Mile End. Since his appointment as head of the Whitechapel (or Mile End) Vigilance Committee, Lusk had been the target for suspicious visitors and crank letters, and at first sight the small, paper-wrapped cardboard box with a London postmark ( the incomplete cancellation read "OND" --an obvious remnant of "LONDON") appeared to be one more. However, after opening the box, Lusk was shocked to discover a small piece of rancid flesh enclosed with the following note:

From hell

Mr Lusk
Sor

I send you half the
Kidne I took from one women
prasarved it for you tother piece I
fried and ate it was very nise. I
may send you the bloody knif that
took it out if you only wate a whil
longer

Signed Catch me when
you can
Mishter Lusk 1

Lusk's immediate reaction was that this was another in the series of crank communications, and he was prepared to dismiss it as an animal's kidney. Reflecting further, however - and in light of the somewhat sinister tone of an earlier postcard he had received noting "you seem rare frightened" - he decided to mention the package at the next Vigilance Committee meeting. On Thursday morning, Committee treasurer Aarons, secretary Harris, and members Reeves and Lawton arrived at Lusk's home to see the curious postal delivery for themselves. What happened next can best be told by an excerpt from the Star of 19 October:

Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw

As no definite conclusion could be arrived at, it was decided to call upon Dr Wiles, of 56, Mile-end-road. In his absence, Mr F. S. Reed, his assistant, examined the contents of the box, and at once expressed the opinion that the article formed half of a human kidney, which had been divided longitudinally. He thought it best, however, to submit the kidney to Dr Openshaw, the pathological curator of the London Hospital, and this was at once done. By the use of the microscope, Dr Openshaw was able to determine that the kidney had been taken from a full-grown human being, and that the portion before him was PART OF THE LEFT KIDNEY. It at once occurred to the Vigilance Committee that at the inquest on the body of the woman Eddowes who was murdered at Mitre-square, Aldgate, it was stated that the left kidney was missing, and in view of this circumstance, it was deemed advisable to at once communicate with the police. Accordingly, the parcel and the accompanying letter and postcard were at once taken to Leman-street Police-station and the matter placed in the hands of Inspector Abberline. Subsequently the City police were communicated with, as the discovery relates to a crime occurring within their jurisdiction. 2

The news report went on to make a circumstantial case for the Lusk Kidney having been torn from the body of the fourth canonical Ripper victim, Catherine Eddowes, who was murdered on 30 September, but this was rather jumping the gun. All that had been determined up to this point was that Mr Lusk had received a possible portion of a left human kidney. It was now up to the Metropolitan and City police forces to carry out a further investigation.

Inspector James McWilliam of the City Police was the first to submit a report, on 27 October. In a brief paragraph at the end of a discussion focusing primarily on the graffito found in Goulston Street, Eddowes' inquest, and the final sighting of her before she was killed, he noted:

The kidney has been examined by Dr Gordon Brown who is of the opinion that it is human. Every effort is being made to trace the sender, but it is not desirable that publicity should be given to the doctor's opinion, or the steps that are being taken inconsequence. 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. 3

McWilliam reported that he "[met] daily" with Chief Inspector Donald Swanson of the Met, and Swanson's 6 November report to the Home Office added little to what had already been said:

Mr Lusk brought a parcel which had been addressed to him to Leman Street. He received it on 15th Oct [sic] and 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 combined medical opinion they have taken upon it, is, that it is the kidney of a human adult; not charged with fluid, as would have been the case in 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. [emphasis in original] 4

All of this would seem to be the conclusion that the Lusk Kidney was a nasty joke, and indeed this appeared to be the police view by early November. However, as in so much else respecting Jack the Ripper, the newspapers defied such a simple answer and in the process raised questions that bedevil to the present day

. . . .

We need not quote from every press mention of the Lusk Kidney; only those that are most often referenced in modern books and have led to confusion over its authenticity. The Star, as we have seen, reported Mr Reed and Dr Thomas Openshaw as opining the kidney to be half of a left human kidney. The Press Association, however - a news-gathering and disseminating organization similar to the infamous Central News Agency - supplied the Eastern Post and City Chronicle of 20 October with a much more lavish account. There, 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. Furthermore, it was said, the kidney had been extracted within the past three weeks, which, it was inferred, placed its removal within the timeframe of Eddowes' murder. 5

