|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through March 08, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
Validating the Lusk Letter:
Archive through March 08, 2001
Author: Diana Comer
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 06:39 pm |        | | It appears to me that it might be possible to validate the Lusk letter one way or another. It would take money (oh, oh) and political power to do it though. Pictures I have seen of the Lusk Letter appear to show some kind of dark stain on it. Since it was in the same box with half a kidney I am led to wonder if this was some kind of ooze that seeped onto it from said kidney. Might this dried ooze contain one or two cells from the kidney? Could those cells' DNA be analyzed? Then Eddowes bones could be exhumed and a comparison maybe made? If it's a match then the Lusk letter is genuine. I'm no scientist and maybe there is something glaringly wrong with this? I am under the impression that ageing and embalming may not create quite the problem you might think. I seem to recall that some of the Pharaoh's mummies have been DNA analyzed. Not long ago some bones dug up in Russia were DNA analyzed to see if they belonged to Tsar Nickolas and family. As I recall Prince Phillip of England allowed his DNA to be checked against theirs (apparently there was some familial relationship there). Maybe a TV network could make mucho denaro out of this if they could produce a program based on the result. |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 06:47 pm | | Diana,
If the original Lusk Letter is available, it ought to be analyzed for kidney cells. And if there is anything usable there, I'd support exhuming Eddowes' body--she was buried in a good polished elm coffin in a single grave, and we know where the grave is. Perhaps the wine used to preserve the kidney has also preserved the cells all these years--? I would doubt it it, however. Thanks for a good idea.
David |
Author: Christopher George
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 07:40 pm | | Hello David and Diana:
Sorry! As explained recently by researcher Stewart P. Evans, the original Lusk letter has been lost and only a contemporary photograph of it exists. So unfortunately no DNA analysis can be done, even if such were feasible at this stage. The same might be asked about the stain on the Saucy Jacky postcard, but that too has been mislaid, and Stewart believes it was an ink stain rather than blood. As Stewart knows there is at least another letter, a letter posted October 19, 1888 in Worcester (MEPO 3/142 ff 252) that does contain a supposed blood stain--and that the writer says is "A drop of Strides Blood"--but whether it would be worth analyzing remains to be seen since it seems more in the hoax category than either Dear Boss or the Lusk letter.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 09:03 pm | | Hi All,
God, that would be interesting. If the blood WAS Stride's, it would show not only that Jack DID write about his deeds after all, but that he WAS involved in Lizzie's murder. One small step for DNA analysis, two long strides for ripperology....
What about the rest of the Worcester saucy missive? Come on Chris, what else did this letter say? Spill it mate!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 10:58 pm | | Worcester
Oct. 19, 1888
Dear boss iff you are the boss you have not got the right man 100 miles off sent [scent?] bloodhounds no use will not catch me have been in Worcester a week have spotted 3 but (?) will visit them again shortley dont no much about this part off to Brum [Birmingham] to-day Post this on me way, hope I shall have luck there. The Atmosphere was to hot at Whitechapel had to clear off smelt a rat saw last victim buried. I felt rather down hearted over my knife which I lost comming here must get one to night, I shall kill 15 at Brum call and settle 3 I have spotted at Worcester. Shall then finish up at Hull before going to Poland.
Silly looking in low lodging houses for me do not vissit them description posted at Police stations nothing like me. Look out for Octr. 27th at Brum will give them ripper
Jack a Poland Jew
Better known as Jack the ripper
[Blood stain follows on adjacent page with the following words written below--]
A drop of Strides Blood
*******************************************
The above transcription is of the letter at the Public Record Office, MEPO 3/142 ff 252-3. Note that there are differences in writing and capitalization from the original Dear Boss letters, so it is probably not from the same individual. The identification of the writer as "a Poland Jew" seems to conveniently fit the stereotype of the foreigner or Jew that the police and public thought might have been responsible, so the writer may have added that to give the letter a measure of authenticity. As I say, I put less store in this letter being authentic than some of the others, for some of the reasons just named. It was just one of literally hundreds of letters that flooded into the police, many of them signed "Jack the Ripper" but written in different hands.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 05:30 am | | Thanks Chris.
I think this author was poking fun at the police for their stereotyping of the kind of suspect they were looking for. '100 miles off sent', or miles askew, in other words. Don't ask me why, but I had a sneaking suspicion Birmingham would come in somewhere. Taking the mickey out of the use of bloodhounds also featured in an amusing little Punch article of 20th October 1888, featured here on the Casebook, and appropriately titled "Cave Canem!" (A Page from a diary kept in the Neighbourhood of Whitehall.)
