|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alexander Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 5:52 am: |       |
Just to echo Chris’ point on cannibalism, as late as 11th October, 1888, the Star was reporting on Major Barttelot’s unsuccessful African expedition in search of Stanley under the sub-heading “Impossible to Prevent Cannibalism.”
This Star report also makes reference to accounts in the Fortnightly Review and the Daily News. Earlier, on 20th September 1888, the Star had reported at length on “BARTTELOT’S CANNIBALS,” with phrases like “SEVEN OTHERS BEING COOKED AND EATEN”; “HUMAN HANDS AND FEET sticking out of their cooking-pots”; and “THE DEAD ARE COOKED AND EATEN.”
So, although no detailed recipes were given, cannibalism was in the news just a few days before the Lusk letter was sent.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1602
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 11:07 am: | |
Chris, Alex, thanks for posting that information about cannibalism.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 73
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 9:54 pm: | |
Hi all,
You’re probably right about the notion of cannibalism, but I’m not so sure about the knowledge regarding the kidney.
Jim, you wrote: “It was widely reported in the press coverage of the Eddowes inquest that her left kidney had been removed. So, that was pretty much common knowledge by the time the Lusk letter was posted, which only increases the probability that the letter was a hoax.”
I didn’t say that the thing about the kidney could not have been common knowledge, I said: only people who were well acquainted with the case would have known about the left kidney being taken from Catherine Eddowes’ body.
But to be sure, I’ve done some digging again and only found 5 English newspaper articles mentioning the kidney, which is not a lot if you consider how many papers were published in the U.K. They were the London Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Alderly & Wimslow Advertiser, the Woodford Times and the East London Observer. All but the last were of 5 October, whereas the East Lonodon Observer was of the next day. The London Times, Daily Telegraph and Woodford Times carried articles on the inquest, the other 2 had a medical focus. In none of the articles the kidney was mentioned more than three times.
So, although mention was made about the kidney in the press, with perhaps the exception of the article in the East London Observer, I would say that the kidney wasn’t enlarged on at all by the press and subsequently I still doubt if it was the common knowledge you say it must have been, Jim. If the Lusk letter were a hoax, it was probably done by someone with easy access to a kidney and it probably was a Londoner, as the box was most probably posted in London. And it must have been someone who read at least one of the 5 articles, some of which even thoroughly in order to know about the kidney.
All in all, I still think that what I wrote in my earlier post under ‘the timing’, ‘the contents’ (with the exception of the part about cannibalism) and especially ‘the signing off’ are strong enough reasons to think it is likely that the Lusk letter was genuine. In most of the important hoax letters the same phraseology was used as in the ‘Dear Boss’ missives, including ‘Boss’ and the signing off with ‘Jack the Ripper’. However, the author of the Lusk letter didn’t sign off with ‘Jack the Ripper’, but instead authenticated his letter in the most explicit of terms – by accompanying it with part of a human kidney.
All the best,
Frank
|
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 149
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 10:02 pm: | |
Going back to the grammar discussion of the "From Hell" letter, I mentioned once that I was going to ask my husband what the Slavic construction for the curious sentence "Catch me when you can" would be. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of difference between "if" and "when" in his language, at least, so that's a bust. Interestingly, however, I showed him the letter and he thinks that it's the work of a native English speaker, one with an unusual dialect. The errors made by the writer, according to him (and you don't have to take his word for it, this is just food for thought), are not ones non-native speakers would make--apparently, their errors are of a completely different nature than those made by semi-literate native English speakers. I don't know whether or not I agree with him, since it pretty much flies in the face of my beliefs about the killer, but I'm open-minded enough to consider that there might be some merit to what he's saying.
