|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Medical round table: Nephrology: The Lusk Kidney
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Medical / Forensic Discussions:
Medical round table: Nephrology: The Lusk Kidney
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 05:54 pm |        | I thought that some people might want to continue the chat about the Lusk kidney here.
To recall my last post on the 'JTRs hysterectomies' thread I queried whether the kidney was genuine, if it was human, and whether or not the kidney or some slides might still exist today. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 09:01 pm | | I think it would be fascinating if slides of the LK were still in existence. It would, at least, settle the question of whether the loathsome thing was human, though I doubt we should ever be able to prove it was or was not torn from Catherine Eddowes (that is, not unless a future PM happens to be a Ripperologist! Stewart, your country needs you. . .)
As I have said, my admittedly limited examination into the matter leads me to believe the LK might have been human, but it's doubtful it was from Eddowes. The only person who ever said so was Major Smith, and since his passage on the kidney contains misstatements (and one possible outright lie) and he is not necessarily to be believed, he must be taken with a large grain of salt. But I'm willing to debate the question!
A question to the company: Tom and I have been e-mailing over this very subject. He believes he saw a report of either Openshaw or Brown carrying out a microscopic examination of the LK. I do not remember this reference. Does it strike a chord with anyone else?
CMD |
Author: Jon
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 10:06 pm | | The Daily Telegraph, October 19th, 1888
.....he thought it best, however, to submit the kidney to Dr Openshaw, the pathological curator at the London Hospital, and this was done at once. By the use of the microscope, Dr Openshaw was able to determine that the kidney had been taken from a fullgrown human being, and that the portion before him was part of the left kidney.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 07:19 am | | CMD
I have just e-mailed you a similar quote to Jon's from the star.
Jon (I'm getting confused now as to who is the butcher but if it is you, can you answer this question?)
In a definitive textbook of pathology published in 1901 that I found in the store room of the library at Barts I found a description of a normal human kidney's shape and size. This is it;
'The kidneys measure each from 10 to 12 cm in length, from 5 to 5.6 cm in width and 3.38 cm in thickness, the left being slightly larger than the right. The weight, according to Thoma[1], is: for the right kidney, 152 grams in men and 144 grams in women; for the left 164 grams in men and 148 grams in women. Baduel[2] gives the following weights and measures: for the right 110 to 120 grams, and for the left 120 to 130 grams in men, and 110 to 115 grams for the right and 115 to 120 grams for the left in women.'
Do these weights and sizes have any cross-over with animal kidneys weight and sizes that you have removed in your capacity as butcher? |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 08:34 am | | Dear everyone,
I thought it might be of some use to reproduce the section of testimony where Dr Brown talks about the knowledge required to remove the kidney from Eddowes. He states:
'It required a great deal of (medical) [the word medical is deleted] knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed such a knowledge might be possessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals....'
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 09:03 am | | Bob,
I have copied this message and placed it in the Medical round table: General: Anaotmical skill thread.
Hope you don't mind. This might be a waste of time and annoying to others but the aim is to get our own section. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 09:54 am | | | Thanks, Tom and Jon for the microscope reference. The sterling Alex Chisholm also provided me with the same detail. That's one of the curses of this subject - there's so much information, after a while you can't remember what you've read, where you read it or whether you're making it up on your own! |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 10:16 am | | I have just bought 4 pigs kidneys from my local butcher. I thought that 1 pound 38 pence was quite good value! I got the butcher to select them so I didn't bias my experiment.I have analysed them using a ruler. I measured the longitudinal distance from the two furthest ends longitudinally, the width at the level of the renal pelvis, and the bredth at the level of the renal pelvis. Having recently looked at specimens in a path museum I have given my impression of whether or not they had the appearance of a human kidney.
APPEARANCE
Kidney 1
Looked similar to a human kidney by my eye.
One incision on it presumably made by the butcher or slaughterer.
Kidney 2
Looked similar to the human kidneys I saw in the museum. Again, had knife damage.
Kidney 3
Perculiar looking with mounds on. Not really like those I saw in the museum. Again, knife damage.
Kidney 4
Again, similar shape to a human kidney and knife damage.
