What about Emily Marsh's Irishman?

** 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 **

What about Emily Marsh's Irishman?

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : What about Emily Marsh's Irishman?

Author: Jesse Flowers Thursday, 31 August 2000 - 09:25 pm
Hello all,am new here and was wondering if anyone could help me with something that's been bothering me.I know that Emily Marsh's story was published in the Daily Telegraph,but can find no information on whether or not she was interviewed by the police.This seems a salient point to me as it appears that this man was very possibly the murderer.Was she interviewed? Was his description circulated? If so,does the description match any known suspects (I can't find any,except maybe Tumblety-barely).Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 01 September 2000 - 07:20 am
G'day Jesse, The man who asked Emily Marsh for George Lusk's address, may have been the sender of the kidney! I agree that Tumblety is a good suspect for this man! He couldn't have been the man who murdered Kelly though, because he was arrested on the 7th of November and held in police custody for nine days! I'm sorry I don't know if Emily was interviewed! LEANNE!
Author: Grey Hunter Friday, 01 September 2000 - 03:48 pm
There is no evidence to suggest that Tumblety was held in custody for seven days. The police themselves could not hold a prisoner on remand for this long anyway. As I have explained many times before Tumblety was arrested on a misdemeanour (a minor offence, not a felony) carrying a maximum sentence of two years only. The police had to either take him before a court within 24 hours or grant him police bail for seven days. There is no evidence of any court appearance before the 16th Nov, and one newspaper states he was arrested on 14th Nov. Similar rules of police bail still exist today and are, and always have been, commonly used by the police who bail the prisoner to return to the police station for charging or release after fuller investigation of the alleged offences, and gathering of further evidence (usually statements). Chief Inspector Littlechild was head of the Special Branch at Scotland Yard from 1883 to 1893, he was there throughout the crucial period, and stated that Tumblety was definitely amongst the suspects for the Whitechapel murders and to his mind he was "a very likely one." I am sure that Littlechild knew more about the murders and suspects than we ever will, and if Tumblety could so easily have been dismissed as a suspect then Littlechild would hardly have thought him to be a very likely one.
Author: Jesse Flowers Friday, 01 September 2000 - 08:35 pm
Hello Leanne and GH Thank you both for taking the time to respond. I've been giving this incident quite a bit of thought and I keep coming back to Tumblety.The accent,for example.I know that most Americans couldn't tell an Irish accent from a Scottish one,or an English from a Welsh.Perhaps Miss Marsh mistook an American accent for an Irish one.Then again Dr. T did,I believe,have some connection to the Fenian Brotherhood,and may have simply been affecting a brogue (from the newspaper accounts I've read,he liked to pretend to be things that he was not}. Then there is the matter of the man's dress. Apparently he wore some sort of clerical garb. Again from news accounts,I gather that Dr. T was fond of wearing outlandish costumes (like military uniforms,complete with medals to which he was not entitled). Just spitballing here,but it seems to me that if a link could be established between Tumblety (or any suspect,for that matter) and the man in this story,we would be in possession of a vital clue.After all,the incident was attested to by not one witness,but three.So,back to my original question-did the police interview Emily Marsh? If so,did they act on the information? And if not, why not?