Thanks again Chris for your help.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 12:58 am | | G'day everyone,
Just a quick comment that times haven't changed. Just as in Jack's time we still have people making crank calls and other bullshit confessions to police about unsolved murders, sick bastards. I do not mean that derogitorily, these people have a problem.
As I understand it, the police of Whitechapel received several hundred supposed letters from Jack but very little credence was put on any of them. I think the only ones that can be taken seriously are the Dear Boss letters, only because of their timing to the murders. The Lusk letter doesn't hold water due to the time lapsed after Catharine's murder. This is only my opinion.
Jules |
Author: jack colton
Wednesday, 06 October 1999 - 01:34 pm | | Jules--Thanks for the welcome in my Dr. T posting. I wanted to respond to your July "From Hell" posting, so I hope you're able to see this since so much time has elasped.
There seemed to remain an on-going debate as to whether and how the kidney sent to Lusk was preserved. If it was Eddowes kidney, one doctor "stated his reputation" by saying he was sure it was placed in spirits, within hours of being taken. So we still have to assume that there is a likelihood that the kidney belonged to Eddowes.
However, there is a much more interesting point regarding the "From Hell" letter. Once the "Dear Boss" letter and its companion hit the press in late September, the press stories began to refer to the killer as Jack the Ripper consistent with the letters signature. From then, thousands of letters were received, obviously most of them faked, but the majority signed "Jack the Ripper". What is interesting in the "From Hell" letter is that not only did it come with the kidney, but it wasn't signed "Jack the Ripper." The reason for this could be (consistent with modern day psychological profiling), that the killer was so confident and arrogant that he assumed the police would know the letter and its contents were genuine that he didn't need to sign the letter. But also it served as a back handed way of repudiating the press and essentially society at large for penning a name on him. I'm not sure I'm communcating my theory all that well; its really a pyschological hunch on my part based on what I've read about modern day sexual serial killer.
As always--welcoming thoughts?
Jack |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 07 October 1999 - 12:24 am | | Hi Jack,
I think your hunch has some merit. We have been discussing the Lusk communication on another board (see General Discussion: Modern Musings: Identifying The Lusk Kidney) and trying to gather ideas and facts to determine whether the thing was a sick hoax or genuinely from the killer.
As you rightly point out, the sender of the Lusk communication dared to be different. Neither did he sign his letter 'Yours sincerely, Kenny the Kidney Snatcher' or 'Lenny the Lusk Baiter' so comic imitation of previous letters was not his bag at all.
In the case of the Yorkshire Ripper in the 1970s, the famous hoax letters and tape from a man with a Sunderland accent (I've not heard of any other hoax letters sent in this case, let alone thousands, but I stand to be corrected on this point) were clearly imitations of the JtR letters from a century earlier. This hoaxer used the name Jack the Ripper and even borrowed phrases like 'gave me fits'. One policeman reckoned this alone should have told them he was a hoaxer from the outset. He said the real killer would not be interested in imitating anyone else. I can understand this.
If our man in 1888 was simply not the type to underline his murders with written taunts I can't imagine he would be remotely interested in any of the hoax letters or their impact. He would have his own agenda, blinkered to such influences, and would not be side-tracked by them.
On the other hand, if taunting the authorities WAS part of his agenda, it stands to reason that the Dear Boss letter and postcard, if not already written by him, would goad him into sending something in his own style, no imitations this time.
Trouble is, if the real 'Jack' did send the Lusk stuff, it wasn't enough to convince everyone, was it? It bugs me that he didn't send a piece of Kate's apron wrapped round the kidney. But, if the kidney was genuine, the killer would assume that was more than enough, wouldn't he? "What? I go to the trouble of prasarving the damned Kidne for the fools and they still have doubts?"
I'm still not sure what to believe but I'm hoping Christopher-Michael will come up with something mind-blowing from his investigations.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne
Thursday, 07 October 1999 - 05:55 am | | G'day Jack, Caz, Jules, everyone else,
I agree that the 'Lusk letter' and kidney, stand out because the letter wasn't signed and they weren't sent to the police or press.
The 'Dear Boss' letter and the 'Saucy Jacky' postcard, may have been written by journalists,(Best and Bulling?), to sell more papers and give the Whitechapel murderer a name. 'Jack the Ripper strikes again!' sounds better than: 'The Whitechapel murderer has killed another woman of the unfortunate class'.
Then as hundreds of fake letters began pouring in, this encouraged him to send one to Lusk. By not signing this, it kept a 'distance' between him and the police/press. This imaginary 'distance' was needed to maintain his confidence.