WEIGHT
Using not very precise kitchen scales
Kidney 1 - 140g
Kidney 2 - 140g
Kidney 3 - 125g
Kidney 4 - 150g
LONGITUDINAL measurement
Kidney 1 - 14cm
Kidney 2 - 13.5cm
Kidney 3 - 11.5cm
Kidney 4 - 12.5cm
WIDTH
Kidney 1 - 6.5cm
Kidney 2 - 6.5cm
Kidney 3 - 7 cm
Kidney 4 - 6cm
THICKNESS
Kidney 1 - 2.5cm
Kidney 2 - 2.5cm
Kidney 3 - 3cm
Kidney 4 - 3.5cm
A longitudinal incision laterally to medially through kidney 4 demonstrated a cortex and medulla similar to the kidneys I saw in the museum.
CONCLUSIONS
The macroscopic appearance and measurements of four pig's kidneys randomly bought from a butcher were no different from a human's to the untrained eye of a gynaecologist.
DISCUSSION
The above experiment needs to be repeated by a pathologist including a slide preparation to determine any differences in microscopic architecture. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 09:50 am | | Hey All!
I've been trying to follow these discussions since they began and I'd like to make a few points that I hope will help explain my perspective on the issues involved, possibly expressing the same concerns felt by others interested in this case.
1) Can modern medical perspectives/opinions help us determine that an 1888 (or beyond) observation is valid?
a) The issues here are evidentiary; meaning, can this "new" opinion or validation of an older one point to a type of suspect or a specific one? I doubt we can "prove" the kidney was or wasn't human -- we haven't discussed the theory that the kidney was human but came from a fairly recent autopsy or medical student cadaver. I doubt we (anymore than the 1888-era police) could "prove" that the "Lusk kidney" was absolutely from Eddowes and that it meant i) a doctor did it; ii) anyone with ____ experience did it; iii) anyone could have done it; iv) it was a hoax.
b) What is at stake in finding out more about the kidney and the type and quality of the wounds and mutilations inflicted on the victims? Again we are attempting to focus a century-old investigation. Do we spend our resources looking at men with XYZ medical qualifications or can we broaden the scope to men without any set of medical qualifications? Can any modern opinions absolutely sway our efforts in any given direction?
c) Can the older and current opinions shed light on the murderer's methods and purpose? Going beyond medical knowledge, was JtR totally and absolutely motivated by the old term "lust murder?" Or are there aspects of the wounds and mutilations, the other effects observed (or not!) at the crime scenes, and in the newspapers, the mail to Lusk's office, the writings of a graffitist that can reasonably tell us something more about JtR? Could he have had a wider agenda than so-called simple sexual/homicidal motivations? Can medical opinions then and now sway us in any one direction?
2) While the medical evidence is probably the most vital element of our understanding of this case (or series of cases), it is not the only evidence we have. How do we integrate any current consensus or series of opinions with other evidence -- whether that other evidence is objective (as in time and place and dates of death) and more subjective "evidence" such as the opinions of coeval police officers, political appointees serving on the police force, public opinion (especially from among the victim class, such as the prostitutes' belief that a "Leather Apron" person did the murders), and medical opinions both close to and at a distant from the acrtual autopsies?
a) Can the medical evidence be used to definitively say that the Lusk kidney was or was not Eddowes' and/or that the murderer did not send it? My point in this example is not that the answer would help name a suspect or identify a professional type from which we might extract a suspect; but rather my point is does the possibility of the kidney being genuine (i.e., Eddowes' kidney, not just a human kidney suffering from similar diseases identified by contemporary medical opinion) and was sent by the murderer?
b) The answers to the Eddowes' identification and the possibility of the kidney's having been sent by the murder open up avenues of investigatory possibilities. If it was Eddowes' kidney and was sent by the murderer (or we cannpt absolutely rule out either possibility), what could these details tell us about the murderer: what was his purpose in sending this item; how close was he to official channels of communication; how closely did he otherwise follow the case in more public forums?
c) This medical debate and its results have a wider meaning (or the conclusions are given such meanings) by many of us with our own existant knowledge/feelings/intuitions about the case. Many dismiss the Lusk kidney out of hand as being an act of the genuine murderer using logic that can and should be evaluated by our own Casebook staff physicians, but also by a continuous influx of qualified or logically-fashioned opinions. The question of whether JtR sent the kidney to Lusk means more than simply adding an "exotic" element to these grisly murders. An avenue of investigation can be debated and possibly pursued if the weight of qualified/logical opinion says, "We cannot definitively conclude that the kidney did not come from Eddowes' body." The avenue that opens is not necessarily one of occupation (meaning either experience to extract/preserve the kidney or have access to another human but non-Eddowes' kidney -- no, I don't think those who don't want to consider the possibility of the murderer communicating in this manner will ever give up their negative ideas).