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 02 September 2000 - 05:48 am
G'day Jesse, Francis Tumblety's father was Irish. 'The First American Serial Killer' says he was born in Canada, while the 'Jack the Ripper A-Z' says he was born in Ireland and his family moved to New York during his childhood. LEANNE!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 02 September 2000 - 06:17 am
Hi All, Wasn't Emily Marsh's man also described as about 6ft tall - like Tumblety? And did the police ever manage to get the sample of Tumblety's handwriting they had requested from America? Could the reason they wanted it be to compare it specifically with the Lusk letter, rather than 'Dear Boss'? If so, it may suggest the police were indeed taking Emily's story into account in their investigations. When was the request made for Tumblety's handwriting? The contemporary suggestion that an American could be the ripper, procuring uteri for sale or personal collection, could also tally with a picture of Tumblety sending the kidney, not needed for either purpose, to Lusk. But with Mary Kelly, of course, her uterus was removed but left at the scene. Love, Caz
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 02 September 2000 - 06:52 am
G'day Caz, 'The First American Serial Killer' says: 'In October, Scotland Yard made contact with the San Francisco Police and asked for a sample of Tumblety's handwriting. On 29 October San Francisco Police contacted Scotland Yard saying they could send a sample of his writing.' As Lusk received the letter and kidney on October 16, I'd say that Emily was interviewed and her information was taken into account. LEANNE!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 02 September 2000 - 12:21 pm
Now I'm confused. If the request for Tumblety's handwriting came as early as October, and it was definitely made in connection with ripper enquiries (which is presumably what has been argued), then by the time of his initial arrest and granting of bail for the minor offence (on 7th November, according to the A-Z, and two days before MJK's murder), would he not have been a strong candidate for close police surveillance? And if so, wouldn't this be almost as good an alibi as being in police custody? Or am I being naive to think that there were enough coppers to spare to keep round-the-clock tabs on every possible suspect? Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 02 September 2000 - 01:57 pm
Hi, Caz: I think that Tumblety was indeed a strong suspect, which led the police to ask the San Francisco police to obtain copies of his handwriting. However, he was one of many suspects that the police were watching, and they apparently had nothing to hold him on, except the minor offence, which, as Stewart stated, was a misdemeanor not a felony, and had to let him go. We might also infer that if the handwriting samples came through from San Francisco, his handwriting was not thought sufficiently similar to believe he wrote the correspondence alleged to be from the killer, presumably the Lusk letter. From what I have seen of Tumblety's handwriting, I have to concur with this supposed assessment. Chris George
Author: Jesse Flowers Saturday, 02 September 2000 - 06:50 pm
Hello all, Let's see if I've got the chronology straight. A man who resembles Tumblety inquires after Lusk's address the day before the package is delivered.Shortly thereafter,Scotland Yard requests samples of his handwriting from America. A few days after the samples are received, Tumblety is arrested,then proceeds to jump bail and flee the country.Hmm. Regarding Tumblety's arrest on the "minor" charge,I wonder if this might not have been a deliberate police tactic intended to serve a double purpose. First of all,they may have seen no reason to "spook" him with any mention of the murders when they didn't yet have enough evidence to hold him anyway.Letting him go on police bail, however,would give them a legitimate reason to re-arrest him within seven days if he did not return himself to custody, and a whole extra week to dig up something really incriminating on him. Unfortunately the whole plan unraveled when the good doctor slipped through their fingers, another in a long line of embarrassments suffered by the police that autumn.Just because he managed to escape doesn't mean the cops weren't watching him;after all,the Ripper had been circumventing every preventive measure that the police could devise for weeks. Thanks everyone for all the info,you've been most helpful. AAA88
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 07:34 am
G'day, Reading 'The First American Serial Killer' ' 7th of November, (2 days before Kelly's murder), Tumblety was arrested for 'Gross Indencency' and released on bail the same or the next day. On November 12 he was arrested again on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. On November 22 'Scotland Yard asked the San Francisco Police if a sample of Tums writing could be sent immediately.'It seems that the samples they promised earlier, hadn't arrived. This says that Tumblety's writing samples arrived AFTER he was arrested. 'Once released on bail, on the 24th of November he boarded the French steamer 'La Bretagne'...and embarked on a 7 day voyage across the Atlantic'. He may have worried that he'd be caught for sending the Lusk Kidney! LEANNE!
