|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The Missing Kidney
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Catherine Eddowes:
The Missing Kidney
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 11:47 am |        | Chief among the debunkers of the half kidney enclosed in the package received by Lusk seems Whitington-Egan. I've been told that he at one point wrote a piece summarizing all known complaints about the authenticity of the kidney. I was wondering if someone might comment on his work here, as it is important to the case and not widely discussed. What was the nature of his objections? Thanks to anyone who can help.
David |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 12:55 pm | | David -
In his 1975 "Casebook on JTR," Mr Whittington-Egan discusses the kidney on pp. 52-62. If he has gone into the subject in more detail somewhere else, I am afraid I do not know.
His 10 pages are somewhat longer than can be posted here, but I will try to summarise as best I can. There is a brief discussion of the circumstances of Lusk receiving the kidney, its despatchment to the London Hospital, and so on.
Mr Whittington-Egan's objections concerning the kidney then are:
- Major Smith's account of the medical findings in regards to the kidney was written some 22 years after the events, and there is evidence that the Major's memory was none too reliable.
- the Major tells us that Eddowes' kidney was in an advanced state of Bright's disease (which may well be so), but the fact that this also applied to the kidney remaining in her shattered corpse is nowhere reported in any surviving document.
- "it must be remembered, too, that Bright's disease is not a disease deriving from a single causative factor in the way that, say, tuberculosis is. It is. . .applied to a collection of associated signs and symptoms connected with a class of diseases of the kidney, the most common of which are albuminuria and oedema, accruing from a variety of different aetiologies to produce such diseases as, among others, acute, subacute and chronic glomerulonephritis and nephritis. It is likely that the kidneys of very many people - particularly, it could be argued, those of the submerged and destitute classes of the period. . .would exhibit morbid changes of the type which would fall into the symptom pattern of what in those days was called Bright's Disease."
- Dr Openshaw was quoted as saying the kidney was taken from a woman, but Mr Whittington-Egan (trained as a surgeon) notes you cannot tell the sex of an excised kidney. Nor can you determine the age of the person from whom it has been removed, as Dr Openshaw is said to have done.
- Major Smith's statement that "the renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney" gives us the dimensions that might be expected, says Mr Whittington-Egan, "on any crudely excised kidney, as, unless the operator sets out with the deliberate intention of detaching the organ and artery intact, he is likely to divide the artery closer to its distal extremity - that is, away from the aorta and nearer to the corpus of the kidney. The implication that it was possible to match up the fragment of artery on the Lusk kidney with the greater length of artery in the cadaver is not factually supported, for the Lusk kidney was received on. . .October 19th, and Catharine Eddowes had been buried. . .on October 8th."
I hope this helps. I'll be happy to forward a complete transcript to you privately, if you wish.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 09:45 pm | | Thank you, C-M, for the excellent summary. Please see my e-mail heading your way soon.
With respect to Whittington-Egan: It seems he is criticizing the various ways in which people have come to express support for the authenticity of the kidney, not pronouncing directly on authenticity. I.e., he's not saying if the kidney is real or not, only implying that what others have taken as evidence is likely not good evidence. Genuineness would be an entirely different matter.
David |
Author: Diana Comer
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 11:47 am | | | There are two questions which puzzle me about that kidney. One is, unless he was a Dr., how did he find it and get it out so fast? The other is why take it at all? Unless I'm missing something it certainly does not carry the heavy emotional baggage that a uterus would have. There is nothing remotely erotic about a kidney. I read some messages on the board this afternoon about the Goulston Street rag that triggered a memory from my childhood. We had a cat who was insanely fond of kidney. Every once in a while my Mother would buy a kidney from the butcher and present it to the cat who promptly went into raptures over it. It was deemed appropriate, therefore that as a part of our Christmas morning ritual one year this family member would be presented with a chunk of kidney. My sister and I decided to tie it to the tree with a piece of string. We thought it would be funny to watch him trying to get it off the tree. We underestimated the cat. He pulled and tugged until the string came untied at the tree end and then went tearing down the basement stairs with his prize and devoured it string and all! I have since read that animals are particularly drawn to organ meats. Suppose Jack didn't take Catherine Eddowes' kidney. Suppose he leaves Mitre Square. I realize this is horrible to contemplate, but after he is gone along comes Bowser. Now Bowser has no trouble locating the kidney because he uses his sense of smell so it matters not a whit that its behind a membrane or whatever. When he takes it in his mouth he also gets a piece of Eddowes apron entangled with it (same principal as the string on my cat's kidney). Bowser hears the PC approaching and runs off to wherever he runs off to to devour his prize. Later he chews on, plays with and tosses the rag around until he gets tired of it and drops it in Goulston Street. it accounts for the rapid finding and removal of the kidney. It explains why the kidney was taken at all, and it solves the mystery of why it took so long for it to show up in Goulston Street. However I am not a dog owner so there may be a reason why this wouldn't fly. Any opionions from dog owners? |
Author: Jon Smyth
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 12:20 pm | | Diana
LOL ...are you serious? !!!! LOL
We've had various culprits, like Rats, Cats, Glove puppets, and also Dogs, I believe.
