|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
dlmaugie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 12:29 pm: | 
|
The Lusk letter reads "I may send you the bloody knif that took it out if you only wate a whil longer."
This letter preceeded the longest inactivety from the Ripper. I think the Ripper knew he was not going to get a chance to murder for a while. He would have sent the knife with the letter if he had any attention of giving it away. However, I think he was saying, He would start his games when he gets a chance. Which is a very familiar phrase. |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 204
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Hi Dave - where's your registration, then?
As you've asked, this is the contents of the e-mail I sent you a few days ago pasted in here :
Until about a year ago I believed the Lusk letter was genuine. I am now in no doubt it was a hoax by a medical student trying to come across as Irish (remember the Irish immigrants had only slightly preceeded the Jewish ones and there was still a bit of resentment). I think the 'Wait a while longer' simply meant 'I don't have it available right now to send to you', which to me says he was pretending he had a bloody knife used in the murders. Perhaps the hoaxer did indeed intend to send a knife covered in blood later but thought better of it?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 497
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
I used to be an elementary school teacher. The spelling errors in Lusk are confusing. What follows is a phonetic analysis.
From hell.
Mr Lusk,
Sor
I send you half the Kidne I took from one woman and 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
The stress in the teaching of reading is on phonics with some reliance on rote memorization of the appearance of words which do not follow phonetic rules. In the teaching of spelling there is a more even balance between rote memory and phonetic analysis. If I know how a word is spelled, I do not have to sound it out in my mind and try to figure out which letters go with the sound.
The author of the Lusk letter made 7 spelling errors. In two of them there seems to be no attempt at phonetic analysis. If I read knif and whil phonetically I will pronounce them wrong. Among the other five, three of them (possibly 4) would give the word as pronounced by someone with an Irish accent if read phonetically: Sor, prasarved, mishter, and possibly kidne (I need to know exactly how an Irish person would say it. If they would pronounce the last vowel sound in the word like the u in cup, then possibly “kidne” was an attempt to approximate this pronunciation. However I once heard an Irishman say the word “tea” and it was pronounced “tay”).
The other errors in the letter are the use of a dialectical nonstandard word which unless I miss my guess does not have an “official” spelling: tother, and the use of “a whil” . “Whil” is among the 7 spelling errors, but there is another mistake here. “Awhile” is acceptable and correct here. There are also grammatical and capitalization errors which I have ignored. Please note that in almost all instances of misspelling I have found other places in the LL where he used the rule correctly!
Knif and Whil -- although other words seem to demonstrate a knowledge of the use of the silent e at the end to make the vowel in the middle long, it seems to have been forgotten in “knif” and “whil”. But the author knew how to use silent e. Correct use is illustrated in “ate” and the misspellings (incorrect in themselves, but demonstrating awareness of the rule by its misuse) “wate” and “nise”.
Sor, Prasarved and Mishter -- lack of awareness of correct spelling of “Sir”, “preserved" and “Mister” forcing use of phonetics to approximate spelling; phonetic analysis affected by Irish accent, real or assumed.
Nise – lack of awareness of spelling of "nice" forcing use of phonetics to approximate; apparent lack of awareness of the C rule: C followed by e, i, or y makes the “s” sound, in almost all other cases it makes the “k” sound. But the author correctly used the C rule in other places: “catch” “can” “piece”.
Kidne -- lack of awareness of the y in "kidne" In some short words a vowel by itself at the end of the word is long as in "be, hi, ho". This rule may have been misapplied. Y at the end of a word, is frequently pronounced like a long e. The Lusk author used this in “very”, “bloody” and “only”. It frequently will make the vowel that comes right before it long. The author demonstrated his use of this in the word “may”. The presence of an E in kidney may have made him think the Y was unnecessary. Would an Irishman pronounce it “/kidnay/” as though it had a long a at the end or “/kidnuh/” (last vowel sound like the u in cup)? This is critical because we may be able to tell whether this is fake or not. A true Irishman, if he misspelled the word using phonetic analysis might have written “kidnay”, or “kidna” if he habitually pronounces a long “a” sound at the end. The only way he could possibly come up with kidne would be if he habitually pronounced the last vowel sound like the u in cup. This promises to be a really crazy discussion because we all speak English: Oxford, Cockney, Midwest United States, Australian, Swedish accent. Yoiks!