The present discussions are valuable and important. I especially commend our two doctors for attempting to grapple with 1888-era (or near contemporary) understanding of the medical evidence. I also thank the many contributions made by the non-specialists.
Let's just not lose perspective on the entirety of the case (or cases). The issues being debated may influence our understanding of these murders beyond the scope of medical expertise. They should, in fact, be taken with the rest of our limited knowledge and used to answer the basic who/what/when/where/why/how questions that may -- may! -- lead to a more universally accepted suspect or suspects for the murders.
Yaz
BTW: to throw a small amount of gasoline on this friendly but still controversial fire, we know that the anatomy of, say, human beings and pigs hasn't radically changed in 112 years. But we have heard, though most or all have no direct knowledge, of changes/improvements in diet and, in the case of the pigs, genetic manipulation (via breeding techniques at the least). Could these changes affect Dr. Ind's experiment in swine nephrology? Have we bred a "bigger and better" pig, causing perhaps significant increases in sizes and weights? (We could say the same about humans -- I think we've been estimated to average about a foot taller than people from the distant past?) |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 11:31 am | | Yazoo
Lawyers hate it when doctors appear in court and they never answer 'Yes' or 'No' but use 'maybe' and 'probably' and 'indicated that'. It is instilled from medical school where we are taught that the words 'always' and 'never' rarely exist. Note that I use the word 'rarely' rather than 'never'!
I will answer as best I can but using words that I am used to using, not those that lawyers would prefer.
1)Yes. (How about that?). Help but not prove. With a knowledge of the scientific resources available at the time it may help to cast doubt on what was previously considered fact but was theory based on the 'best evidence available' at that time. For example; we may have said that Openshaw examined the kidney macroscopically and microscopically. His conclusion was that it was human. However, we may now know that (I use the word may)it is difficult to distinguish between a human and pig's kidney on the basis of these examinations and that this puts Openshaw's conclusions into doubt. That is why it is so important that we try and understand why Openshaw, Brown and the like came to these conclusions.
a) Don't know. I agree that we cannot prove that the kidney was human. I also agree that we cannot prove it was from Eddowes. The best evidence available to us suggests that it was human. If we can discredit this evidence which we should attempt to do it repositions this balance of evidence. With respect to it being from Eddowes I don't even think that the best evidence available suggests that is has but only that it could have come from Eddowes. As you may have seen in a recent post on Bright's disease I am challenging this as well.
I agree with all points i-iv but baring in mind that if we could put forward a strong argument that it was not from Eddowes or from a human then yes we could conclude that it was a hoax.
(I personally believe that it was and will prepare an argument to that fact when my knowledge of JTR facts can come near to that of the people contributing to this site).
b) I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'what is at stake?'. Are you saying does it matter? If that is what you are saying then the answer must be yes. The fascination with JTR for those who study it is not just who he was but also the smaller unresolved mysteries of which this is one. I personally don't feel that we should be looking for any specific medical qualifications and don't believe that modern opinions can sway our efforts in any given direction. However, as I am sure you are aware, many disagree with me.
c) I think so. Forensic medicine is now a specialty in it's own right. People in that area of medicine would understand the MO much greater now than in 1888.
'Lust murder'or other? I don't know but would ask the advice of a forecnsic psychiatrist. Again, I think that the medical understanding of specialists in their field would be much greater now that in 1888.
2) Interesting point and the answer is that I don't know. However, I think that the evidence has to be given independantly to avoid bias but with enough facts to ensure adequate analysis.
a) Possibly. If we found the kidney we could tie it up with Eddowes now with almost 100% certainty (99.99999% certainty)if we had relatives. To identify it with the murderer is theorectically possible but 100 years after the event very difficult indeed. If there was a large amount of the murderers own blood on it, we could then chase the genetic code of suspects through relatives. However, we know that the kidney is likely to have been badly contaminated by all the people who have handled it.
b) Yes, I think someone with experties in forensic psychiatry would be able to furnish us with the most likely details using current thinking.
c) I cannot agree with you more. However I and I'm sure Dr Villon would be very uncomforatble about our own medical opinions being used in this manner and neither of us have the experties to give a vaild opinion. I agree that it would be very interesting to approach a forensic psychiatrist and get their opinion as to what new conclusions can be made in a psycological profile if we assume that the kidney was genuine.