So far as we can determine, however, Dr Openshaw never expressed himself so freely on the subject of the Lusk Kidney. In the Star and the Daily Telegraph of 20 October, he merely held to the opinion that the kidney was human and that it may have been a left kidney, which was the opinion assigned to him as well by Inspector Swanson. Certainly he was never again quoted so elaborately as in the Press Association report. 6

he solution to this quandary may lie in the Daily Telegraph of 19 October. Within a story headlined "MITRE-SQUARE MURDER. AN EXTRAORDINARY PARCEL," Vigilance Committee member Joseph Aarons was quoted relating his version of the events surrounding the kidney's identification. Whereas the Star implied that the entire party went to see Dr Openshaw, Aaron's Daily Telegraph interview is revealing:

Mr Reed. . .gave an opinion that it was a portion of a human kidney, which had been preserved in spirits of wine; but to make sure, he would go over to the London Hospital. . .[o]n his return, Mr Reed said that Dr Openshaw said 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 that the Mitre-square murder was committed. [italics added] 7

An extraordinary identification, to be sure; but is there any truth in it? Unfortunately, the answer must be "No." N. P. Warren, editor of the magazine Ripperana and himself a practising surgeon, has pointed out the inherent absurdities of the above report. Even were Dr Openshaw's supposed comments actually uttered by him (which they almost certainly were not), he could not have been absolutely sure of the sex of the Lusk Kidney, nor when its owner had died. He definitely could not have determined Eddowes' drinking habits from the flesh presented to him, as alcohol does not damage the human kidney. 8

So who is responsible for this imaginative set of findings, which have influenced almost all later writers? If not Openshaw, then we are left with Reed, Aarons, or the Press Association. From the wording of the Telegraph article, the finger of guilt appears to point to Mr Reed, but at this remove it is impossible to tell. All we can do is put the 19 October story aside, since it contains nothing to prove the Lusk Kidney's authenticity.

The same may be said of yet another series of comments on the kidney, these found in the 1910 memoirs of former City Police Commissioner Major Sir Henry Smith. Within the pages of his From Constable to Commissioner, he purports to settle the matter of the Lusk Kidney once and for all:

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. 9

As with Dr Openshaw's supposed findings, this is a stunning paragraph which would seem to put the provenance of the Lusk Kidney beyond question.

Sadly, the Major does not enjoy an unblemished reputation for veracity. He was known to his contemporaries as a charming raconteur and entertaining fellow, but one who tended to play somewhat fast and loose with the truth. Several stories in his memoirs are palpably untrue. One story in which he said he chased after the Ripper - and was supposedly "five minutes" behind the killer - is complete eyewash. While his reputation for veracity should not immediately prejudice us against Smith's account of the kidney, we should bear it in mind.

Let us begin, therefore, with the matter of the renal artery. The left renal artery is, indeed, generally 2-3 inches long, save in cases of gross abnormality. Beyond this, however, we cannot go. Smith is our only source for the comparative lengths of renal artery in the Lusk Kidney and Eddowes' body. Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, who conducted Eddowes' post-mortem and testified at her inquest, contented himself with remarking only that "the left renal artery was cut through." 10 It is true, of course, that the Telegraph of 20 October stated: ". . .it is asserted that only a small portion of renal artery adheres to the kidney, while in the case of the Mitre-square victim, a large portion of this artery adhered to the body [,]" 11 but Dr Brown himself, interviewed by the Star of the East on 22 October, noted: "As has been stated, there is no portion of renal artery adhering to [the kidney], it having been trimmed up,so consequently, there could be no correspondence established between the portion of the body from which it was cut." 12

Taking into consideration Dr Brown's familiarity with Eddowes' body and his denial of any renal artery remaining with the Lusk Kidney, in contrast to an anonymous assertion from the press and the anecdotal statement by Major Smith, the weight of evidence would appear to be against the famous "one inch" of renal artery.

What, then, of the Bright's disease, which we are told infected both the Lusk Kidney and Eddowes= remaining right kidney? The condition of "Bright's disease" received its name from Richard Bright, an English internist and pathologist who first described the symptoms of this ailment in 1827. Today, it is more commonly and specifically called "chronic glomerulonephritis;" in 1888, however, the term was a catchall applied to a collection of various signs and symptoms of kidney disease emanating from a variety of different causes, one of which was thought to be the excessive intake of alcohol. It should be noted for the purposes of our discussion here that in 1888 "Bright's disease" was also used as a synonym for "nephritis," which is a nonsuppurative inflammation of the kidneys. This was not uncommon among the poor and destitute of the East End, and it would not be at all surprising were Catherine Eddowes to have suffered from this condition. 13

Dr Brown's post-mortem states that he found Eddowes' "right kidney pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids." N. P. Warren notes that such a description clearly indicates Bright's disease; unfortunately, not all medical opinion is in agreement on this point, and we cannot yet take it as given that Eddowes suffered from this condition. Of course, even were it proven beyond doubt that she did, it does not allow us to infer the existence of such disease in the Lusk Kidney. 14