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 12:25 pm
Gentle Readers - I will have to ask that you bear with me, as I am quoting from memory here, but, having spent most of the summer poring over the October "Telegraph," I want to say a bit about Emily Marsh's mysterious man. The story of the address-seeker and the arrival of the Lusk Kidney certainly would seem to imply that both were actions of the same man, and this is the stance that Sugden cautiously endorses. However, what is also noted in the same story (from, I believe, October 19) is that the handwriting of the "From hell" letter and an eariler missive to Lusk reading, in part, "Say, Boss, you seem rare frightened. . ." appeared to proceed from the SAME HAND (my emphasis). I will try to post the exact quote tomorrow so you do not think I am making this up, but (to me) a casual reading here would make it appear unlikely that Emily Marsh's man sent the kidney, as - having Lusk's address once - he would not need to get it again, unless he had forgotten it or wished to create a bit of a sensation. However, this is written in haste, and I ask you to bear with me until I can post the relevant "Telegraph" excerpt. As ever, CMD
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 12:46 pm
Hi, CMD: As I noted in my presentation at Park Ridge, the writer of the Lusk and Openshaw letters was certainly one who was speaking in jest and using a put-on type of speech. I am making the assumption of course that these two communications were from the same person. He cannot spell "microscope" in the Openshaw letter, rendering it instead as "mikerscope" just as he mispelled "kidney" as "kidne" in the Lusk letter, but he can spell "Pathological Curator" fine on the envelope of the communication sent to Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw at the London Hospital. The writer poses as an ignorant Irish laborer but almost certainly was not. My thought is that the sender could have paid an Irishman to enquire about Lusk's address to stir the pot a bit more. Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 04 September 2000 - 05:45 am
Hi All, As usual in this frustrating case, a good argument is very soon met with an even better counter-argument! Wasn't there something about the address on the Lusk package using exactly the same slightly abbreviated form that Emily had given to the furtive stranger? If so, it could be useful to know precisely how the ealier missive had been addressed. I must admit I had imagined Emily's man faking the Irish accent to accord with the deliberate Irish flavour of his planned letter, then having a good old snigger at the double effect of his practical joke. But the earlier missive seems much more American than Irish. Strange that the word 'Boss' crops up again. I had always thought the Lusk letter writer was making a point of distancing himself from other letters by not signing off 'Yours truly JtR', yet here he is using 'Boss' and an American flavour, as with the original 'Dear Boss' letter. There is such a sense of black comedy running through most of the letters I've read, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we had a comedy double act here - how about two enterprising jokers getting together for their jollies? Chris, a question for you as resident letter expert - how and when did the letters from would-be Jacks eventually tail off and cease altogether? Were there just as many immediately after Mary Kelly's death for instance? I just wondered if the manner of her death was enough to sober all but the sickest hoaxers. Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 04 September 2000 - 06:45 am
Hi Caz: The letters continued through 1888 and 1889 and into the 1890s. The famous "Lees" letters which we now reinterpret to say "tecs" was an 1889 creation. As long as the Whitechapel murders continued, Coles, McKenzie, etc., and beyond, letters would be received by the authorities. I guess a sufficient slice of the populace enjoyed getting a rise by sending the letters, and maybe receiving a few moments of fame, that they continued sending the nasty communications. As mentioned before, there were upwards of 2,000 letters received in all, a number of them to be seen in the Public Record Office and the City of London Record Office. I am fairly certain that the Dear Boss and Lusk/Openshaw letter writers were two different individuals. The September 25 Dear Boss letter is just too neatly composed and stagily written that it is quite different to Lusk/Openshaw. Lusk and Openshaw have a different type of staginess but one tied more to reality and to the murders and mutilation, to the East End and to the London Hospital, while Dear Boss may have been written in and was certainly delivered to a newspaper office. Dear Boss veritably creaks with melodrama: "I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. . . Grand work the last job was. . . I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I can't use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha ha." The ha ha's are the chortle of the stage villain and there is an unreality that seems remote from the murders. Although Lusk is not signed "Jack the Ripper" the Openshaw letter is signed that way. I believe the Dear Boss writer came up with the name but the name was a "hit" and worth using: it immediately identified the killer and resonated so Lusk/Openshaw adopted it in his October 29 missive to Dr. Openshaw. There is a sinisterness and nastiness to Lusk/Openshaw that is not present in Dear Boss as much as the writer with the clerkly hand tries to sound menacing. Chris George
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Monday, 04 September 2000 - 07:06 pm
Here we are. . . "Telegraph," Oct 19: "Mr George Lusk, the chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, has been the recipient of some extraordinary communications from a person who is supposed to be connected with the recent murders in Whitechapel. A few days ago, a postman delivered at Mr Lusk's residence in Alderney-road, Globe-road, Mile-end, a postcard, which read as follows - Say Boss - You seem rare frightened, guess I'd like to give you fits, but can't stop time enough to let you box of toys play copper games with me, but hope to see you when I don't hurry to [sic] much. Bye-bye, Boss. The card was addressed 'Mr Lusk, Head Vigilance Committee, Alderney-street, Mile-end.'" And now, "Telegraph" from Oct 20: "With regard to the calligraphy of the letter, and of the postcard which Mr Lusk previously received, there is little doubt that they are in the same handwriting. They differ in every respect from the communications of 'Jack the Ripper,' except, perhaps, in the use of the word 'boss.'" CMD
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 05:50 am
Hi Chris and CMD, Thanks for the info. So it looks like we have the more sinister and nasty Lusk letter writer making a point of imitating the style of 'Dear Boss' without attempting to imitate the handwriting. A literate writer pretending to be illiterate would have no trouble tackling the 'Dear Boss' copperplate had he wished to do so. It does rather sound like both writers were having a game. And I can't see a lone killer joining in someone else's little games. He'd either play by himself on his own terms or not at all. Oh well, I guess it's back to the journo for 'Dear Boss' and an admiring medical student going one better with the piece of innards. Love, Caz
Author: David M. Radka Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 06:45 pm
Just for the record, the only letter acrually received by Lusk was the "From hell" letter, correct? Thanks. David
Author: David M. Radka Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 06:48 pm
PS--I meant "actually" recieved, not "acrually" received. Spoken like a true accountant, I guess. David
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 07:10 pm
Is there any biographical information on Emily Marsh? Am I right in assuming there's no connection to D'O Stephenson's gullible side-kick George Marsh (24 Pratt Street, Camden Town) involved in similar events during roughly the same time? David--There was also a Lusk postcard. Chris George must be correct in saying that it was the handwriting on the Lusk letter and postcard that interested the police. Since Macnaghten and Anderson felt the Dear Boss letters were the product of journalists, they certainly wouldn't be interested in comparing Tumblety's handwriting with those.
Author: Jesse Flowers Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 10:21 pm
Hello Leanne, I guess my chronology was a little bit off- Tumblety fled England before the samples were received,rather than after.However,we know that Scotland Yard continued to pursue him even after he returned to America,so apparently they found nothing in the handwriting samples to discourage them from suspecting him of the murders. As far as the kidney having been sent by a medical student,it doesn't seem very likely. Bodies sent to hospitals for dissection were charged with embalming fluid-according to Dr. Openshaw,the Lusk kidney was not.I won't bring up the bit about the renal artery,as there seems to be some dispute about that,but the matter of the embalming fluid would seem to cast serious doubt on the possibility of the kidney being a hoax. AAA88
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 03:09 am