Wate -- lack of awareness of double vowel rule in “wate” -- instead misapplies silent e rule; But correctly uses double vowel rule in “piece” and “fried”. (Double vowel rule states that when two vowels are adjacent the first one is long and the second one is silent.)
Tother -- use of dialectic "tother"
Digraphs and Blends: Digraphs and blends are groups of letters which are frequently combined to make a given sound or series of sounds and cannot be assigned to a broader rule. An example would be the first one. “Atch” appears not only in “catch”, but “match”, “ratchet”, “batch”, “latch” etc. Usually the rule is taught and then the students are given a series of words to sound out which contain the digraph or blend. When a digraph or blend is used in a misspelling, its presence illustrates an awareness of the digraph or blend. The author apparently had an extensive repertoire of these.
Blend awareness of the atch blend in “catch”
Blend awareness of “ong” blend in “longer”
Blend awareness of ign rule in “signed”
Blend awareness of or blend in “Sor” (Correctly used in words like “corn”, “fork”)
Blend awareness of the ou blend in “you” to make a specialized vowel sound five times
Blend awareness of the specialized vowel sound created by ou in “out”
Digraph awareness of fr digraph in "fried"
Digraph awareness of nd digraph in "and"
Digraph awareness of nd digraph twice in "send" and twice in "and"
Digraph awareness of pr digraph in "prasarved"
Digraph awareness of sh blend in “Mishter” (correctly used in “fish”)
Digraph awareness of sk digraph in Lusk or saw Lusk's name in print somewhere
Digraph awareness of th digraph in "tother", “that” and twice in “the”
Digraph awareness of the bl digraph in “bloody”
Digraph awareness of the fr digraph in "from"
Digraph awareness of wh digraph in “whil” and “when”
Digraph awareness of ll in the word "hell" indicates awareness of the double l rule.
The C rule states that when C is followed by e, i, or y it is pronounced like S. Almost all other instances it is pronounced like K.
C rule awareness of c using the k sound in all instances except when followed by e, i, or y in “piece” “catch” and “can”
Awareness and appropriate use of endings
Ed ending awareness -- for past tense in "prasarved", "fried", and “signed”
Er ending awareness of er blend in "tother", “longer” and “Mishter”
I before E except after C.
awareness of i before e except after c rule in "piece" and "fried" (I get this one wrong occasionally.)
Y at the end of a word, when preceded by a consonant, is pronounced like long e.
Consonant y -- awareness of the long e sound of y in "very" “bloody” and “only”
A vowel at the end of a short word is frequently long.
Long vowel end -- Awareness of the long vowel at the end of a word rule in “me”
Capitalization of I when used as a pronoun
Pronoun I awareness of the capitalization of the letter I when used as a pronoun three times
Sight word awareness
Sight awareness of the long o sound at the beginning of “only”
Sight awareness of the nonphonetic spelling of "one" (phonetically wun)
Silent Consonants
awareness of silent l in "half"
awareness of the silent k in “knif”
A silent e at the end of a word makes the vowel in the middle long
awareness of silent e at the end of a word to make the internal vowel long in "ate" and misuse of "wate" and "nise"
This could go under “Blends and Digraphs” but there are many sounds for the letter o, and it takes an extensive knowledge to use them all correctly.
awareness of the special sound of o in woman
awareness of the specialized vowel sound made by oo in “bloody”
awareness of the use of oo in "took" to get a specialized o sound twice
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 215
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 9:28 pm: |
|
Bloody Hell, Diana! That's all really intricate, isn't it?! You've really done your work there - phew!