BTW
Yes I agree but the measurements for a human kidney I gave you were from 1901. My pigs kidneys (injected with steroids and fattened up by the farmer) were if anything at the upper end of this range.
PLEASE DON'T RIDICULE MY EXPERIMENT AS I KNOW IT WASNT GOOD SCIENCE. The point I was trying to make was that the assumption that it was human may not be true. Not that it was not human.
If analysis was made by measurement and a microscopic examination of which both could not distinguish between the 2 species then we would be back to square 1. What we need to determine now is a) how the analysis was made - either by written reports or from historical texts of the day. b) can with our modern day knowledge determine if it was possible to make a diagnosis of 'human' or 'Bright's' with methods of the day. I am not qualified to answer this but am to question it. Furthermore, I am in the position to ask people more qualified to know.
With respect to your question about how the psychological profile would change if we assumed that it was genuine, then Ripperologists need to sit down and think how the information should be presented to an expert without causing bias. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 12:27 pm | | Hey Doc!
Very nice reply. Though not a lawyer myself you seemed to me to have presented your opinions in an acceptably cautious, judicious manner (Mike does the same, I might add). And no, I am not and never would ridicule what you and Mike and others are doing here...even the swine nephrology experiment (who could laugh when none of us actually went out and did what you did...you scientists! Honest admiration from me, always!!!)
I'm sorry if I left the impression that I thought any of the medical evidence could help identify a suspect. At this late date, I'm afraid that is highly unlikely (never say never). But you are correct if you surmise that I think a forensic psychiatrist would find the medical evidence fruitful, and any further certainty or consensus we "moderns" can manage would be a greater benefit...to them if not us (though I know a few dozen armchair forensic psychiatriasts on the Casebook that could give it a go!).
Don't let me interrupt what you all are doing but when you have the time, could you also take up the sticky (pardon the pun) issue of whether 1888-era physicians/medical examiners could tell how old (or how fresh? or how long the kidney had been out of the body?) and when it was immersed in whatever preservative various parties claim was used? Can we, at this great distance, evaluate their findings, or even improve upon them?
To me, this issue has the possibility of being of even greater bearing on whether the kidney could have come from Eddowes. I find it hard to accept that, without any of us seeing the actual tissue examined in 1888, we can satisfactorily rebut or sustain 1888 opinions on the matters of diseases present (or not! Hard to keep everyone happy, ahve you noticed?) etc.
Thank you, all, once again for a marvellous discussion on this most important aspect of the JtR series of murders.
I go now.
Yaz
BTW 2: Spell check? "I doan need no stinkin spellcheck!" I'm underfunded on my Mavis Beacon speed typing savings account and thus overdrawn on my spell checking acccount at the local branch of the Spelling B National Bank of Misusslipee...er, or something like so. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 12:39 pm | | Yazoo asks:-
"Have we bred a 'bigger and better' pig, causing perhaps significant increases in sizes and weights?"
Most pigs bred for the U.K. market today are Large Whites and Landraces. They have been subject to a lot of inbreeding. The size of pigs has increased dramatically, even in the past 25 years. Cases of poor husbandry have been exposed where indoor pig farmers have been keeping pigs in steel-framed cages manufactured in the 1970s which are too small for their livestock.
Fortunately, recent years have seen an increasing interest in both organic meat and in old breeds. It should not be difficult for Dr. Ind to obtain kidneys from traditional breeds such as Saddlebacks, Tamworths and Gloucesters if he feels it would be worthwhile to repeat his experiments. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 01:35 pm | | Yazoo
Thanks. Perhaps that accounts for my 4 pigs kidneys being just slightly larger than those reported for humans in 1901. The hypothesis to be tested probably doesn't need that thorough examination. I have shown that the variation in size is so large that interms of measurements, there COULD be some cross-over. If we wish to examine the macroscopic and histological differences between the species, then we should get an expert to do it. I know some but I'm not quite sure how I would approach it with them. I must confess to not wanting to approach them but I may find the courage in the future.