LEANNE! |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Thursday, 07 October 1999 - 10:18 am | | I would be careful, Jack (apropos, is it not) of basing your assessment of the Lusk kidney on the "doctor staking his reputation" quote.
The reason for my saying this is the provenance of the quote, it being drawn from the memoirs of Major Henry Smith, acting head of the City police at the time of Eddowes' murder. Unfortunately, my copy of the Major's book is not available; I quote the relevant passage from Martin Fido's "The Crimes, Detection and Death of JTR:"
"Smith. . .gave the substance of the police surgeon's report as follows: 'But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons of the London Hospital. . .and. . .one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body." (p. 78)
Now, this all seems quite straightforward, but the following caveats must be kept in mind:
1. Major Smith was writing 22 years after the events he is describing. His accuracy and truthfulness have been discussed previously on the Casebook, and I am afraid that both contemporary and current opinion is that while Smith is an excellent raconteur, he is not the most reliable of writers.
2. The name of Mr Henry Sutton does not, so far as I have yet been able to ascertain, appear in any contemporary documents in connection with the kidney, only in Smith's reminiscences.
3. Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, of the City police, was examining the very kidney itself when he was interviewed about it for the "Star of the East" on October 22. Dr Brown noted, among other things, that while the kidney appeared not to have been in spirits of wine for "more than a week," the fact that "it exhibits no trace of decomposition, when we consider the length of time that has elapsed since the commission of the murder, we come to the conclusion that the probability is slight of its being a portion of the murdered woman of Mitre Square."
4. While there was some confusion over the fact that the kidney appeared to have been preserved in spirits of wine rather than formaldehyde (thus allowing us to believe in a recent extraction), coroner Wynne Baxter (whom we might expect to know about such things) stated that spirits of wine were a usual preservative. Of course, Baxter himself was quite willing to give credence to the silly story about a "mad medico" searching for uteri to present with a dissertation, so I won't insist a great deal on this point.
5. Catharine Eddowes was murdered on September 30. She was buried on October 8. Mr Lusk received "her" kidney on October 16; one that appeared to be of fairly recent extraction (see point 3), but also one that arrived conveniently after Eddowes' body had been safely removed from comparison.
It is impossible, at this remove, for us ever to know the truth about the Lusk kidney, and I realise that any answer we support is based on what appear to us to be the most likely series of possibilities.
I'll try to come up with something "mind-blowing," Caz, but don't hold your breath. I can be maddeningly slow, sometimes. . .
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 07 October 1999 - 12:40 pm | | Hey!
"...safely removed from comparison." Huh? This is the second time I've encountered this idea.
Was the 20th century the only time when bodies were exhumed? Whatever anyone thinks of the kidney being a part of Eddowes' body (and I am no more certain of it than anyone else can be), this argument is surely one that attempts to stack the deck for the hoax theorists. This argument should be quietly dropped as being prejudicial and without merit. Eddowes' body could have been exhumed if the 1888 authorities deemed it worthwhile -- it muddies the question of the kidney's authenticity asking or speculating why they did not exhume her body or speculating that the sender timed the package by Eddowes' eight-day old burial.
(And if her body had been kept above ground for a week or eight days, was any attempt made to preserve her remains during that time? Was embalming fluid really the only means available to keep a week-old corpse from being absolutely rank after the first 48 hours? And if the body had some measures taken to preserve it during that week, those measures would have mitigated any decomposition that occurred after burial on the 8th and the 16th or whenever the authorities might have decided to exhume the corpse.)
And something bugs me about the Dr. Brown quote: the kidney showed no trace of decompostion which would be accounted for by its being preserved in the spirits of wine; but by a probably well-educated guesstimation, Dr. Brown can tell that the kidney was not preserved for more than a week.
How precise is Dr. Brown's guesstimate by 1888 standards of medicine -- or any relevant standards? Normally, approximations of this type have a plus/minus factor. What was the plus or minus factor for Brown's guess as to the time the kidney had been in the spirits? An hour; a day; a week; a month?
Or does the argument go that Brown knew precisely the amount of time the kidney had been in the spirits of wine? Or is it assume that 1888 medicine has a level of precision that may not even be available today? (Before the modern doctors start to howl at me, such precision may be available today, but certainly with the help of machines, computer analyses, etc., and not by the naked eye alone.)
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 07 October 1999 - 12:41 pm | | P.S.
I'm going back on vacation now.
Yaz |
Author: jack colton
Thursday, 07 October 1999 - 03:14 pm | | Can we agree that the "From Hell" letter actually begins "Sir" and not "Sor"?