Hi RJ: I really think the police attitude toward the Dear Boss letters comes across as very schizophrenic. You read Anderson and Macnaghten asserting that the letters were the creation of an enterprising journalist. Yet Scotland Yard put the September 25 letter and the Saucy Jacky postcard received October 1 on a broadside with the request, "Any person recognising the handwriting is requested to communicate with the nearest Police Station." This tells us that the communications were believed by the police to be from the killer at least initially. Moreover, as late as 1896 when a new Jack the Ripper letter was received at Commercial Street Police Station, the police set to work comparing the writing to the writing of the Dear Boss letter of September 25, 1888 and the Saucy Jacky postcard (see Sugden, pp. 270-271). So it cannot be said that the police disregarded the Dear Boss letters as hoaxes: their own actions show that, right or wrong, they gave them some credence. Chris George
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 12:07 pm
David - A reading of the "Telegraph" would infer that Lusk received only the "Say Boss" postcard before the "From Hell" letter showed up. He may, of course, have received a number of crank letters after that, as his name was even more in the papers, but I have as yet come across no other mention. Jesse - I would not be so quick to throw out the possibility of a medical student hoax in connection with the Lusk Kidney. Both Swanson and McWilliams were quite certain by the end of October that it was a students' hoax, the lack of preservative affecting their judgement not at all. It is difficult for us, in our antiseptic medical world filled to the brim with insurance papers and legal mumbo-jumbo, to imagine, but human effluvia seem to have been rather easy for a doctor, researcher or medical student to acquire. This is not to say any layman could have walked in to the London Hospital and come out again with a kidney, but it does not appear to have been quite an anomalous act for someone connected with the medical profession, and the police reaction appears to confirm this. As well, I would not take anything reported by Dr Openshaw without a grain of salt; the poor man does seem to have been hard done by at the hands of the Gentlemen of the Press, and a lot of medical nonsense was attributed to him in the matter of the Lusk Kidney. He does not appear to have ever pronounced on the presence of preservative in the organ. CMD
Author: alex chisholm Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 01:36 am
Hi Christopher-Michael I don�t think the Telegraph does infer that only the �Say Boss� postcard was received by Lusk prior to the �From Hell� package. After reporting the receipt of the �Say Boss� postcard, the Telegraph of 19 Oct. reports: �As Mr. Lusk has received other communications of the same kind since he has been connected with the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee he paid no attention to the communication; but on Tuesday evening there reached him through the post a small parcel, similarly addressed, which on examination proved to contain some meaty substance that gave off a very offensive odour.� Best Wishes alex
Author: Jesse Flowers Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 11:59 pm
Hello all, You're correct CM-Dr. Openshaw did not pronounce on the presence of preservative in the kidney. He did,however,in an interview with the Star on October 19,state that the organ had been preserved in spirit-which would have been quite unneccessary had the preservative been present.In any event,had the kidney been consistent with one taken from a hospital or medical school cadaver, certainly Dr. Openshaw or any of the other medical men involved could have easily laid the entire matter to rest by simply saying so.They do not,however.Quite the contrary-Chief Inspector Swanson's report to the Home Secretary of November 6 (undoubtedly based on Dr. Gordon Brown's examination) specifically states that the kidney was not charged with formalin and therefore was almost certainly not taken from a cadaver intended for dissection. All of this aside,there is still the deposition given by Dr. Brown at the Kate Eddowes inquest. In it he states that Kate's right kidney showed all the symptoms of Bright's Disease-as did the kidney received by Mr. Lusk. Furthermore,Major Henry Smith,who was in charge of the Eddowes investigation,states in his memoirs that Dr. Brown and other "eminent men in the profession" reported to him that one inch of renal artery adhered to the postal kidney, while two inches of it remained in Kate's body (the renal artery is generally about 3 inches long).I understand that some are sceptical of Smith's reminiscences,but in this particular case I see no reason to disbelieve him.This is not,after all,a matter of memory failure,or of fudging the truth in order to enhance one's own reputation. To dispute Smith's recollection in this case, then,one must argue that he has manufactured the entire incident out of whole cloth.To what purpose would the Major publish such an outright lie? The authenticity (or lack thereof) of