Mike
What we really need is a forensic pathology book from that era. Once I have posted this I will go to the RSM website to see if I can locate one that they may have on their catalogue. I also have 40 pages photocopied from a pathology book of 1901 (40 of 75) unfortunately the librarian at Barts stopped me claiming I was breaching copyright! From 1901!!! |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 03:35 pm | | fferent people before reaching Brown, and there was every chance the artery could have been purposefully or inadvertently trimmed up.
Smith tells us Eddowes had Bright's Disease. N.P. Warren has confirmed this from Brown's post-mortem notes, and his conclusion has been generally accepted. However, recent discussion has thrown some doubt on his diagnosis, and this point may very well have to be rethought. In any event, whether Eddowes really did have Bright's Disease or not, we cannot presume the LK did as well. There are no comprehensive medical descriptions of it extant beyond the nebulous "distinct signs of disease." We are not justified in automatically assuming this to have been Bright's Disease.
Finally - and I am actually a little surprised that this point never seems to have been made before - Smith is the ONLY person to mention Sutton. He is not mentioned in contemporary police records, not in any newspaper articles I have seen and not in any surviving correspondence of Brown that I have seen. Even the "A-Z" only repeats what Smith has to say on Sutton, without any indication that this really happened.
The limited investigation I have put into this matter persuades me that what has been put forth on the LK is a result of misunderstanding, shoddy press reports and a too-great reliance on Major Smith. I may very well be off-base on this, but if there is support for the kidney really being from Eddowes, it is very weak. We cannot ABSOLUTELY beyond all matter of doubt say no, unless microscopic slides happen to turn up. The weight of evidence, however, appears to me to be against the kidney being real, and efforts to use it and the "From Hell" letter as a jumping-off point for pointless psychological theorising to be wasted effort.
Having said all this, of course, I also realise that this is rather a tempest in a tea-pot. Whether the LK was real or not will not appreciably bring us closer to Jack the Ripper. But I do think that proving (or believing beyond reasonable doubt) it to be fake at least spares other researchers and students from chasing phantasms down a dark alley.
Thus my rationale for spouting off the above. Apologies for the rant.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 03:48 pm | | haelally being from Eddowes, it is very weak. We cannot ABSOLUTELY beyond all matter of doubt say no, unless microscopic slides happen to turn up. The weight of evidence, however, appears to me to be against the kidney being real, and efforts to use it and the "From Hell" letter as a jumping-off point for pointless psychological theorising to be wasted effort.
Having said all this, of course, I also realise that this is rather a tempest in a tea-pot. Whether the LK was real or not will not appreciably bring us closer to Jack the Ripper. But I do think that proving (or believing beyond reasonable doubt) it to be fake at least spares other researchers and students from chasing phantasms down a dark alley.
Thus my rationale for spouting off the above. Apologies for the rant.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 04:04 pm | | Hi, Tom:
Here are some medico-legal texts that may prove useful having been published near the time period we are interested in:
Atlas of legal medicine, by Dr. E. von Hofmann... authorized translation from the German, ed. by Frederick Peterson... assisted by Aloysius O. J. Kelly... 56 plates in colors, and 193 illustrations in black. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1898.
Apropos of a theory that Jack may have been a somnambulist as apparently proposed by a Dr. George Henry Roque Dabbs (1846-1913), I thought I would post the following citation :-)
L'hypnotisme et les etats analogues au point de vue medico-legal, les etats hypnotiques et les etats analogues les suggestions criminelles cabinets de somnambules et societes de magnetisme et de spiritisme l'hypnotisme devant la loi, par le docteur Gilles de la Tourette ... preface de m. le dr P. Brouardel. Paris: E. Plon, Nourrit et cie, 1887.
Legal medicine, by Charles Meymott Tidy. New York: W. Wood & Company, 1882-84. This is the same Dr. Charles Meymott Tidy (1843-1892) who testified at the trial of Florence Maybrick.
The principles and practice of medical jurisprudence, by Alfred Swaine Taylor. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea, 1873.
Principles of forensic medicine, by William A Guy. 3d ed. London: H. Renshaw, 1868.
I hope these references may be of some use.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 04:57 pm | | Thanks Chris
CMD
Here are three of the other arguments I have thought of against the LK being genuine.