The "i" is tucked in close to the "S", and the "r" is unusually wide, and incorrectly looped leading to the impression that it forms an "o".
Perhaps you have all settled this, but as I've stated, I'm new to the forum.
---Best,
Jack Colton. |
Author: Caz
Friday, 08 October 1999 - 01:19 am | | Hi Jack,
No, I can't agree I'm afraid. Every single 'i' in the letter is clearly dotted and all the 'o's appear to be formed in the same way as the 'o' in 'Sor', particularly the 'o' in 'tother'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 08 October 1999 - 05:43 am | | G'day Jack, Caz, and all,
I agree with Caz, there. Look at the other "r"s in the letter, paricularly the last word before "signed". They are not 'incorrectly looped'.
Now look at all "o"s. They do appear to be looped.
If we look closely at the word "for", 3 lines down, where an "r" follows an "o", the loop is part of the "o".
LEANNE! |
Author: jack colton
Friday, 08 October 1999 - 10:10 am | | Caz and Leanne--Thanks for the feedback on that. I'm taking another (careful) look now.
Jack Colton
P.S.--If it is "Sor", why? |
Author: jack colton
Friday, 08 October 1999 - 04:27 pm | | Leanne and Caz---I'm not sure you've sold me yet. I looked again closely and what I notice is that the "o"'s in the letter are consistently narrow and the loop often overlaps the starting point of the "o" in the upper left. I recall only the "o" in "tother" being a bit open though. I don't really see a whole lot of consistency in the "r", which is why I'm still a bit predisposed to "Sir" I'm no handwriting expert for sure. Anyway, my other question stands: What does "Sor" mean?
Jack Colton |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 09 October 1999 - 02:36 am | | G'day Jack,
Reading the 'A-Z' about the 'Lusk letter', it says that graphologists "note that 'Sor' and 'Mishter' are two normal nineteenth century transcriptions, indicating a stage Irish accent."
Do you think that the writer may have started to write 'Sir' correctly, and then changed his mind before finishing that word,(before dotting the 'i'), to give the impression of someone Irish who wasn't well educated?
If so, this shows that the author of the 'Lusk' letter felt that it was necessary to hide his identity because the kidney really did belong to the murdered woman.
LEANNE! |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Saturday, 09 October 1999 - 08:57 am | | It does seem to be received opinion that "sor" is a writer's way of rendering Irish dialect. I cannot quote from any contemporary examples, but here is one from a 1906 American book called "Gems of Irish Wit and Humor":
"Who lives in that big house on the corner, Dennis?"
"The widdy O'Malley, sor, who is dead."
"Indeed? When did she die?"
"If she had lived till next Sunday, she would have been dead a year."
The book is full of varied reproductions of Irish pronunciations - "indade," "Moike," "phwat," "belave," and so on.
This, to me, certainly speaks of the Lusk letter as being the product of someone not of the Ould Sod, but if he used "sor" and "mishter," why not other linguistic peculiarities? Interesting.
CMD |
Author: Caz
Monday, 11 October 1999 - 12:38 am | | Hi All,
Don't forget 'prasarved'. One Irishism could be imagined on our part or unintentional on the writer's. Two could be a coincidence. But three? No, this fella was pulling the wool over our eyes with his blarney. Was he expecting Lusk to think he was really Irish? Or was the letter read then as I read it now, as a contrived jokey dig at either the Irish or the addressee or both?
Leanne, surely all the hoaxers were trying to hide their own identity behind the killer's, so it doesn't follow that disguising one's normal style of writing with Americanisms, Irishisms or any other 'isms' would help to prove the kidney genuine.
But we could ask why the Irishisms were included in the Lusk letter by this person who also had access to a human kidney within two weeks of Eddowes' death.
Was some antisocial person using the murders to stir up trouble for the Irish, one of the two main groups of recent immigrants to the area? The Jews were the other main group, and they had already had their message in the form of the Goulston Street graffito, by which the Lusk letter writer might have been influenced. Was it some tongue-in-cheek attempt to send the vigilance committee into ever decreasing circles, chasing first Jews then Irish for their man and so invoke the contempt of the immigrants and possibly the ridicule of everyone else?
Or was it just another sick soul doing it 'just for jolly wouldn't you?' No hidden agenda other than to hamper investigations and achieve their own brand of infamy.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon
Monday, 11 October 1999 - 09:36 am | | When a person writes in a hurry they will make all kinds of mistakes then we analyse the thing to death in an attempt to come up with a clue, keeping this in mind.......