the Lusk kidney does nothing to either enhance or diminish his reputation. I don't wish to appear dogmatic,but it's been my experience that the simplest explanation is usually the best.It requires quite a bit of imagination to suppose that an unknown hoaxer managed to lay hands on a human left kidney (outside of a hospital or medical school) that just happened to be afflicted with Bright's Disease and had just the right amount of renal artery attached to it.It seems to me much more probable that the Ripper,who was undoubtedly in possession of just such an item,was inspired by the earlier letters to have his own ghoulish little joke.He obviously was not averse to such impulses-he had already left his nasty little message in Goulston St. In a case so barren of solid,physical clues,I think it would be wise to avoid dismissing one of the few that we appear to have. AAA88
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 11:11 am
Jesse, It was quite serious, not a joke. David
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 04:56 pm
Jesse - No need to apologise for being dogmatic; after all, dogmatism is what drives some of the best discussions here, and I think perhaps you and I must agree to disagree on the importance of preservation in spirit. However, Dr Brown said no such thing as "Bright's Disease" at the Eddowes inquest. He said that the kidney remaining in her body was "pale, bloodless, with congestion at the base of the pyramids." It is NP Warren, FRCS, editor of "Ripperana," who has pronounced that this definitely indicates Bright's Disease. The problem with this is that, although Mr Warren's diagnosis is perfectly reasonable, there is not complete nephritic agreement on what Brown's description means, one kidney specialist I am aware of calling Brown's description nonsense. Now, that Eddowes had SOME sort of kidney disease is likely, both by the fact of her hard living and that the best descriptions we have of the Lusk Kidney mention that it evidenced some abnormality. But we cannot presume it was Bright's Disease. The reason I am sceptical about Major Smith is because the sources he cites in his memoirs as supporting the authenticity of the Lusk Kidney cannot be checked. He said he asked "the police surgeon" to prepare him a report; we do not know who this was (though it might have been Brown), and in any event, Smith himself says he is giving us only the "substance" of the report. Smith tells us 2 inches of renal artery were left in Eddowes' body and 1 on the kidney. Brown in the autopsy mentioned only that the artery was "cut through," and in an interview with the "Star of the East" - during which he actually had the Lusk Kidney in front of him - he said that there was NO amount of renal artery attached to the kidney at all. Smith tells us that "Mr Sutton" pledged his reputation that the kidney was placed in spirits within a few hours of removal from a body - but where else save the pages of Smith is Sutton to be found? If he made a report, it has never come to hand, and Brown (who, Smith tells us, asked to meet with Sutton in consultation) himself never mentioned Sutton in any extant papers. What I am saying is that Smith is not necessarily lying, but he might be "tricking up" his memoirs - as he certainly did in other spots - or, perhaps, he honestly remembered events occurring as he tells them. A hoaxer would not need to find a kidney "that just happened to be afflicted with Bright's Disease and had the right amount of renal artery attached to it," as the diagnosis of Bright's Disease (so far as I have been able to determine) was never aired before Smith, with contemporary descriptions of the kidney's condition being couched in such terms as "ginney kidney" and "definite marks of disease," and Brown's "Star of the East" interview (if, I grant you, he was quoted correctly) effectively rules out the "renal artery" argument. I have actually discussed this matter at length in the pages of both "Ripper Notes" and "Ripperana," and will be happy to forward you a copy of the essay so you might better understand my "dogmatic" position (I'd hesitate to bore the assembled worthies with my arguments all over again!) Alex - quite right. My memory was playing tricks on me again. So, to answer you, David, it seems the only Lusk communications we know the wording of are "Say Boss" and "From hell." As ever, CMD
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 05:00 pm
A postscript - Having looked over my posting, I want to assure you, Jesse, and anyone else who might read it that I am not trying to browbeat anyone into accepting my interpretation! It is my OPINION that the Lusk Kidney was a fake, but I am quite open to other viewpoints, so long as they offer reasonable alternatives to my concerns in this matter. Despite my acidic nature, I do try not to scare people. . .