1) JTR took away 2 uterii at the time the LK was submitted. Why only submit a kidney? JTR had 2 uteri in his collection so he could spare one. He had only one kidney. If as I propose an animal kidney may look similar to a human one then it is convenient that he submitted this one organ and not the other 2. Uteri are formed embryologically by 2 streaks of tissue fusing together in the middle (Mullerian ducts). In humans the only part of the Mullerian ducts that stay separate are the Fallopian tubes (although sometimes this does not happen). I understand that most animal species do not have such a central fusion and it is therefore easy to distinguish between a human and an animal uterus. Not so for the kidney.
2) I remember reading (although like my microscope I forget where) that the kidney had been prepared. For this I interpret that perinephric fat and adrenal glands had been removed. Why bother doing this? The only conclusion I can come to is that he bought it in a butcher and butcher's prepare their kidneys.
3) I wish I knew what was mean't by cut longitudianlly. Mike you may be able to help remind me by remembering descriptions from your anatomy days. From this I assume that it was cut from top to bottom in a front to back plane or would this be called 'saggitally'. This is important. (I have a radiology meeting on Tuesday and my radiology colleagues use these terms so I will ask them if Mike, like me, has forgotten the answer) If it was cut through halving it's thickness (leaving the front and back parts in different pieces) and thus displaying the renal pelvis and medullary rays, then this would not be the most ovious way to prepare a kidney for eating. Get a kidney and cut it in half, there are three ways in doing it. One through the middle from left to right. The other from up to down but to cut through it's thinest thickness is only done in postmortem specimens to display the anatomy. So if it is cut this was, then it supports the theory that it had been taken from a PM specimen but only after the pathologist had looked at it. If it was cut the other way then I have a question for Jon. When I bought my kidneys, they had knife marks in them. 2 of them had an incision from up to down (in a back to front manner) in such a way that if the incision was complete the left and right portions of the kidney would be seperate. Why is this? Did the butcher do it on purpose? If so, then I propose that if the LK was cut that way, then it could have been bought from a butcher.
Now I know these arguments are not objective when giving them on their own and I do wish to be objective. However, the more I read the more I doubt it being from JTR. It's time to put a table together preparing the argument for and against it being a human kidney, having Bright's disease and being from Eddowes.
Heres a medical saying, 'When you hear hooves think horses not zebra'.
Goodnight
Tom |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 05:01 pm | | | PS. VIPER. How come you know such much about pigs? Do you have some specialised knowledge on this area? Perhaps you are a farmer or from a farming family? |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 05:06 pm | | | I forgot to ask my one final question (and your probably gathering that I intend another experiment). If I were to preserve a pig's kidney in 'wine' or 'spirit' as was the Lusk Kidney. What should I buy from the supermarket to repeat this? |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 05:43 pm | | Hi, Tom:
It would seem that you would need "spirits of wine" to repeat the experiment of preserving the kidney as the Lusk kidney was preserved. Might I suggest some cheap Spanish or French plonk? :-)
I would say that brandy might make a better preservative except that the word "wine" seems to suggest that actual wine was used, doesn't it? Unless, that it is, if the operative word here is "spirits" in which case brandy or cognac would indeed be indicated.
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 06:36 pm | | Tom
Re: Your Kidney's
My oppologies I must be having a slow day, I cannot picture the cuts you are trying to describe.
Whenever I removed a kidney it was torn out while within the fatty membrane. Then it was a simple matter to remove the kidney from within the fatty tissue, just nick it with a knife and crack it open.
All I can suggest, if the kidney has knife marks, is that a novice (apprentice) was less than carefull when slicing the fatty tissue to remove the kidney.
Otherwise, without fully understanding your description, I would suggest you ask your butcher who sold them to you.
As far as cutting a kidney in two equal halves....
We should all know what a kidney shaped swimming pool looks like, we all know the profile of a typical kidney. Then to cut one longdidtudinally(?) I would slice it so that both halves still show the kidney profile, slicing it along its line of maximum circumference.
Thats my interpretation of a longditudinal cut.
Also, I have said this before but I dont expect any agreement from the group, ....I feel that when the Doctor described the kidney as 'removed with care', I think he was implying that the kidney was removed from within the membrane, while still within the body.
This was not necessary, if Jack was in a hurry. It therefore appears to me that Jack was making a statement to the authorities, by removing it from the membrane.
"I'm experienced, I'm dangerous, I'm no nutcase"
And he even facially mutilated Eddowes, so he wasn't rushed.