The Sor/Sir is very likely S o r after making comparisons with the similar forms of the same letters, so was this author 'posing'?.
'I took from one woman' means what?....that there was another woman? was this author hinting at Stride's murder too?.
'tother piece' another attempt at accent'isms ...posing again.
Mis-spelt words, 'kidne' 'prasarved' 'nise' 'knif' 'wate' 'whil'.
Correctly spelt words 'piece' 'fried' & 'signed' all include letters an illiterate might not think to include.
Also he includes the 'h' but drops the 'e' in 'whil'.
There's a distinct difference between the writing when he(?) writes 'Mr Lusk' 'prasarved' & 'you only' three very different styles here.
So are we dealing with a killer posing as a nuisence or a nuisence posing as a killer?
Regards Jon |
Author: janice pinch
Monday, 11 October 1999 - 03:45 pm | | is it possible that in some sick twisted way - Jack was having fun with his crimes?
Most killers do not feel remorse for what they have done. Most will feel elated that they got away with it. Since "everyone" was looking for Jack but unable to find him, maybe he opted to have fun with it. Some killers keep a personal object from each victim, others keep a scrapbook of newspaper clippings. Is it not possible he was having fun with "everyone" who was searching for him? I honestly do not feel Jack was stupid, as he tempted fate over and over without getting caught. He probably received a special thrill each time he pulled something off.
I think maybe to look at the letters to hard, for too long gives us too many choices.
1-he did
2-he didn't
3-he wrote one, but not the others.
As we do not have proof who wrote any of them, whatever we decide is speculation. They traced the letters as best they could in 1888, and could only come up with sections of the town it came from.
I think Jack was a Smart-Sick Twisted individual. It is very hard to determine what he did or didn,t do as most of us investigating him are not Smart- Sick Twisted! :) (Say that 3 times!) |
Author: Julian
Monday, 11 October 1999 - 11:15 pm | | G'day Caz, Janice, Jon.
Smart-sick twisted - smart stick wisted - smart sick wasted. There, did it.
Jules |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 12 October 1999 - 01:58 am | | Hi All,
I think the smart-sick twisted originator of the Lusk communication would have thought very carefully about each letter, each word, to get the effect he wanted. ('He' because I think it would have been even more difficult for a woman to have acquired a human kidney in those days.)
He would not have composed the thing in haste. He may even have spent days thinking it through.
Another thing that occurred to me when Janice talked about 'having fun' was this: the sender of the kidney, whether JtR or hoaxer, was out to shock and cause ripper ripples. Others have pointed out that a hoaxer might have waited for Kate's burial to avoid comparison of the kidneys. But one could also look at this from the opposite direction. Did he wait until Eddowes was safely under the sod, then send the nasty piece of offal, sitting back and expecting the order to go out to have the body exhumed? This would have caused maximum publicity for the kidney stunt if that was the intention. More ghoulish still, some serial killers don't like to 'let go' of their victims. If Kate was Jack's best work to date he may have wanted her body to be seen all over again by his would-be captors, just to rub their noses in it, so to speak.
In the event our smart-sick twisted one was to be disappointed. The fact that the body was never exhumed tells us nothing about killer or hoaxer unfortunately. It's just one more puzzle to do with how the authorities dealt with this case.
Love,
Caz |
Author: jack colton
Tuesday, 12 October 1999 - 10:07 pm | | Thank-you Leanne and Christopher-Michael for the explaination on Sor. I have enjoyed reading the past few postings. I'm glad to see my innocent posting a while back has prompted such facinating and educational (for me) answers. Jon, in noting the misspelled words of "knif" and "whil" brought to mind something: They could be innocent mistakes in the rush of writing or deliberate (DUH). If deliberate, it would seem to indicate that the writer was schooled enough to know that the "k" in "knife" is silent, as well as the "h" in "while". Sorry if someone's already mentioned this. I don't know. Just a thought.
Jack Colton |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 13 October 1999 - 07:01 pm | | I have heard your thought before, Jack, but I don't know that it would help any in identifying the O levels of the kidney scribe. If he knew the "k" in "knife" was silent as well as the "h" in "while" and spelled them accordingly, how then to explain the proper spellings of such tricky words as "piece," "fried" and "signed?"
CMD |
Author: jack colton
Friday, 15 October 1999 - 09:11 am | | Hello Christopher-Michael and all:
CMD, I'm sorry I have no answer for you on that, other than to say that they are indeed tricky words, probably misspelled by most people in Whitechapel given the general living conditions and lack of schooling.
