|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3136
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 7:46 am: |       |
This could well be George :
"TIMES" Sept 12 1888
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
Nice find, Robert. I think you're right that this probably is George Morris. A little uptight, isn't he?
Thanks,
Dave |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 973
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
Hi Robert and Dave
Also interesting to read about Sir Andrew Lusk. Wonder if he was a relation of George Aikin Lusk? 
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on October 02, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3139
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Hi Dave and Chris
Morris doesn't seem to have liked Birke much!
I only wish the two Lusks were related. Apart from 1888, there doesn't seem to be much about our Lusk at all.
Robert |
Ghost
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
Mr Lusk Sir - I send you half the box I took from Mitre Square, praserved it for you, t'other piece I used as packing materials? Hello fellow Ripperologists - this is my first entry. My name is Philip and I am behind the Conference being held in London on November 13th (see Casebook homepage). I'm also a Ripper guide (oh you poor folks abroad - I see the murder sites 3 times every week!) and I can't join this chatroom properly. What do I do?! I do the join chat room link but it doesn't seem to configure or let me have my real name! What is going on?! |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1375
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Robert,
This must be the article Paul Begg quotes in is book isnt it?
If so, many thanks. Its nice to read the sources.
Cheers mate,
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3154
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 2:55 pm: | |
Help, Monty! I have the "Uncensored Facts" but I'm sure it isn't in there. I have "JTR, the Definitive History" from the library but I haven't read it yet. It doesn't seem to be in there though. Whereabouts did you see it?
Robert |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 322
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
It's in Begg's latest: JTR: The Facts.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1376
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 3:43 am: | |
Robert,
Dan has beaten me to the punch...so to speak.
Monty
PS a little add on....from the horses mouth so to speak...again !
Paul has passed this on which I believe is his source for this story
The Star, 12 September 1888:
Pleaded Hard for a Harsh Judgement.
Alexander Birke, Great Garden-chambers, Whitechapel, shoemaker, was charged at the Guildhall with stealing from an enclosure in front of 4, Mitre-street, Aldgate, an empty wooden case, the property of Messrs. Kearley and Tonge. Evidence was given by a person named Morris. The alderman said an old, empty champagne case was worthless, or nearly so; moreover, there was no actual proof that the accused took it. Witness: But the value of the thing has nothing to do with it. I have known a person convicted for stealing a turnip. Sir Andrew Lusk: Probably, but I never did convict for stealing a turnip, and I never will. - Witness: The prisoner has been convicted before. - Harris (the gaoler): I do not know him. - The Alderman: The man is not known. No proof has been given that he stole the box, and if he had the value is nothing. He has been in prison all night, and I now discharge him. - The decision was received with applause.
Paul also states that it's almost the same report as Mr Linford cited in The Times, which probably means it was received from a news agency.
(Message edited by monty on October 06, 2004)
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3157
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 5:44 am: | |
Thanks folks.
Phillip, welcome to the Boards. I've never been in the chat room, but if you ask Stephen he might be able to advise you.
Robert |
Sian Evans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 5:37 am: | |
I think there is more to the Lusk thing than most ripperologists give it credit for..
The fact that JTR wrote to Lusk in the first place suggests that he either knew him or had something to prove to him directly.
Maybe he was one of the 20 workers underneath Lusk?
There are 2 paintings by Walter Sickert which depict women on stage which I saw in Sydney art gallery the other day. I dont think that Sickert was the Ripper but I DO think that he knew something about the murders...
The funny thing was finding out that Mr Lusk was a builder of music halls!! Look at these paintings of music halls by Sickert... The one with the woman in the yellow dress was painted in 1887. The other one was painted in 1888. Look at the difference. There is a lot of detail which cannot be clearly seen in the photo but in the 1888 one, there are faint images of a woman's torso in the sides of the stage. Also, notice the screaming motif at the top of the stage. The 1888 one also uses dark blood red frequently.. the pose of her arms is just like Mary Kelly's deathbed pose. Notice how scared the girl on stage looks in comparison to the 1887 one. Let me know what you think!!
  |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 333
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 5:03 pm: | |
Hi Sian,
You've got the wrong thread. Andrew Lusk was not George Lusk. And it's not an established fact that the Ripper wrote to George Lusk anyway.
And I don't know what you are trying to say here. Because Sickert painted music halls and because you think you see bloody torsos that means... what, exactly? I mean, other than that you have a morbid and overactive imagination?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
Unh???? 
Sian, I am also a bit puzzled by your post. Dan is correct that, as far as we know, Sir Andrew Lusk has no connection to George Lusk, the builder and head of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee who received the 16 October 1888 letter with a half a kidney.
Nonetheless, I fail to see any relevance in the fact that builder Lusk worked on music halls and even less of a message in these paintings. By "seeing" things in Sickert's paintings or indeed interpreting any artist's work in such a way, I think you risk going down the same long slippery slope as Ms. Cornwell. Frankly I don't see what you mean about the 1888 painting in terms of there being women's torsos visible. Really?
In any case, as I indicate, we can see what we want in artwork, if we must. However, would it really have any relevance to the murders?
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Sian Evans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 4:38 am: | |
Yes - the painting is quite morbid. I don't think it is my imagination either - my boyfriend was with me at the time and he agreed - and he isn't very easily led! It is a shame that you cant see it up close because it has plenty of fine detail.
I thought the previous post was about George Lusk, and not Andrew - oops!
The main thing is that I think the connection to George Lusk, the fact that JTR wrote to him of all people, is extremely important. Why Lusk? It was like he had a point to prove to him, like he knew him personally or something. It seems strange to me that authors etc. never seem to look into this very much. |
Sian Evans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Yes I am confused! :-) I'm no expert..
But the biggest point which i wanted to bring out was the fact that no one (none of the books i've ever read on the subject) ever seems to say anything more than JTR wrote to Lusk. They never try to work out why it was Lusk of all people that he would write to. What was so special about Lusk????
And i also wanted to share those paintings because they are really good! I think Patricia Cornwell is barking up the wrong tree when she says she thinks Sickert was the ripper. but i do think that he has been very inspired by the whole thing and may have known something about the ripper. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