(which indicates the definition of 'nutcase' is very broad)
:-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 08:15 pm | | My apologies for twice posting. Server problems.
The basic thrust of my post was that I wasn't quite following Yazoo's argument. The validity of the LK needs to be established before making cock-eyed theories as to what the Ripper might have "meant" by sending it. It seems to me that the three main presumptions people have for presuming the LK to be real are that the "From hell" letter said so, the press said so and Major Smith said so. I think each of those presumptions is flawed.
In any event, I think all of the worthy company here are familiar (ad nauseam) with my arguments. You might, however, wish to check out the February issue of "Ripper Notes," which will carry my essay on the bona fides of the LK.
CMD |
Author: anon
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 02:03 am | | The interesting thing about the medical men making a contribution to these boards is not the fact that they cast any new light on the case, merely that they prove that medical men cannot agree and that no matter how much they pontificate all we are left with are the few facts recorded in 1888.
For, indeed, Messrs. Ind and Villon are not the first two of their type to apply themselves to the problem of the 'Lusk kidney.' Nick Warren, a practising surgeon, and Richard Whittington-Egan, a trained pathologist, have trodden there first - and they did not agree with each other. In this instance, however, neither of our medical gentlemen is as well read on the case as their predecessors, and their opinions remain only that - opinions. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 02:23 am | | Greetings, anon:
The lack of unanimity among medical men dealing with the Ripper case is very reminiscent of the lack of unanimity among Ripperologists in general, is it not?
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 07:19 am | | Hey All!
Last note for a while:
I find it hard to believe that we can "prove" much about the Lusk kidney at this distance in time. And what we seem able to "prove" may not be as helpful as it currently seems in this discussion (though I do not feel this discussion should cease or that the arguments should not be presented -- only that they be kept in perspective as to their usefulness).
In regards to the kidney, I think we only have three possibilities:
1) We can say that from the surviving records of what 'experiments' were performed on it that the medical men wouldn't have been able to distinguish a human kidney from a pig's. Unfortunately, this argument says more about 1888-era forensics -- maybe just the personal qualities of the examiners -- than about the kidney in question. Proving a kind of incompetence, negligence, or ignorance, still leaves us with an open question whether the kidney was human and, most importantly, from Eddowes.
2) Expanding on the surving records issue of 1, since most if not all examiners agree it was human -- at least -- we are left with the ever-frustrating JtR-related problem of a possible lack of information on what 1888-era did or knew that convinced them of their opinion. Same conclusion about the species and ownership of the kidney as 1 above.
3) We accept the assertion of 1888-era examiners that the kidney was human, despite possible doubts that could be thrown at their convictions, and we are still left in doubt as to whether the kidney came from Eddowes.
That's why I see the issue of how long the alleged human kidney had been out of the body -- and no doubt it's own set of controversy and disparate opinions -- as being more important to the investigative aspect of this case or cases than the ulimately inconclusive results that must surely come after examining the "species" question about the Lusk kidney.
I have little desire to see the JtR correspondence or the Lusk kidney enter into the "accepted" domain of "genuine" JtR artifacts without them adding something to the who and what and how of JtR.
My personal feelings are these: We have been lost on this case almost from the beginning. We need to expand our thinking (I'll leave this statement vague as to how and what directions to avoid missing viable options or offending others by my subjective criteria). If we find that it is possible to at least initially treat the letters and kidney as genuine communications from the murderer(s), then we may have a new and often neglected starting point for investigation (again leaving the means and the ways open to individual inclinations). If no definite, unassailable statement can be made on the correspondence and/or Lusk kidney, it seems to me these are viable starting points but that they are equally unacceptable for basing an entire case against one or more suspects. There must be corroborative or alternative "evidence" against anyone we turn up using the letters and kidney solely as a starting point.
(Lately I feel that no matter what "evidence" we use, we'll never be able to satisfactorally conclude this investigation. And coming to unsatisfying compromises on whether smaller aspects of the case are genuine artifacts of the crime or criminal has never interested me as the lone outcome of our thoughts and efforts. But I've certainly been wrong here many, many times before! And eliminating the correspondence and the Lusk kidney -- not that they've ever been actually used for any purpose except adding the "exotic" or "bizarre" shadows to the case -- may very well prove a breakthrough. I dunno!)