The additional words you point out seem to indicate that the writer was well versed with the phonetics of the English language. The words "knife", "signed", and "while" containing certain silent characteristics, while the additional words of "piece", and "fried" contain that confusing i-e combo. (It's i before e except after c, right?---we all do it). Does this provide more reason for a literate hoaxer, like a journalist, to write a letter and conveniently misspell words despite unconsciously getting their phonetical structure correct? Or if the letter is genuine, could the killer be a bit more educated than average.
Thoughts?
Jack Colton |
Author: Caz
Saturday, 16 October 1999 - 06:33 am | | Hi All,
Well, we have the docs among us who are insisting that JtR had quite specialised medical skills, the kind gained from a formal training in the post mortem room. If we go along with this we have a serial killer who doesn't fit the 'unskilled labourer' type that some profilers have suggested for our man. In fact, it's likely he would have been a well-educated man with good literacy skills.
For those who are already convinced of the above, none of the 'ripper' correspondence is needed to be genuine to show that our killer was a clever-clogs. But if a hoaxer sent the Lusk letter, we are dealing with a second literate person who also had access to a post-mortem room in order to procure a human kidney.
Do we think that a lowly mortuary assistant would fit either bill, a killer with the ability to whip out a victim's uterus or kidney as JtR did, or a joker who can spell i-e words etc. correctly when he so chooses?
And how would a journalist get hold of a human kidney unless this particular journalist was also a very enterprising wannabe doctor-cum-murderer??
If the Lusk communication is a hoax I think we must be looking for two smart-sick twisted individuals with kidney fetishes.
Looking forward to a huge bowl of offal-free spaghetti bolognaise tonight....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 16 October 1999 - 05:09 pm | | G'day Caz,
Reading through the message boards, to include some 'today' opinions and comments about the Lusk communication, I found a post from Wolf that points out that Inspector Swanson reported to the 'Home Office':
'It was the kidney of an human adult, not charged with fluid, as it would have been in the case of a body handed over for purposes of dissection to a hospital'.
Wolf goes on to say how: 'Dr Henry Sutton said "It had been put in spirits of wine, within a few hours of it's removal from a body'.
Anyone killed with violence, had to wait at least 24hrs for an inquest before being taken to a dissection room. This means that the Lusk kidney was unlikely to have been taken by a medical student.
Leanne! |
Author: Wackford Squeers
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 08:59 am | | Received From Hell, October 16th 1888,
"Mr Lusk
Sor
I send you half the Kidne I took from one women 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"
Received by The Times, July 4th 1849 with fifty-four signatures, believed to be authentic. Printed the following day,
"Sur,
May we beg and beseech your proteckshion and power. We are Sur, as it may be, living in a Wilderniss, so far as the rest of London knows anything of us, or as rich and great people care about. We live in muck and filthe. We aint got no privez, no dust bins, no drains, no water splies, and no drain or suer in the whole place. The Suer Company, in Greek Street, Soho Square, all great, rich and powerfool men, take no notice watsomedever of our complaints. The Stenche of a Gully-hole is disgustin. We al of us suffer, and numbers are ill, and if the Colera comes Lord help us."
Your School Certificate question
"Discuss the written capability of working class Victorian Londoners".
:-) |
Author: Macbeth
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 10:13 pm | | | You may find my other post to be of some interest in this regard as to letters. Jack was not uneducated and he knew how to spell. The Boss letter shows this. The fakes all are poor spellers. Consider this point: a poor speller indicates a person who does not know how to write well or does it frequently. Thus, why would an uneducated man using writing to make his point? This man was a planner not an idiot. He ripped because it was a job to him. |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 06:39 am | | Hi Macbeth,
I thought it was just because of the good spelling in the Dear Boss letters that we can generally suppose there may be something in the suspicion that Tom Bulling wrote both the letter and the card. Where is the proof that Jack was educated and knew how to spell, let alone have written these communications? Why are the badly spellt letters all therefore to be considered fakes? Is not the Lusk letter, at least on what evidence ´goes, less unlikely to have been from Jack?
If, as may be supposed, Jack was a SK in the modern sense, his rippings had the same sort of signature as Bundy and a number of others. Last night on German telly, they showed the film about Fritz Harman, a serial killer beheaded for his crimes in North Germany in the 20's of last century. This man, a homosexual, murdered at the very least 30 young male prostitutes, ripped and dismembered the bodies and probably manufactured sausages from the flesh, selling them to a butcher 'a la Sweeny Todd' for distribution. From him came the famous remark 'there's not much flesh on a human being, an attache case full, not more.'
Harman was not uneducated, could read and write and articulate himself well, but he did not rip because he planned it. He killed because he had absolute contempt for his victims and found it funny to demean them so much by selling them as meat products to be eaten by the public. That was his signature.
