|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Police Constable
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 2:01 am: | 
|
G'day Brian,
I doubt that the Lusk Letter and half-kidney were authentically sent from the killer after reading the letter that was sent to the editor of 'London Hospital Gazette' by George Lusk's grandson in 1966. This letter indicates that George Lusk himself believed the package was a practical joke by someone in the London Hospital. He had done same work there and believed it was either a medical student or a fully-trained surgeon ('Letters From Hell' page 70)
This response is continued on the 'Dear Boss' message board!
Leanne Perry.
|
Leanne Perry
Police Constable
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 7:31 am: |
|
G'day,
George Lusk took the kidney to Leman St. Police station 3 days after he received it.
The book: 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion'- Evans & Skinner, gives the combined medical opinion taken after it was handed to the City Police. After this opinion said: 'It is the kidney of a human adult, not charged with fluid, as it would have been in the case of a body handed over for the purposes of dissection..', it said: '...similar kidneys might and could be obtained from any dead person upon whom a post mortem had been made from any cause by students or dissecting room porter.'
The day before Lusk received it, a man of 'some forty-five years of age, fully six feet in height and slimly built' asked shop assistant Emily Marsh for Mr. Lusks address. ('The Ultimate JtR Companion', page 188.') This man referred to a reward bill that was in the shop window, yet Mr. Lusk stated that no one of that description called on him. Maybe this stranger was a London Hospital student or a dissecting room porter!
LEANNE PERRY.
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Right, I know he took it a few days later. But why bother at all?
There was conflicting information regarding the kidney. Basically, the only thing we can be at least 90% sure of was that it was human.
As for the Emily Marsh information, that was third hand hearsay - it was from a witness statement made in the coroner's inquest and then written down by the Time and published on 6 Oct. I don't know if I give it full credence.
But then again maybe the stranger WAS a London Hospital student - and the Ripper. 
B |
Alexander Chisholm
Police Constable
Username: Alex
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Hi Brian
Im not sure I follow your thinking on Marsh.
Why do you see Miss Marshs encounter with the address-seeking stranger, reported in the Daily Telegraph, 20 Oct. 1888, as third-hand hearsay deriving from the inquest, or related to a report of 6 October?
Best Wishes
alex
|
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 1:20 am: |
|
G'day Brian,
'Letter From Hell' tells me that George Lusk received at least one Ripper Letter, before he got the 'From Hell' package. That letter was in a very similar handwriting to the 'Saucy Jacky' postcard, (which I believe was the first communication from a press-man). (page 87)
On page 61, a reader is told that a report says that: 'He did not attach any importance to it at the time, but on mentioning the matter to other members of the committee on the 18th, they advised him to show the package to a medical man'.
Page 65 tells a reader that a 'Daily Telegraph' article said that Emily Marsh's statement was made on the night of Friday 19th October. I'd say this was made to either the reporter or to the two private detectives working on the case, who were into interviewing shop keepers.
My first thoughts were that this stranger was either a student, a fully trained surgeon or 'Jack the Ripper'! Then I looked at the description Schwartz gave of the tall 'pipe-man', who was never even traced by the police. I think 'Pipe-man' may have known what the fight was all about. He may have returned to Dutfields Yard to rescue Stride, then killed her. "Lipsky" was an insult said to someone by someone else!
LEANNE PERRY
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Alex,
I'm not sure I follow my thinking either - I think I misread where the Marsh statement came from. Oopsie.
In any event, I just find any witness statements suspect - there are too many Matthew Packers involved in this case for my liking.
And I remember the lines from Letters from Hell, but Sugden has a different take on Lusk's view of the kidney.
He writes on page 263 "...Joseph Aarons told the press how Lusk approached him in a 'state of considerable excitement'. Aarons asked what the matter was. 'I suppose you will laugh at what I am going to tell you,' said Lusk, 'but you must know that I had a little parcel come to me on Tuesday evening, and to my surprise it contains half a kidney and a letter from Jack the Ripper.' Aarons did laugh. Someone, he told the chairman jocularly, was trying to frighten him. But Lusk was visibly shaken. 'It is no laughing matter to me.' he grumbled."