I hope that helps explain why I stress the letters and kidney so often. They may not be genuine artifacts/clues...they may be genuine. We cannot formulate a definitive answer regarding them. The case has been and remains at an almost total stand-still. Keeping in mind my previous warnings, why not make some use of these artifacts -- if only to free our thoughts? (I leave you with another reminder of the Berkowitz case that was "cracked" by a police officer searching the records of traffic tickets issued in the areas on the nights of the Son of Sam murders. The tickets were not definite proof that Berkowitz was the murderer or even near the shootings -- only that his car was near the crime scenes; but it lead to a suspect who turned out to be the killer.)
Yaz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 09:16 am | | Anon -
Very true, of course. All we have is what was said in 1888 and modern medical opinion will always disagree. Yet, just as people (informed and not informed, as I am sure you notice) continue to debate the medical competence of Drs Bond, Phillips, Sequeira, &c., so too will people (informed and not informed) debate the medical findings of the estimably qualified Messrs Warren and Whittington-Egan.
In the case of the LK, we (and certainly I!) tend to forget about the crippling effects of hindsight. We know the LK is going to arrive. Dr Brown didn't. His comment about the condition of Eddowes' right kidney was made in the course of a standard post-mortem and not as a prelude to the nephrology discussion we are engaging in; speaking as a layman, it appears to me that there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary there, or Brown might have gone into a deeper discussion of the right kidney's pathologic appearance.
The medical opinions of Warren and RWE were made from their significant medical and Ripper knowledge. They should be paid heed. But, as you rightly point out, anon, it is after all only "opinion," and thus subject to reconsideration.
In any event, I'm sure you would agree that at least Drs Ind and Villon admit to their lack of knowledge or experience>
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 15 March 2002 - 09:49 pm | | I've certainly enjoyed reading this thread! I apologize if I've missed the explanation, but I gather that the LK or slides of the LK weren't preserved--I find it hard to believe they're not about on a shelf somewhere. I'm not in the medical profession, so I hope you'll forgive my ignorance, but might there be any genetic information to be found in the stain on the Lusk letter? I realize that's quite a long shot, assuming there are any documented Eddowes descendants to test against.
Cheers (and pardon my entering your conversation so late) |
Author: Jack Traisson
Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 03:50 am | | Hi David,
It is certainly possible that the Lusk Kidney is on a shelf somewhere. Kind of similar to how Sam Hardy, assistant to Professor Camps, found the sketches of Mitre Square by Frederick Foster along with the drawing of Eddowes in situ by Dr. Brown in the basement of the London Hospital. Unfortunately, the greater possibility exists that the LK has been thrown out since 1888.
A nice idea about the Lusk letter, one which many keen people like yourself think of. Like many of the files on JtR, sadly it is missing.
Do not despair; think positively, and keep trying to find avenues of exploration.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 09:02 pm | | Hi, John and David:
Dr. Thomas Ind who sometimes visits these boards and who has done some investigation into Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw of the London Hospital, who examined the kidney, believes that a slide of the kidney might still exist. This would be a segment of the kidney mounted on a glass slide. The rest of the half a kidney sent to George Lusk presumably would have been disposed of. To my knowledge, such a slide has not yet turned up. In regard to the stain on the Lusk letter, I believe from JtR letters expert Stewart P. Evans that the original communication is missing from the official files and all we have is a photograph of the letter.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 10:59 pm | | Thanks, Jack and Chris, for your clarifications--I would've thought the kidney or slides of the kidney would've been preserved as possible evidence. I still have a hard time believing they would've just chucked it out with the trash. In any case, I suppose it's fantasy to consider that any genetic material could be recovered from them (or from the letter, which I'm positive will somehow be re-discovered someday). But who knows what tomorrow's technology could do with a simple slide, should one surface? And of all the victims to have a possible specimen from, Kate Eddowes seems to be the best to me, just because she came from a large family. I don't know what became of her daughter, but it seems probable there are lots of relatives alive today.
Well. I'm suddenly aware that I may be stepping into science fiction--I'm just speculating. On St. Patrick's Day, no less--what's wrong with me?
Cheers |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 17 March 2002 - 07:00 am | | Apropos the 'From hell' letter, it is very likely that it still exists and may well be in Canada. It is believed that it went there in the mid-20th century when it was acquired by a collector.
There is a descendant of Catherine Eddowes living within in few miles of me. |
|
|
|
|
|