We are once again confronted with a statement made only by Major Smith. He does not tell us who prepared the report presented to him which indicated bilateral Bright's disease (although the term Athe police surgeon@ may be an oblique reference to Dr Brown), and the surviving descriptions of the Lusk Kidney provide us only with the frustratingly vague nomenclature of "distinct marks of disease" and "ginny kidney." Dr Brown's previously quoted 22 October interview is of no help here; he only notes in passing that the kidney showed "no trace of decomposition." The most likely version of Dr Openshaw's comments also make no mention of disease; in fact, the only known references to disease in the Lusk Kidney are in the 19 October Daily Telegraph and in Major Smith's memoirs, neither of which can be regarded as entirely trustworthy.

The Lusk Kidney may have shown signs of disease. If it came from a recent Whitechapel decedent, it is entirely probable. However, based on the sketchy surviving evidence, we cannot say what that disease may have been and are not justified in assuming it to have been Brigh's disease beyond a factor of relative probability.

And what of the statement that Mr Sutton, the senior surgeon, pledged his reputation that the kidney had been placed in spirits within hours of its removal from Eddowes' tortured remains? Henry Sutton was a senior surgeon at the London Hospital in 1888. He is not, however, mentioned in any of the surviving contemporary accounts of the investigation of the Lusk Kidney. Neither in any writings or remarks of Dr Brown B who supposedly asked to meet him in consultation B not by Swanson or McWilliams, nor even by the Gentlemen of the Press. We find Dr Sutton and his confident opinion only in the pages of Major Smith's memoirs. If he made any report on the kidney, it has not been found. Perhaps there was such a report; perhaps, too, his participation was a bit of dramatic license on the part of Smith. We do not know. We will not know unless independent proof of Sutton's pronouncements turns up, and until then he and Major Smith must be set aside.

. . . We have examined contemporary and near-contemporary sources concerning the Lusk Kidney. At this point, what can we say about its origin? We must consider both the descriptive and medical evidence, and can do no better in mapping our course than by revisiting the seven points of identification listed by N. P. Warren in his 1989 Criminologist article, "A Postal Kidney":

1. The Lusk Kidney was human.
2. It came from a woman.
3. It came from a person approximately 45 years old.
4. It had been extracted from the body within three weeks of its examination.
5. It came from an alcoholic.
6. It was severely affected by Bright's disease.
7. It had approximately 1 inch of renal artery adhering to it. 15

The Lusk Kidney was human. This would appear to be beyond reasonable doubt. Were the Lusk Kidney to be presented to a modern pathologist, he would determine its origin either through karyotyping (by looking at the chromosomes) or genotyping (looking at the genes within the chromosomes). However, in 1888 neither type of analysis was known, and examination of the kidney's to determine its human origins was by visual and morphological means, i.e., through the form and structure of the organ.

No medical man who examined the kidney considered it to be anything but human. The only dissenting opinion came from Dr William Sedgwick Saunders, the Medical Officer and Public Analyst for the City of London. In the Liverpool Daily Post of 20 October, he was quoted as saying:

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. 16

Bear in mind, however, that Dr Saunders himself had not seen the kidney. He was responding to a reporter who had asked him to comment on a "medical man's" report that the Lusk Kidney was that of a woman. Saunders' off-the-cuff response - one can almost hear him snorting with impatience - was in regard to the supposed declaration of the sex of the kidney, and his "pig" remark appears to have been an added filip. Saunders did make the legitimate point that a human and animal kidney might well have been confused, and this should be kept in mind. We do know that both Openshaw and Brown were reported as coming to their determination that the Lusk Kidney was human after microscopic examination; we do not know what other evidence assisted their conclusions. We must, in this case, trust to their competence, assume Mr Lusk was sent half of a human kidney, and let this point stand.

It came from a woman. As with point 1, this would be impossible to tell in 1888 other than through gross morphology. In general, the female kidney is smaller and lighter than the male, but in the case of the Lusk Kidney, we must take into consideration that it was not a whole kidney and that it may have been constricted as a result of Bright's Disease. These two factors make identification of sex extremely difficult. As we have seen, once the kidney was determined to be human, thought immediately turned to Catherine Eddowes' murder. We must consider the possibility that her death and the "From hell" letter influenced many of those who wrote about the kidney, presuming it to be female because the letter said that it was. The verdict on this point should be "not proven."