The next day a group of his friends took it and had it examined by Dr. Openshaw, who said it was human, and then they passed it on to Abberline.
And I agree with you on the Lipski insult - I don't think Schwartz was correct in his belief in who he saw that night.
B |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 609
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Here is a copy of the statement Aarons made regarding the Lusk letter and subsequent events:
  |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Hi, Chris:
What newspaper is that from? Thanks.
Chris |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 615
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
I am currently working through the archives of Te Aroha Times (New Zealand paper) which has some interesting reports on the case. The piece above will be included in the full article I will be sending to Stephen for the Press Reports section
regards
Chris
|
Rob H.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 2:08 am: |
|
I asked this before on a different part of the casebook. Has the "Lusk" letter been tested for latent handwriting. After seeing a program on the discovery channel which was about Joseph Bell, the had a letter which appeared to have been signed by M. Druitt. Was this just for the show?Can anybody confirm or deny this? |
Liam Colligan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Hi there,
I haven't always been of the opinion that the Lusk kidney was genuine. I have read every argument for and against its authenticity, yet my gut feeling tells me here that the most probable explaination is the truth. This was the real deal! There are too many factors re-enforcing this probability.
Apart from the Gouslston St. graffito (with its blood/faeces stained apron), there has been no 'alledged' ripper correspondence accompanied with physical evidence, falsely or otherwise.
We have the luxury of hind-sight but the sender of this gory parcel had only 3 weeks and, at that time, there was nothing really significant about the Whitechapel murders to warrant such an ellaborate 'hoax' (MJK was very much alive at this time). The kidney, along with the letters' wording, was much to complex for a mere medical prankster.
Also, if the the kidney was Kate Eddowes and the subsequent letter was genuine, does this not immediately put to rest the argument about whether Liz Stride was really a Ripper victim or not? In the opening statement of the Lusk letter, the author states,
"I send you half the Kidne I took from 'one' woman....."
Doesn't this clearly suggest that on the event of the Kate Eddowes murder there was more than 'one' victim?
Liam.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1767
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Hi Liam,
"We have the luxury of hind-sight but the sender of this gory parcel had only 3 weeks and, at that time, there was nothing really significant about the Whitechapel murders to warrant such an ellaborate 'hoax' (MJK was very much alive at this time)."
Forgive me, I'm only asking and I may misinterpret you, but are you saying that the murders and mutilations on - for example - Annie Chapman and Kate Eddowes weren't of enough "significant" nature? Hardly, there is no need to go to Mary Jane Kelly for that, the others were gruesome enough and highly acknowledged enough in media.
"Also, if the the kidney was Kate Eddowes and the subsequent letter was genuine, does this not immediately put to rest the argument about whether Liz Stride was really a Ripper victim or not? [...] Doesn't this clearly suggest that on the event of the Kate Eddowes murder there was more than 'one' victim?"
Not really. I don't see why. That part could refer to "one woman among all the other victims" - not necessarily Stride or another victim on the same day.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 05, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 71
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 10:27 pm: |
|
Hi Liam,
"at that time, there was nothing really significant about the Whitechapel murders"
Except near riots in the streets, world-wide press coverage, several previous hoax letters, reportedly hoax chalk markings separate from the Goulston Graffito, vigilante committees formed...
Heck, the Whitechapel Murders were considered highly significant and alarming already just after the Nichols killing. The frenzy just got worse from there.
""The kidney, along with the letters' wording, was much to complex for a mere medical prankster."
Medical students routinely pull off some of the most elaborate pranks ever. They're notorious.
And I really don't consider the Lusk letter to be that complex. Write some stuff, get a liver, done. What part do you consider beyond the ability of a medical prankster?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 382
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 11:24 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
Write some stuff and Get a what??
- Jeff |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 73
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Uh... because the doctors can't tell the difference between a liver and kidney? LOL.
My brain always wants to say liver for some reason, but usually I catch it. (And, of course, when typing that I almost put kidney instead of liver...)
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 384
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 2:51 am: |
|
Ha! It's too bad though. The Lusk Letter's Liver alliterates much nicer! But try and say that 3 times fast.