Author: Jesse Flowers Friday, 08 September 2000 - 12:07 am
CM I would be most grateful for a copy of your essay and I thank you for the insights you have provided thus far.Hopefully it will address not only the Lusk kidney but the letter,which was almost certainly written by a semi-literate person.Say what you will about doctors,most of them tend to be fairly literate.Please tell me that we do not have to add (groan) yet another participant to this immensely complicated hoax. P.S.-About ten years ago I was dealing a blackjack game at the Plaza in Vegas when Mike Tyson sat down at my table.He scared meJ Sincerely AAA88
Author: Stepan Poberowski Monday, 16 October 2000 - 07:47 am
News of the World 7 October 1888 STRANGE VISIT TO MR LUSK Yesterday afternoon, a mysterious occurrence was reported to a correspondent by Mr Lusk, Jun., one of the sons of Mr. George Lusk, chairman of the Vigilance Committee, meeting at 74 Mile-end-road. On Thursday, at 4:15, a man apparently from 30 to 40 years of age, 5ft. 9in. in height, florid complexion, with bushy brown beard, whiskers and moustache, went to the private residence of Mr. Lusk in Alderney-street, Mile-end, and asked for him. He happened to be at a tavern kept by his son, and thither the man went, and after asking all sorts of questions relative to the beats taken by members of the Committee, attempted to induce Mr. Lusk to enter a private room with him. The stranger�s appearance however was so repulsive and forbidding that Mr. Lusk declined, but consented to hold a quiet conversation with him in the bar-parlour. The two were talking, when the stranger drew a pencil from his pocket and purposely dropped it over the side of the table saying, �Pick that up.� Just as Mr Lusk turned to do so he noticed the stranger make a swift though silent movement of his right hand towards his side pocket, and seeing that he was detected assumed a nonchalant air, and asked to be directed to the nearest coffee and dining-rooms. Mr. Lusk directed him to a house in the Mile End-road, and the stranger quietly left the house, followed by Mr. Lusk who went to the coffee-house indicated, and found that the man had not been there, but had given his pursuer the slip by disappearing up a court. �� This stranger, probably, is Emily Marsh's man. Anyone know how many children Mr.Lusk have and what their age (in 1888)? What a tavern was kept by his son? Could Mr. Aarons' business (Mr Aarons was the treasurer of the Mile End Vigilance Committee and keeper of «Crown Tavern», 74 Mile End Rd.) be wrongly attributed to Lusk's son? Stepan
Author: The Viper Monday, 16 October 2000 - 10:37 am
Stepan, According to the Jack The Ripper A-Z, George Lusk had seven children. By 1888 he would have had three sons of working age, respectively about 24, 23 and 18 years old. The 1881 Census (by which time six children had been born, three boys and three girls), described his two eldest sons, then teenagers, as being a plumber and a carpenter. From this information we might deduce that they were probably assisting him in the family building and decorating business at that time. There seems every chance that the journalist concerned has misreported the facts and confused one of Lusk�s sons with Joseph Aarons. The Crown tavern had an upstairs room given over to Vigilance Committee business so it�s more than likely that the stranger was taken to that pub to meet Mr. Lusk Snr. I will look into this matter in more depth some time and note any findings here. Regards, V.