It came from a person approximately 45 years old Even despite the great medical strides made in the 20th century, a modern doctor would no more be able to answer this question than could his Victorian colleague. N. P. Warren points out that a rough guess as to age might be possible based on the condition of arteries remaining in the kidney, but such an absolute determination of age "is altogether too precise." He also notes that "a kidney may shrink by up to 1cm in length between the ages of 30 and 70, [but] a Bright's kidney is pathologically constricted anyway." We must remember the popular tendency to immediately identify the Lusk Kidney with Eddowes' murder; combining such with the medical evidence, we can discard this point of identification. 17

It had been extracted from the body within three weeks of its examination. The Lusk Kidney was noted to have been "preserved" in spirits of wine. Leaving aside the question of whether such an agent pointed to a freshly slaughtered body or one from a dissection room, the fact of preservation speaks against such a precise determination of time; we should also note that the initial mention of "preservation" comes from the already-suspect Aarons interview. Further to this point, we may look at Dr Brown's previously quoted Star of the East interview, during which he informed the reporter that:

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 possibility is slight of its being a portion of the murdered woman of Mitre Square. 18

This point of identification may also be discarded. It came from an alcoholic. This point may be discarded as well. It is now known that alcohol does not damage the kidney, and even the preservation of half a kidney in spirits of wine would not contribute to a diagnosis of alcoholism. In 1888, medical opinion held that one cause of Bright's disease (which Eddowes may have had) was excessive alcohol intake - hence the lay term "ginny kidney." Thus, whatever medical condition was evidenced by the Lusk Kidney was taken as evidence of Bright's disease. It is worthwhile, however, to remember that no comprehensive medical description of the Lusk Kidney now exists. Dr Brown's report on it has been lost, as has any report that may have been prepared by Dr Sutton. We know only that it was a human kidney possibly preserved in spirits of wine; other reports of its pathological condition, as we have seen, come from unreliable sources.

It was severely affected by Bright's disease. As has been noted, the reported condition of Eddowes' right kidney has led to the conclusion that she may have suffered from Bright's disease. But, in lieu of a comprehensive, contemporary medical description of the Lusk Kidney, we cannot presume that it, too, manifested signs of such disease. Our only source for the diagnosis is Major Smith. This point is not proven, but is possible.

It had approximately 1 inch of renal artery adhering to it. Our sources for this point of identification are Major Smith and the Daily Telegraph of 20 October. Both appear to be trumped by Dr Brown's statement that the Lusk Kidney had been "trimmed up," and as he was in the midst of examining the organ when he said this, we might take this as definitive. Yet perhaps the verdict on this point should be a very guarded "possible," bearing in mind that the kidney had passed at the least from Lusk to Reed to Openshaw to Abberline before being examined by Brown. It must remain a possibility (though no more than a remote one) that the renal artery was "trimmed up" before Brown saw it

. . . .

A totalling of the seven points of identification leaves us with one positive, three negatives, and three uncertains. Of the latter, two are no more than cautious probables, and one most likely improbable. What, then, is the Ripper student or researcher to believe the best - if not final - verdict? After Consideration of the medical and descriptive statements - bearing in mind that the current absence of physical matter will always compromise any dispassionate analysis of the case - it would seem to this author that the lack of evidence regarding sex, Bright's disease, or the length of renal artery in the Lusk Kidney consign it to being what the much put-upon George Lusk first thought it to be when it arrived at his door the late afternoon of 16 October 1888 - a macabre practical joke, and no more.

SOURCES

1. Collection of Stewart P. Evans.
2. Star, October 19, 1888.
3. HO 144/221/A49301C, folios 169-170. 4
4. HO 144/221/A49301C, folio 192.
5. Star, 19 October 1888; Eastern Post and City Chronicle, 20 October 1888.
6. Star, 20 October, 1888; Daily Telegraph, 20 October 1888.
7. Daily Telegraph, 19 October 1888.
8. N. P. Warren, "A Postal Kidney," The Criminologist 13(1), Spring 1989:12-15.
9. Smith, From Constable to Commissione: The Story of Sixty Years, Most of Them Misspent, Chatto & Windass, London, 1910, pp. 154-55.
10. Inquest deposition of Dr Brown, 4 October 1888, Corporation of London Public Records Office, ff. 14-21.
11. Daily Telegraph, 20 October 1888.
12. Star of the East, 22 October 1888.
13. Warren, ibid.; Richard Whittington-Egan, A Casebook on Jack the Ripper, Wildy and Sons, London, 1975, pp. 59-60. 14. Warren, ibid.
15. Warren, ibid.
16. Liverpool Daily Post, 20 October 1888.
17. Warren, ibid.
18. Star of the East, 22 October 1888.

The author wishes thanks Stewart P. Evans, Thomas Ind, MD, and Wayne Wivell, MD,
for their generous contributions and advice during the writing of this essay.