The Kidney is enclosed in a rather thick fatty membrane, not looking nor I would suspect smelling like a kidney might, either.
We don't know if the complete fatty membrane was removed including the kidney or if the membrane was sliced through to retrieve the smaller kidney within. Which do you think is what happened?, assuming a dog was to blame :-)
Don't you think the Doctors would be able to tell teeth marks in the area of the removed organs?
The Apron was sliced through, not torn, as a repaired patch was also sliced through at the same time, this dog may have been handy with a knife, but if he was, how did he carry away the knife & the kidney at the same time?
The apron showed no sign's of being chewed.....oh, never mind !!
Diana, would you be prepared to present a paper on this at the Ripper conference in New Jersey next year?
Thanks for the Monty Python sketch Diana :-)
(I'm joking with you)
All the best, Jon |
Author: Diana Comer
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 02:58 pm | | | Aaaaah -- I'd like to buy a vowel please? |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 06:26 am | | Hello All
Ok, getting back to being serious here....
We have discussed at length on various boards about the time it might take to locate and remove a human kidney, in the dark.
We have also called into question the experience required, to locate & remove this same organ.
Thinking back to my teenage years when I was a butchers apprentice, I removed many a lambs kidney, and this was always done by tearing it out, rather than by cutting. The human kidney is a little larger than that of a full grown lamb, so I'm not suggesting the Eddowes kidney was torn out.
But when I opened the fatty membrane to removed the actual kidney enclosed, there would always be a length of artery still attached to the kidney, as in the case of the Lusk kidney.
So, IF the Lusk kidney came from Eddowes, then the fact that this kidney had approx. 1 inch of renal artery still attached suggest's to me that this is because the kidney was enclosed in the membrane when removed.
The thickness of the membrane giving us the length of artery that would pass through it to the body.
So, assuming the entire membrane was taken from Eddowes, this lessens the expertise required by the killer.
Something to consider, I guess.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana Comer
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 09:01 am | | | Jon, is the membrane so thick that a dog wouldn't be able to locate the kidney by smell? |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 09:20 am | | Hi Diana.
The membrane is thick, but its thickness varies, so I suggest here that only an experiment would suffice to convince anyone.
A freshly killed body torn open is going to smell very strongly of many odors, and as the kidney is not exposed to the air until the membrane is broken open, I would think that the smell of faeces, blood and intestinal gases might well mask the smell of a sealed in kidney.
There are many other issues that must be addressed if we are to consider a dog foraging in the exposed abdomen, pushing it's nose past all other organs to locate the kidney membrane attached to the human spine area, at the rear of the corpse. The kidney is not on top, for easy pickings.
As you know, a dog will use its paws also to scrat away into something, similar to digging a hole. I think we all must consider that experienced Doctors would easily detect the signs that a dog would leave after digging around in the human carcass.
All the best, Jon |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 11 July 1999 - 02:30 pm | | Not that anyone's likely following these episodes of .....
'Jack (the) Russell, the Terrior of Mitre Square.
But I omitted something of relevence to the above poste, and in keeping with almost every aspect of these murders being contentious, I add the following....
A reporter with 'Star of the East' obtained an interview with Dr Gordon Brown at his residence and the Good Doctor had this to say about the Lusk Kidney;
'So far as I can form an opinion, I do not see any substantial reason why this portion of kidney should not be the portion of the one taken from the murdered woman'
......then after describing the state of the kidney, Dr Brown concludes....
'we come to the conclusion that the probability is slight of it's being a portion of the murdered woman of Mitre Square'
(?)
But the important detail that comes to light is....
'As has been stated, there is no portion of the renal artery adhering to it, it having been trimmed up, so consequently, there could be no correspondence established between [it and] the portion of the body from which it was cut'
(The Lodger, Evans & Gainey)
So, this whole renal artery business may be a red herring afterall, such is the bottom line of many aspects in this case.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 03:28 am | | | I went to the public library yesterday and ordered a copy of Gray's Anatomy. We shall see ... |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 07:29 am | | Hi All,
>'Jack (the) Russell, the Terrior of Mitre Square.
LOL!!
In all seriousness, did Major Smith ever actually claim that the two sections had been matched up?? Or, did he just assume that because the average renal artery is 3 inches long, and two inches remained in Eddowes corpse while one inch was attached to the kidney received by Lusk, that, by golly, it just had to be Eddowes' kidney??
If the former, then I think Mr. Whittington-Egan's objection to this business of matching up sections of the renal artery is well-taken. It is known that Eddowes was buried on October 8, the date I have for receipt of the kidney by Lusk is October 16 (not the 19th). Regardless of whether it was the 16th or 19th, I can't see how the matching up of the two sections of renal artery could actually have occurred, unless Eddowes' body had been exhumed, in which case there should be some record of the exhumation.
If the latter, then Major Smith was making an unproven assumption, and the only thing he definitively established was that 2 + 1 = 3.