Author: Stepan Poberowski Tuesday, 17 October 2000 - 04:51 am
Good day! Viper: When you will look into this matter, please, pay of attention to Lusk's daughters also, if it will not complicate you. According to the Jack The Ripper A-Z, �In October he [Lusk] came to fear that his house was being watched by a sinister bearded man, and asked for police protection�. It is a part of the story. What is source of the statement that Lask has addressed to police? All best, Stepan
Author: The Viper Thursday, 19 October 2000 - 08:01 am
Stepan, Here is the information you requested about George Lusk and his family. Firstly, here they are in the 1881 Census:- Dwelling: 1 Tollit Street Census Place: Mile End Old Town, London, England. Name; Sex; Age; Marital Status; Relation; Birthplace; Occupation. George Lusk; M; 40; M; head; Stepney; Master builder. Sussanah Lusk; F; 38; M; wife; Stepney. Albert Lusk; M; 17; U; son; Bethnal Green; Plumber. Walter Lusk; M; 16; U; son; Bethnal Green; Carpenter. George Lusk; M; 11; n/a; son; Stepney; Scholar. Edith Lusk; F; 9; n/a; daughter; Mile End; Scholar. Maud Lusk; F; 5; n/a; daughter; Mile End; Scholar. Grace Lusk; F; 4; n/a; daughter; Mile End; Scholar. And here they are in the 1891 Census:- Dwelling: 1 Tollit Street Census Place: Mile End Old Town, London, England. Name; Sex; Age; Marital Status; Relation; Birthplace; Occupation. George A. Lusk; M; 47; Wdr; head; Stepney; Builder & Contractor. Albert A. Lusk; M; 29; U; son; Victoria Park; Plumber. Walter L. Lusk; M; 26; U; son; Victoria Park; Carpenter. George A. Lusk; M; 22; U; son; Mile End; Builder�s clerk. Edith R. Lusk; F; 19; U; daughter; Mile End; Scholar. Maud F. B. Lusk; F; 16; U; daughter; Mile End; Scholar. Grace L. Lusk; F; 15; n/a; daughter; Mile End; Scholar. Lilian V. Lusk; F; 9; n/a; daughter; Mile End; Scholar. It�s always amusing to note the discrepancies between Census returns, like how people age at different rates and how birthplaces shift slightly! The Census recorded George Lusk as an employer and his three sons as being employed, reinforcing the suspicion that the sons were working in the family building business with each of them bringing a complimentary skill to it. Now for the interesting bit! You may have hit on something when you picked up on the story in the News Of The World of 7th October 1888 that a mysterious man was taken to see Mr. Lusk at a tavern kept by his son. In Kelly�s Post Office Directory, 1890-92 editions, an Albert Lusk is listed as running a beer house (sort of partially licensed pub selling beer), at 51 Globe Road. The address was just a couple of minutes walk from the Lusk family home. (It was on the western side between Nicholas St. and Rose Place for anybody wishing to check it on the ordnance map). The name, of course, matches Lusk�s eldest son and was not particularly common; the Trade Directory section listed only two other Lusks besides George Snr. in business over the whole of London. Chances are then that we are talking about the same Albert Lusk. Kelly Directories were published annually, appearing a couple of weeks before Christmas in the year prior to their date; so for example, the 1889 edition was released in December 1888. Corrections were supposed to be supplied to Kelly�s by October in order to be included. So, if Albert Lusk had bought a share in the pub recently and not notified Kelly�s that it had changed hands, it would explain why the 1889 edition still listed one George Balcomb as licensee. Further investigation in the 1891 census yielded a few more details about the pub in Globe Road, which was known as the British Queen. Nobody called Lusk was resident there on Census night, arguably more evidence in favour of the landlord being George Akin Lusk�s son. Instead it was run by 24-year-old Horace Symons who lived there with his parents (father employed as a barman) and a female servant. It is Symons who is listed as the licensee in the 1893 edition of Kelly�s when Lusk�s name disappears. Could it be that Albert Lusk, still single, living at home in his late twenties and so probably quite well-off, had bought into a local pub as an investment while he continued to work as a plumber? If he did then the location for the NOTW�s story could well have been the British Queen rather than The Crown. Well found Stepan! It�s no big deal in the grand scheme of Ripperdom but these things are always good to discover. Regards, V.
Author: Feebles Friday, 20 October 2000 - 04:51 am
Did the Vigilance Committee have any other purpose than to help the authorities with the Ripper problem? What I am asking is if Lusk and colleagues, in a bid to "clean up" Whitechapel, were stepping on the toes of some unsavory people who would have reason to resent the Committee and strike back in some way.

Add a Message