But what does all that lead you to conclude? You never said!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
That's because I wanted people to see it for themselves. It's not conclusive, but it sort of looks like he was trying to appear less educated than he was. This is illustrated by the fact that with most of his errors he could be found correctly applying the same rule elsewhere, and some of the rules he applied showed a significant level of sophistication. What I would really like to know is who is Irish on here and please tell me exactly how you pronounce the last vowel sound in the word "kidney". See if you can rhyme it with another common little word. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 12:18 am: |
|
A great post, Diana. Tremendous analysis. The only thing I believe about the Lusk letter is that it was, in fact, from Hell.
From Noo Yawk,
Robert
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 222
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
Which is what I suspected, Di.
Someone pretending they were uneducated - and to my mind, a medical student with access to the means of such pranks.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 416
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
A couple more points in favor of an educated person trying to write like a near illiterate.
Read the message with the orthography cleaned up and punctuation included:
Mr Lusk
Sir:
I send you half the kidney I took from one woman. Preserved it for you. The other piece I fried and ate. It was very nice. I may send you the bloody knife that took it out if you only wait awhile longer.
Signed: Catch me when you can, Mister Lusk.
For the most part, short but clear declarative sentences with an economy of words that is generally lacking in speech. Moreover, the last sentence (perhaps the writer got a little tired of the game) is not only longer, but is conditional and comes close to having a true subordinate clause -- all of which suggests an author more experienced at writing than he intended.
Note the business-like tone of "I send you" and the inclusion of the silent L in half as well as the oft-silent H. This contrasts with the removal of silent letters in other words (though again, the silent K in knife is included). Diana went into all of this, but it all suggests someone trying (none too well) to write down, so to speak, and strikes me as being important because of the inconsistency.
Also, as a rule those with even reasonable literacy spell words correctly even if they pronounce them dialectally, such as "Mishter." For that matter, Lusk would probably have been rendered "Lushk" orally as well as several other of the words.
Whether the author sent a Mr. Lusk a piece of Eddowes's kidney or not still remains a mystery, but I am sure the author was purposely writing down.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3946
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:20 am: |
|
Don, I agree - "I send you" - very businesslike. We're almost into "Please find enclosed" or "Re the item you ordered."
I feel that the letter is more likely than not to be from the killer, but if it is, then that the body parts were taken for reasons other than trophy taking or having power over the victims. This is because the author doesn't actually name Eddowes - she is just "one woman" to him.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3947
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:25 am: |
|
Hi Philip
Yes, it could be from a medical student. The only thing I'd say, though, is that this would make it the only such prank (at least that I know of) in the case. It's not as if the police were deluged with body parts, even after the arrival of the Lusk letter.
Robert
(Message edited by Robert on January 23, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3948
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 4:03 am: |
|
One further suggestion : if the letter is authentic, then the killer's ability to preserve and keep a body part for a fortnight would seem to argue against his being a lodging house inhabitant, as he would not have had the required privacy.
The address "From hell" is, I suppose, usually taken to indicate the killer's internal torment. But maybe all he's saying is : "I live with people whom I don't like." Perhaps Jack not only came from a dysfunctional family, but was also still living with them.
Robert |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 235
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
Hi Rob.
I was really surprised to find you believe the Lusk letter is genuine. Genuinely; I thought no Ripperologist was convinced by it any more and it was only one step away from the Moore & Bulling hoax!
Why did no other medical student do it? Well, being SENSIBLE might be a reason! Imagine the probable ruination to their prospective medical career if they were caught. I reckon our lad here was just a loose cannon and practical joker too far.
It has been shown time and time again that most of the kidneys from that time would have been riddled with Bright's Disease, that it was impossible to tell the source of it and then you have that myth about the Renal Artery - what with the 1" + 2", but we know in fact the Lusk kidney had actually been cut right to the edge of the kidney and had NO renal artery attached.
I used to believe in the Lusk letter. I have no faith in it whatsoever any more.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3951
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:39 am: |
|
Hi Philip
I don't say I believe it's genuine, just that I feel it's more likely to be genuine than a hoax (just as I feel Stride is more likely to be a JTR victim than not).