On another note, and I have no doubt that this has been brought up before, but as I was looking at a copy of the "From Hell" letter a curious question arose. Could it be that the word that's always been transcribed as "Sor" actually be "Sur?" The "o" does not apear completely closed to me, and as such, I wonder if it's meant to be a "u" instead, in which case the misspelling makes a whole lot more sense--and open a whole new can of worms as well. |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 75
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
Hi Erin,
Regarding the Sor/Sur: I don't think it was a 'u'. Just look directly above the 'Sor' in 'Mr Lusk' and you'll see that there's a distinct difference in the 'u' in 'Lusk' and the second letter in 'Sor/Sur'. In all of his u's the writer clearly makes a downward stroke at the end of the letter, which isn't there in the 'Sor'.
All the best,
Frank |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 167
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 2:58 pm: | |
I know, Frank, but I still think a case could be made for its being a "u" rather than an "o." Do you always write your letters in exactly the same way? Also, the "l" in "Lusk" is written with a distinctive flourish that you often see on the first word in old letters and manuscripts. Furthermore, the word "Sor/Sur" is larger than anything in the following passage, so it's not out of the question that the author's handwriting changed as his style did or that he made a pathetic attempt to disguise his handwriting.
I think it's worth a little further consideration. . . . 
(Message edited by Rapunzel676 on December 27, 2003) |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 168
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 3:44 am: | |
I was re-reading Sugden's book today and I must confess that it looks as if Frank is right about the handwriting. So scratch that thought.
On a different note, I was wondering if the Lusk letter has ever been submitted for forensic document analysis. I was watching a program tonight where investigators used something called an ESDA machine that brought out "invisible" imprints present on a sheet of handwriting. The theory is that if a person is writing on a pad of paper there will be impressions visible from previous pages in the same notebook. Now, I can't say for certain if this would work on the Lusk letter because I really don't know how paper was packaged in 1888 or even what it was made out of, but it's worth a shot.
I apologize if this has already been covered.
(Message edited by Rapunzel676 on December 28, 2003) |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 88
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 9:50 am: | |
Interesting thought, Erin. I haven't read anything about this before.
Frank  |
Robert J. McLaughlin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 4:06 pm: | |
Hi Erin,
It's a good idea that has been suggested before. Unfortunately, the Lusk letter has been missing since the 1950's. If it turns up again, I'm sure it will be subjected to some sort of document analysis.
All the best,
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 322
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
Erin,
Your suggestion about mis-transcription raises a good point. Although I agree that "Sor" is a correct transcription, there are other errors:
"kidne I took from one woman" is mistranscribed. The author clearly wrote "...one women." A mistake in grammar.
"prasarved" is mistranscribed. I acknowledge that this is ostensibly an attempt to write "preserved" but he did not write "prasarved." There is no "v" in the word written by the author. The author appears to me to me to have written "prasaned." Furthermore, the "n" appears to have been written exceptionally darkly, as if to obliterate a previously written letter.
Point: Always go to the original document or facsimile whenever possible.
As to whether these are mistakes of a native English speaker, I don't know. I am a native speaker of (American) English, so it's somewhat difficult to judge. However, the "errors" are not terribly different from those I make when trying to write in a different language.
Andy S.
|
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 181
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 1:50 am: | |
The Lusk Letter is missing? Sheesh! What do you folks think became of it?
Andy, thanks, and some interesting thoughts. Makes me wish even more strongly that the Lusk letter was available! |
Paul Hughes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 11:28 pm: | |
To Anyone,
Has the handwriting of Montague Druitt be compared to the letters sent to the police? As a practising barrister and teacher at that time his handwriting should be traceable. |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
About the *EARS* and what they could mean both in two of the letters, the killer and the victims.
From my point of view I believe all but maybe two two of the letters to be fake. If any of the "Jack the Ripper" letters are really from the killer, they would be the following...
The Dear Boss letter and the Saucy Jacky post card. This is also where we get the name of the killer as being "Jack the Ripper" in the first place. The letters give his "trade name" like Sam the singer, Jack the Ripper who rips hookers apart for fun. UGH!
The Dear Boss Letter and the Saucy Jacky postcard are indeed writen by the same person, plus the thing about the ears makes me wonder. If this is not the killer how would anyone else know that Catherine Eddowes' EAR had been cut off? And Mary Kelly's ears would be cut off as well. (???)