In either case I'm inclined to agree with Jon, in that the whole renal artery business is probably a red herring.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 17 July 1999 - 12:18 pm | | Diana
I saw a copy of Gray's Anatomy in the used book store in town, $13. If your that way inclined, let me know, I'll pick it up & mail it to you.
Jon |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 10:24 am | | Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but I thought this Daily Telegraph story might be interesting to those who haven't seen it. I was intrigued that the newspapers were talking about glycerine and spirit of wine preservatives the day before Eddowes was killed.
Daily Telegraph, September 28, 1888:
"It has been ascertained that the incident to which Mr. Wynne Baxter, coroner for East Middlesex, so emphatically referred in his summing up of the evidence given at the inquest concerning the death of Annie Chapman, occurred some months since, towards the close of last year. The person who made the singular application, as described, at one of the great London hospitals, and which he repeated at a scientific institution, was for some time a student at the hospital in question, and it is stated he would have been able to procure what he required without incurring any risk. As a matter of fact, according to the experience of demonstrators of anatomy, there is no such value to be attached to what was mentioned by the coroner, who was informed that £20 would be given by the American in every case. In a pecuniary sense there would be no value attaching at all. As a student the applicant must have been conversant with the rules of the dissecting room and with the very strict regulations of the Government in regard to the disposal of post-mortem subjects. He certainly would have excited suspicion by pressing a demand with unusual conditions, the more especially as under proper treatment glycerine, as the medium of preservation, would have been totally unnecessary. This at all events is the view taken by some experts, while others state that the use of glycerine, as opposed to spirits of wine, as a preserving agent would depend to a great extent upon the experiment subsequently intended to be made. . ."
I pulled the above story off Alex's great site: News From Whitechapel. I'm sure many of you will be familiar with this already, but I don't recall reading it before (I don't have my copy of JTR Sourcebook handy).
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Esther Wilson
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 11:18 am | | Thanks for posting this Dave--I haven't had a chance to check out Alex's site yet but from this article...I'm looking forward to a little more time when I can relax and read. 
Esther |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 09:42 pm | | Hi Dave et al.:
Interesting information that the man asking for samples of women's uteri had been a student at the same hospital where he was applying to get a uterus. Hmmmm..... However, the man must have been a student at that hospital some years beforehand, I believe, if we match this information with some other information, found by Mike Conlon, in the October 7, 1888 Chicago Tribune, that I recently included in an article that I wrote for the most recent issue of Ripperologist, that the American was "a reputable physician in Philadelphia with a large medical practice. . ." He could not have built up such a large practice in Philadelphia, I would think, if he had just freshly been a student in England.
I am trying to identify that Philadelphia physician and knowing that the man had been a student, as I interpret it, at King’s College and Middlesex Hospital, where he is said to have asked for specimens, will make my task easier, so thanks for noticing that September 28, 1888 article on Alex's News from Whitechapel website, Dave.
In regard to whether the Lusk kidney might still exist, Dr. Thomas Ind has in the past hypothesized that this could have been preserved as a segment of the kidney on a glass slide, and kept possibly at the London Hospital since 1888. However, Dr. Ind has just written me a pessimistic e-mail. He pointed out that there has been a major effort in the British National Health Service to dispose of "retained organs." This is partly a result of a recent scandal at Liverpool's Alder Hey Hospital about deceased patients' organs that were being kept without the knowledge of relatives of those deceased patients. He noted that there exists in Britain a "Retained Organs Commission" with strict rules "about disposal of tissue and blocks and slides." Dr Ind stated in his e-mail to me that this "might in some way help explain why I fear that any stored tissue from the past has now been destroyed. Where I have worked, there has been massive destruction of stored tissue (so I am told)."
This is not to say, I would guess, that the slide of the Lusk kidney might not still exist, but Dr. Ind's e-mail seems to indicate that the chances that it is still in existence appear slim.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 12:56 am | | Hello, Chris and Esther:
I'm very glad you have found the Telegraph story satisfying reading. Alex's site is quite a treasure trove, isn't it?
Chris--this is only a thought, but couldn't your physician/student have bought his large practice in Philadelphia instead of building one from the ground up?
Just to clarify, the reason for my post was that I thought it was odd that talk about preserving organs with spirit of wine would be in the public consciousness the day before the murder of Kate Eddowes and a couple of weeks before the Lusk kidney turned up. I wondered if either JTR and/or the author of the Lusk letter had perhaps read this same story and received some inspiration? But as far as the kidney still surviving intact in glycerine or spirit of wine, I believe it was you, Jack Traisson, and Stewart Evans who set me straight about the possibilities when I first started posting last spring, gently reminding me of the Blitz and that the kidney was probably thrown out, anyway (aside from a possible section).
However, I'm very glad you have given us an update regarding Dr. Ind since I've often wondered whatever became of his search. So, no go. Ah well, the chances were always slim, so I don't think we can really be disappointed. But who knows, something might turn up unexpectedly and we'll all be surprised.
Chris and Esther, have a very Happy Thanksgiving, if you are celebrating.
By the way Chris, I forgot to post last Sunday--curse your Baltimore Ravens!
Best,
Dave
(Who is writing from chilly, foggy, and rainy Nashville) |
|
|
|
|