- Jeff |
Basil Bruce
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
Hi,
first Iīm sorry about my English, i will endeavor me. I think rather of an disorganized Ripper, then nevertheless some speaks for the authenticity of the From-Hell-Letter. If Lusk's kidney were a Fake, then there are many agreements.
-The victim suffered from the Brightschen illness and Lusk's kidney had these characteristics also.
-Both kidneys are from humans (animals canīt get this illness).
-Lusk's kidney are from woman, who approx. 45 was.
-And in each case itīs the left kidney.
For a Fake only someone is possible which, a) had all informations (left kidney and illness) and b) could procure problem-free a human kidney with the Brightschen illness, and) it had to be able to diagnose C this illness also free of doubts.
Everything is possible, but I think itīs rather improbably.
regards
Basil |
Basil Bruce
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
Hi,
first Iīm sorry about my English, i will endeavor me. I think rather of an disorganized Ripper, then nevertheless some speaks for the authenticity of the From-Hell-Letter. If Lusk's kidney were a Fake, then there are many agreements.
-The victim suffered from the Brightschen illness and Lusk's kidney had these characteristics also.
-Both kidneys are from humans (animals canīt get this illness).
-Lusk's kidney are from woman, who approx. 45 was.
-And in each case itīs the left kidney.
For a Fake only someone is possible which, a) had all informations (left kidney and illness) and b) could procure problem-free a human kidney with the Brightschen illness, and) it had to be able to diagnose C this illness also free of doubts.
Everything possible, but I think itīs rather improbably.
regards
Basil |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 662
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Without DNA, how could they be sure it's a woman's kidney?
I actually come down slightly on the side that the organ was from the killer. There is certainly more of a case for that than that the GSG was written by the killer.
If the Irishisms observation is correct, then perhaps we should start calling him Jack O'Ripper. (Sorry about that.)
Best wishes,
Stan |
Basil Bruce
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 4:57 am: |
|
Hi,
what means GSG and whatīs the Irishims obersevation?
@stan: I think youré right, itīs not possible to be sure without DNA-Tests.
Iīve my opinion cause of these informations:
-"Medical reports carried out by Dr. Openshaw found the kidney to be very similar to the one removed from Catherine Eddowes, though his findings were inconclusive either way."
Or here, sorry about the Language, itīs from our German Bord "www.jacktheripper.de/zeitungsarchiv/daily_telegraph/1966_april_16.php":
-"Major Smith sandte sie zu Dr. Openshaw, pathologischer Kurator des London Hospital Museums, der feststellte, dass es sich um eine menschliche Niere handele und innerhalb der letzten drei Wochen einer Frau im Alter von rund 45 Jahren entnommen wurde.
Prof. Camps betonte, dass es besonders interessant sei, dass sowohl die linke Niere in der Leiche als auch die Niere in der Päckchen Anzeichen von schwerer "Bright's Disease" aufwiesen.
And now in English (iīve done my best):
-"major Smith sent it to Dr. Openshaw, pathological curator London of hospital museum, who stated that it concerns a human kidney and was taken within the last three weeks of a woman at the age of approximately 45 years. Professor Camps stressed that it was particularly interesting that both the left kidney in the corpse and the kidney in the packages sign of more heavily "Bright's Disease" exhibited.
How could he so sure? Do men and women have different organs, for example the weigh or the size?
regards
Basil |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 670
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Hi Basil,
GSG is for Goulston Street Graffiti or a variation.
I have heard that the letter contained Irishisms (wording that would be commonly used by someone from Ireland). Whether that is true or not; I'm not familiar enough with Irish speech habits to say.
Stan
(Message edited by sreid on December 08, 2005) |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Hi Basil,
Some of the newspaper reports made claims about the medical tests on the kidney that not only contradicted the actual doctor's findings but stated things that were simply impossible to say based upon the medical tests at the time.
A good explanation of these differences can be found in a piece in the March 2000 Ripper Notes:
"Another Look at the Lusk Kidney" By Christopher Michael DiGrazia
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Basil Bruce
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 2:34 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
thankīs for the Link. Then I will try it to read it.
Basil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