In every case of SKs, there is reported by expirienced investigators to be this consistant strain of MO, of signature. That does not in any way tie up with literacy or not, at least not with those cases solved.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 08:26 am | | Please excuse (or ignore) the following--they are little more than the ramblings of an insomniac. But it seems to me that it is a very odd circumstance that Emily Marsh's mysterious visitor --presumably the writer of the Lusk letter--spoke in an Irish accent and the Lusk letter itself has some very exaggerated 'Irishisms': sor, mishter, tother, presarved. Odd, I say, because it must be remembered (of course!) that real Irishmen don't write anthing like that! So why would our mysterious visitor have both a real Irish accent and a phony 'stage' one?? A very odd circumstance indeed and one that suggests several possibilities: a) the mysterious visitor was an impostor (shades of Ostrog?) using a fake Irish accent; b) the visitor wasn't connected with the Lusk letter at all and this was merely a coincidence (unlikely); c) the visitor was a real Irishman either paid or 'set-up' to get the address; d)the Lusk letter writer used exaggerated Irishisms to implicate himself, and let it be known that he had been making inquiries previously, thus making the implied 'threat' of the letter all the more ominous. (My guess is the last one).
Now throw into this odd jumble that strange and unpleasant visitation endured by Mr. Lusk on a previous occasion---the fellow with the grizzled beard who had something in his pocket and made an exaggerated drop of his pencil. Doesn't one have to assume that this was the same mysterious visitor? What did he have in his pocket? Something is very amiss here.
What also should be remembered (as CMD astutely pointed out) the postcard Lusk previously received might well have been by the same hand--so Lusk's address could possibly have already been known anyway. Odder still. (But I'm still a little unconvinced that this previous missive was by the same hand; the style seems very different, little more than a copy-cat of the Dear Boss letters, whereas the Lusk letter has its own unique brooding and menacing tone). All-in-all I don't think we have a medical school hoax here; if it's a hoax, it's still done by a rather twisted, cunning, and determined soul. If it's real, then it throws everything on its ear, and we're probably not dealing with a deranged working-class local, but with some very unusual eccentric like Ostrog, Donston, or Tumblety. But then, I've always sort of had the hunch that Jack was slumming it.
Finally, one last bit of wild speculation. Those two hired private detectives of the Vigilance Committee--the ones that spirited Packer away. I forget their names, I'll call them Rosencrantz & Guildenstern because they seem to be a mix of the bungling and the sinister. (Obviously they didn't take Packer to see Warren). So whatever they were up to, they were up to no good. Anyway, my thought is this: throwing a scare into their employer Mr. Lusk might be a good way to ensure that the paychecks would keep rolling in for awhile. In regards to the kidney, they aren't above suspicion in my book. (Just a thought, an not necessarily a good one).
Sorry for the ramble.
R J Palmer. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 08:36 am | | RJ -
Grand and Batchelor, I think you're looking for. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, don't you know? ;-)
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 11:06 am | | RJ,
While I don't think the two detectives had anything to do with the Lusk kidney, it's nice to see someone working their brain muscles on here.
About the Lusk postcard and 'From Hell' letter...One similarity that sets them apart from the rest, other than their style of handwriting and the accompaniment of a kidney with the 'From Hell' letter is that neither bore the signature of 'Jack the Ripper', however both alluded to it.
As far as the 'mysterious stranger' that visited Emily Marsh goes, I believe too much has been made of it. I'm sure that Ms. Marsh was honest in her testimony, but the man who asked her for the address could have simply been someone wishing to join Lusk's vigilance committee. As to the the 'From Hell' author's decision to alter his handwriting and nationality, I believe it was one of self-preservation and was probably influenced by the literature he was reading.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 05:35 pm | | Guy & Tom, hello. Ah, Grand & Batchelor, that sounds much better(!) I admit that the two detectives being involved was a bit of a crazy notion, and I'm willing to concede the point. But what exactly these two were "up to" with Mr. Packer is still a mysery to me.
Now Tom, your an intelligent gentleman, and I've been enjoying your posts. I wish I could win you over into reconsidering Emily Marsh's Irishman! I think there is some excellent reasons to think that this was the same fellow who sent the kidney.
For instance, the Daily Telegraph states that "Mr. Lusk has been informed of the circumstances, and states that no person answering the description has called on him, nor does he know any one at all like the man in question." So if this was someone wanting business with Mr. Lusk or in joing the Vigilance Committee, he ended up as being a no-show. Furthermore, the same article tells us that 'the address on the package curiously enough gives no number in Alderney-road, a piece of information which Miss Marsh could not supply". So there's another point. Since this mysterious stranger showed up at one o'clock on the Monday, and Lusk received the package the next evening, I'm assuming there was a connection between the two.