From the Dear Boss letter, "The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you."
From the Saucy Jacky postcard, "double event this time number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. ha not the time to get ears for police."
Part of Catherine Eddowes' Post-mortem report. "The lobe and auricle of the right ear were cut obliquely through." and "The clothes were taken off carefully from the body. A piece of deceased's ear dropped from the clothing."
Since JTR killed Catherine Eddowes' in the dark and her ear was found in her clothing. It seems that JTR after cutting it off lost it in the dark. Since he could not find it, he could not send it to the police. And JTR might not have had the time to cut the left ear off.
Part of Mary Kelly's Post-mortem report. "The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched and cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features."
Another reason he may not have sent Mary Kelly's ears to the cops would be that he was laying low afterwards. The way he left her in that room was so savage. It's not hard to believe JTR decided to hide out for a little while after that.
The "FROM HELL" letter with part of a kidney with it. Might have been from the killer if he made his writing in an artist way. The only reason for doing so would be to make the police think it was from someone else. (???) But why? This letter is more bold than the "Dear Boss" letter and the "Saucy Jacky" postcard too. I lean towards 85% the "FROM HELL" letter being a very good hoax. Sent by someone who could get hold of part of a kidney. If indeed it was from the killer what would be his motive to change his handwriting and style of writing? That's what bothers me about the "FROM HELL" letter.
All the other letters I believe to be 100% fakes. |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
Right 'ere before your eyes? vv. Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye. 'an eye for an eye ha ha'. I should be up to 25 words now! |
James Eric Carter
Sergeant
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 35
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:49 am: | |
The 'Lusk' letter was for Lusk only. Some unknown person had some against Lusk. Several weeks before the letter arrived Lusk tried to get protection from someone. Then, an unknown person that doesn't fit any of the ripper descriptions asks for Lusk's address, I think Jack would have known everything there was to know about Lusk and his committee. There would have been no reason for him to ask for the address.
Then Lusk kept it for several day at least before turning it over to the police, why? He more than likely knew where the letter came from.
Also, this seems to be a vailed threat to Lusk and not about the murders.
The 'Dear Boss, 'Saucy Jack', and 'witness' letter of Oct. 6 are 99% likely to be from Jack. They were bold, a thumb of the nose to the police and they were for the police. As far as sending them to the CNA why not? Jack was intelligent and more than likely highly educated. I think he would have known about CNA and knew that the letters would be turned over to the police, but not right away. They would have thought hoax at first too. These letters were taunting, even the 'witness' letter to a degree. It was a clear threat to the witness but another thumb to the police like "I give you clues, who I might come after and still you'll never get me."
These were unlike the other serial killers that some have sited on the board, but the point is they came after, they were copying Jack not the other way around. So, yes there is a difference from Jack to the others he was the first. He didn't claim to be on a mission because he wasn't. Sure he had something against 'whores' so he killed them. That was the star, then everyone was talking about it. The police arrest he wrong man, Jack as a matter of pride has to let them know about it, and as the writer says it becomes a game.
Eric |
James Eric Carter
Sergeant
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 36
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 1:29 am: | |
I was reading though some of the other post here and wanted to address some of the things I've seen.
Erin- The Sor/Sur question it was Sor, if you look at a piture of the original letter you'll see that the o in the word 'tother' in the second sentence is the same as the o in 'Sor'. Also it looks like the letter was written on cardboard. I know the machine that you are talking about and yes it would pull anything written on a pad of paper I think they can go back seven layers, it would likely be less if the letter was on cardboard just because it so much thicker than normal paper, harder to imprint on it.
It also appears that the letter writers used what ever was at hand to write on paper, postcards, cardboard, etc. You would also have to have a letter that all could/would agree came from Jack. THen test it to see if we find anything. Then again if Scotland Yard has one of the machines or could get one for awhile they could test all the letters they have and see if they find anthing that might point to someone.