I don't want to go into the kidney, artery etc, which is a minefield. But I think that any student who would risk his career by taking the trouble to steal, preserve and then send a piece of kidney through the post, might have been expected to - how shall I say? - include a bit of womb as well. And maybe send it to someone a bit more exalted than Lusk.
Of course, there is a remote third possibility : kidney was from medical student, kidney was from killer.
Robert
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 163
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
HI everyone,
Decided to give you an opinion for change.
The letter definitely comes from someone 'dumbing down' In the word 'knif' he would have left the K off and not the E. etc., Diana seems to have got it spot in.
I also feel that he could not have lived in a lodging house for the reason given. If it was from the killer he would have needed a measure of privacy to have carried on his 'work'.
I do think though that the phraseology might indicate someone who was better educated than the letter would suggest, but still of a working class/ lower middle class origin. There is just something about the wordage that suggest this, especially the phrase 'It was very nice'.
Irish? not sure on that one, but not implausible.
Is it genuine? haven't got a clue!
Jane |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
How would an Irishman say, kidney? I promise to be a major pain on this topic! |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Ms Comer wrote:
"It's not conclusive, but it sort of looks like he was trying to appear less educated than he was. This is illustrated by the fact that with most of his errors he could be found correctly applying the same rule elsewhere, and some of the rules he applied showed a significant level of sophistication."
>>Not necessarily. It could mean that he assumed that people of the time in general thought of the Irish as basically illiterate, among the dregs of society. The illiteracy would therefore be there only to confirm the Irish accent, and the fact that he went to lengths to convince the reader of his alleged Irishness would likely mean that he had some plan by which he wanted the reader to flash on the idea that he was Irish. Now, the Lusk letter and enclosed kidney is clearly designed to get the reader to react in a knee-jerk sense. Lusk is supposed to freak out at the sight of the kidney, the threat of potential violence against him, "From hell," etc. So what do we have? The Irishness of the letter may also be designed to have a dramatic impact. The murderer may have thought Lusk would become afraid that the murderer was an Irish dynamitard or other aggressive type, and thus feel a fire being lit under his behind to take action on the letter forthwith to protect innocent society.
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 207
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 7:35 pm: |
|
Dear Jane...IMHO,I agree that with you about the intentional "dumbing down" within the syntax of the Lusk Letter. To me it was an attempt to disguise the sender's identity along with the accompanying quasi-Irish usage of "Sor" instead of "Sir" as Dave intimates above, if not necessarily to create fear in Lusk,but invariably a message with a desire to make waves with someone.
As to the kidney...For a moment or two,contemplate this please....
If one or more medical students were behind its theft from either London Hospital or another, they didn't deliver it. An older man did.
This presents a problem regarding the risk involved having a third party deliveryman do the dirty work.
For one thing,for two students to have used a third party,there was nothing to prevent Mr.Delivery Man from sticking around to see what he was delivering,had the deliveryman NOT been the strangely-behaved deliveryman the young Miss Marsh described [ read that whole scenario again,Jane, in Evans' Ultimate on pages 210-211,for one citation ].
The scenario in a nutshell states that one or more medical students [ average age in early 20's ]able to procure a man old enough to be their father [age mid 40's,who,if he was a medical student himself,was probably England's oldest..]to deliver a package that they could have been expelled from medical college for,had the prank backfired...the third party idea doesn't seem to be a good one, at least considering the risks.
On the other hand,the delivery man fits the bill in some ways of a major suspect's description. Furthermore,if the deliveryman was the lone mastermind behind this delivery to Lusk, consider this:
If the delivery man was a doctor,it would or could explain the kidney,if it wasn't Mrs. Eddowes,because of the accessibility of a doctor to organs and anatomical parts. However,would it be a wise thing to do for a registered physician,considering that the deliveryman had no way of knowing if the police would conduct a hospital-by-hospital canvassing with Miss Marsh to see if she recognized our middle aged delivery man ??...
So from my corner of the ring,I tend to believe it came from the Ripper and not via a third party messenger 2 and a half times older than a medical student, an allegedly suspicious shlepper didn't ask questions,especially after the gruesome package's contents were revealed to the London public...