In looking at Emily Marsh's description of the mysterious stranger, we see this: 'some forty-five years of age, fully six feet in height, a stand-up collar, and a very long black single-breasted overcoat, with a Prussian or clerical collar partly turned up. His face was of a sallow type, and he had a dark beard and moustache." She found his appearance 'alarming.'
Now compare this with the odd stranger that visited Lusk junior on Oct 6th (a little over a week earlier) that was described in the News of the World. He was said to be 30-40 years of age, 5ft 9", florid complexion, bushy brown beard, whiskers & moustache, and "repulsive & forbidding". He behaved very oddly. Some differences, but all & all quite possibly the same gentleman.
All I can say is that it is perhaps worth considering. If the gentleman was the same as the writer of the Lusk letter, I still think it strange that he would speak in both an Irish accent and use a phony stage one. Did he want the connection to be known?
By the way, I think I read that it was Nick Warren who first suggested Ostrog as Emily Marsh's Irishman. It's a bit of a wild thought, I know, but it does strike me that the description is uncannily close to Ostrog in many details and I believe that Ostrog liked to wear clerical outfits and was that rarest of criminals...an impostor. A strange thing. I guess I'm swimming a little far from shore on this one, so don't mind me.
Best wishes,
R J Palmer |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 07:39 pm | | Dear RJ,
Oil b afta likin (a) miself.
a)a fake Irishman writing a fake Irish letter,
sounds pretty Oirish to me, would'nt you be knowing now.
Rosemary |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 12:16 am | | R.J.,
I don't want to totally count out Emily's statement, but to believe that you have to believe that the 'Box of Toys' postcard was not from the 'From Hell' author. You must remember a couple of things...The only public forum for which Lusk's address was given was in the newspaper, therefore ANYONE outside of his personal acquaintances mailing him something would have done so to the same address. He claims to have received a bunch of junk mail and only the 'From Hell' letter stood out because of it's kidney, and the 'Box of Toys' postcard because it was in the same hand. Perhaps this stranger did mail Lusk something, perhaps not, but if he did it was probably not a kidney.
Another point to consider is why did he have to ask Emily for the address. Why couldn't he have simply purchased his own paper? Probably because he had no money. Well, if he had no money how could he have afforded not only to post the kidney, but to garnish it with twice the amount of postage necessary?
What you are asking me to believe is that some crazy old man (it couldn't have been Ostrog because he was an illiterate) got ahold of a kidney (please explain how) and decided to write him an accompanying letter utilizing exagerated Irish phoneticism. He then also decided to walk into some anonymous store and, in a stage Irish accent, ask the counter girl for Lusk's address simply to draw attention to himself even though this totally goes against the purpose of perpetrating a hoax to make others think the Ripper was to blame.
As to the two descriptions go, I don't see the similarity...Marsh's man is a full three inches taller and as much as 15 years older. Not to mention his clerkly appearance which contradicts Lusk Jr.'s description of a 'repulsive' man with a bushy beard. Anyway, either of these descriptions would have fit a good many (if not the majority) of men in the east end at the time.
It's obvious the author of the 'From hell' letter was disguising his education, and also, most likely, his handwriting. Possible reasons for this are given in my article 'Dear Boss & From Hell: A Missing Link?' in the latest 'Ripper Notes' (shameless plug!). However, his going in to Marsh's store and getting an address from her in the off chance that she might remember the encounter the next day and report it, doesn't strike me as likely. Nor does it strike me as likely that the stranger in question would be able to procure something as virtually impossible to get ahold of as a human kidney, be able to afford more than adequate postage, but not be able to buy a newspaper for himself. Also, those who saw the 'Box of Toys' postcard thought it from the same hand as the 'From Hell' letter. The only way to explain that away would be to say they were all wrong, and that is not very likely at all. In other words, if you accept the 'Box of Toys' postcard, then you can't accept Marsh's stranger as having anything to do with the Lusk letter and kidney, and I happen to think 'Box of Toys' was indeed a companion piece to the 'From Hell' letter. Anyway, there's my two cents.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Sorry I rambled so much.
P.S.S. Rosemary...If you see my name in a thread of posts, keep moving! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 07:31 am | | Sorry Tom,
I was talking to the tree-tops and you being a little tree an' all...
Ros O'Ryan |
|
|
|
|