Paul- Comparing the known hand writing of any of the suspects would not be conclusive. As we can see from more modern cases such as Peter Kurten "The Monster of Dusseldorf" in a regression of one of his murders his hand writing changed so much so that his wife didn't know it. So without having Jack himself comparing writing will likely lead nowhere.
Eric |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 80
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 3:46 pm: | |
Several weeks before the letter arrived Lusk tried to get protection from someone. Then, an unknown person that doesn't fit any of the ripper descriptions asks for Lusk's address, I think Jack would have known everything there was to know about Lusk and his committee. There would have been no reason for him to ask for the address.
I'm confused...if the fellow who was stalking Lusk and lurking outside his home weeks before he received the package was the angry sender, then why would this person need to ask Ms. Marsh for the address only days before? Eric, you're really cool, and have some good thoughts, but your ability to contradict your own points in the same paragraph is unprecedented. Ha ha.
As for why Lusk held onto the kidney until the next day (not several days) was to speak to the other committee members about it. They then went to the police. On what grounds do you base your conclusion that Lusk knew who sent it, knew this guy was angry with him, but covered for this man and didn't give his name to the police, although he DID seek police protection?
And you really shouldn't compare Jack the Ripper to Peter Kurten, as they're not the same at all.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
James Eric Carter
Sergeant
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 42
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 12:21 am: | |
Tom,
I never said that the person was at Lusk's home (other than to maybe deliver the package). All I did say was that he had tried to get protection for some reason and if I remember right it was because there had been some one bothering him.
Now why he held the kidney back at all is beyond me and I could swear I read some where that he (Lusk) knew the writing or something but I could be wrong about that.
The thing with Kurten was just about the writing possiblly being different from Jack's normal writing thats all, not that they were alike in any way.
Also, this is off topic but are you fron London? I've got some questions about the city in general, if you could/would help you can e-mail at eric.carter@mail.com
Latters,
Eric |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 3:39 am: | |
Hi,
Out of all the so called'Ripper letters'I would submitt one as intresting.
Posted telegram addressed to Inspector Abberline, scotland yard, 21st November 88, london EC.
'Jack The Ripper wishes to give himself up, will Abberline communicate with him at number 39,Cutler Street, houndsditch, with this end in view,
Jack The Ripper'[this is written with the blood of Kelly' all Long Liz's blood has dríed up]
Why i consider it of intrest is, it is the only letter [telegram] that I have come across, that mentions the 39 figure[ everyone knows my views on that] also I find it strange that the writer of this letter, refers to Stride as Long liz.
Tabram, Nichols, chapman,long liz,eddowes, kelly,
six names which when added together=39.
All coincedence ??.
Regards Richard. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 97
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Eric,
The reason Lusk sought police protection is because a disheveled man was lurking around his home. I assumed you knew this, since you knew of the police protection. There is nothing on record to indicate Lusk recognized the writing of the 'From Hell' letter to have belonged to a certain individual. What you are probably confusing this with is that Lusk recognized the handwriting from the 'Box of Toys' postcard he received a few days before it. Both were allegedly from the same author.
I'd love to help you out on your London query, but I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma and have never been there. Yet! 
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Ken Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
Everyone-
on December 16th Mr. Linford posted his question about the sentence involving "wate a whil longer"
maybe its just me, but i cant possibly imagine a foreign speaker dropping the silent E and NOT dropping the inconceivable silent H. If the argument is an educated but non english speaking man, there is no reason the 'H' would still be in that sentence. ESPECIALLY if one considers the fact that the exact same thing has just happened to the word 'wate'...the 'E' has been placed on the end to make it a long 'A' sound. If this is how this person wrote, they would write 'wile' because it is of the same nature as the 'wate' word. I know there is no way for us to know, but, since those two words happen in the same sentence it is easy to view them, and this would seem to me to be pretty concrete evidence that said person knew darn well how to speak english, and was trying to fake it, but made an error here. Sure this doesnt prove if it was the ripper or not, but I would undoubtedly have to say this person was of english speaking decent, educated. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page