As to the message itself...it may well be a bit of gamesplaying by the Ripper,again as Dave intimates,for shock value..to show his contempt for the police or another reason we haven't figured out yet, but hopefully one day will.
Sound kosher,Jane ? Or is it off the mark,the way you see it ?
How
(Message edited by howard on January 28, 2005) |
dlmaugie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 9:46 pm: |
|
I can not get pass this yet. The writer of the Lusk letter ended the letter with Catch me when you can. Again, Refering to a possible absent from the scene. I still contend that the writer was saying it may be awhile before he would get a chance to murder again.
Dave |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Mr. Brown in his Friday, January 28, 2005 - 7:35 pm post above has mixed matters.
1. There is no empirical evidence that any medical students were involved with the Lusk half kidney. No evidence concerning one, nor two, nor that the half kidney was obtained from a medical-oriented facility.
2. The package wasn’t personally delivered to Lusk’s residence; it was mailed there. There was no deliveryman.
3. The man in Emily Marsh’s father’s store was not described contemporaneously as a deliveryman, but an Irish priest. This person asked about Lusk’s address only, he did not deliver the package there, and was not seen there.
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 216
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Dear Dave...
I stand corrected on the matter of the "deliveryman". You are correct: It was a man dressed in a clerical rig,with what was taken as an Irish accent. And,to boot,he only asked for the address,albeit in a slightly unusual way. Where the hell I got the idea he delivered a package along with asking for the address,I don't know. I read that incorrectly in Sugden...My mistake.
The medical student reference was a hypothetical explanation for the kidney that Lusk DID recieve. I don't believe the kidney was a hoax...
Thanks for the clarification of my error.Much appreciated...
How |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 302
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
AS to the "wait a while" thing:
there was a rumor extant that the Ripper had written something along the lines of "This is the third- ten more and I'll stop" at the scene of one of the murders. The exact number varies, but that was the general idea--that he had some kind of master plan and was in process. Apparently this was a very wide spread rumor in the Whitechapel district and quite believed in. It's possible that the reference to waiting might have been made with that rumor in mind.
Mags
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
I have a couple of questions, and my first one is to Maria. You mentioned in the above post about the Ripper writing "This is the third-ten more and I'll stop" at the scene of one of the murders. Do you know which murder scene this was found? Also, concerning Mr. Lusk, I don't have information on him after October 16, 1888 when he received the "From Hell" letter. Does anyone have more information about Mr. Lusk after this date? One last question...I believe it was in the "Dear Boss" letter,(I could be mistaken), but there was a mention that he was right under Mr. Lusk's nose. There is also a mention in a letter where the author talks about a conversation he overheard between two police officers and makes a joke about it. It sounds as if this person may have been someone who could get around fairly unnoticed, like he simply blended in, or appeared to be the type of person who seemed to be of no consequence. This is of course assuming that the author of these letters is the same person. I do agree that the contents of the "From Hell" letter appear to be from someone who is "writing down", because there are too many inconsistencies in the correct as well as incorrect usage of certain grammatical (and spelling) rules. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks!
Sandy |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
George Lusk went belly-up - bankrupt - in 1891, but more than that I don't know.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4616
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Lusk is mentioned as a builder in a directory from 1915. Address, 10 Caxton St, Bow.
Robert |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1744
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 4:26 am: |
|
Rob,
Ive mailed you.......I think !
Cheers,
Monty
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4618
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
Sorry Monty, I haven't changed my email address with Stephen. It's now roblinford@gmail.com
Robert |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
The "Sor" almost sounds texan, it reminds me of Foghorn Leghorn's "Sor, I say sor," |
Shadow
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Diana,
Having Irish relative and spending alot of time there, the Irish pronunciation of Kidney would be exacly as it is written in the letter Kidne the e being pronounced "Eh" kid-neh. I only how the people in the south of Ireland talk as the farther north you go, the accent changes. I hope this kinda helps. :oP |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
