Author: Rod
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 02:45 am |        |
Last year I spoke to Jonathan Evans, the Archivist at The London Hospital, and he informed me that in 1888 there was was in fact only 1 microscope in the hospital.
If this is true then it would seem that the Openshaw letter was probably written by one of his students as a prank. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 11:42 am | |
Are you / Jonathan Evans sure? My grandfather and great grandfather (all doctors) all had their own microscopes.
Can you help me here as I am familiar with secondary accounts but not primary sources. What is the Openshaw letter? Does it contain details of his microscopic findings? |
Author: Photo
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 01:02 pm | |
 |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 08:44 pm | |
Hi, Tom:
As you can see, the Openshaw letter was not a letter written BY Dr. Openshaw but a letter written by "Jack the Ripper" TO Dr. Openshaw, which reads as follows:
Old boss you was rite it was the left kidny i was goin to hoperate agin close to your ospitle just as i was going to dror mi nife along of er bloomin throte them cusses of coppers spoilt the game but i guess i wil be on the job soon and will send you another bit of innerds.
Jack the Ripper
O have you seen the devle
with his mikerscope and his scalpul
a-looking at a kidney
with a slide cocked up
Chris George |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 20 February 2000 - 04:34 pm | |
I have been thinking about this letter.
I don't understand how anyone can mispell the word 'job' with 'jobn'.
What is meant by the comment 'O have you seen the devle with his mikerscope and scalpul a-lookin at a kidney with a slide cocked up.'? It is the use of the word 'slide' that interests me. How would an uneducated person know that part of the kidney would have to have been mounted on a slide for analysis? I know this is generally thought to be a hoax (and I agree) but it is interesting to ponder on who could have written it.
For any linguists present. Oppy Tommy Openshaw spoke with a strong Lancashire accent. Is there anything concerning the spelling in this letter that could be perceived as mockery of a Lancastrian's strong accent? |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 20 February 2000 - 04:36 pm | |
Finally
How was the envelope addressed. Was it received on 29th October or postmarked on that date? Where was the post-mark from? |
Author: JacksBack
Sunday, 20 February 2000 - 09:09 pm | |
Is there a blow up of this letter posted anywhere, as I would like to compare the handwriting to the "From Hell" letter. At a glance they look very similar. Dr. George, have you already been down this trail?
JiB (Hell, you can all me Ted, all my friends do.) |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 20 February 2000 - 09:52 pm | |
Hi, Tom:
I think the writer of the Openshaw letter is mimicking a Cockney accent rather than a Lancashire accent, with the dropping of the aitches, or misappropriate use of aitches, i.e., "i was goin to hoperate agin close to your ospitle. . . ."
As in the Lusk letter received 16 October 1888, the writer appears to be trying to be less well educated in writing such words as "dror mi nife. . . ." Note that he misspells "kidny" at the beginning of the letter but spells it perfectly well as "kidney" in the rhyme at the end.
The letter was postmarked 29 October. I regret I do not have information at this time on the postal district from which it was postmarked.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 20 February 2000 - 11:26 pm | |
Gentlemen -
The Openshaw letter can be seen in the photo section of Rumbelow's "JTR: The Complete Casebook." It is shown along with the envelope, which reads:
Dr. Openshaw
Pathological curator
London Hospital
Whitechapel
(no misspellings there!)
The postmark is, as CG has said, 29 Oct 1888. It appears to be simply "London E," but the reproduction is not all it should be. I may be wrong, but I believe the original is now lost. Perhaps SPE has better information? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 21 February 2000 - 01:47 am | |
Regarding the above the postmark on the 'Openshaw letter' was 'LONDON.E.' thus -
The letter is not now lost it is still intact with its envelope. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 21 February 2000 - 01:01 pm | |
Thanks Stewart
For those of you who are asking. Stewart posted this letter in a previous post.
E.6. Is Whitechapel E6? All my letter headings are from Barts which is EC1 but I will ask tonight.
Stewart (as I think you own the letter but correct me if I am wrong) What was written on the envelope? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 21 February 2000 - 01:41 pm | |
The envelope in its entirety is -
The postal district was E. with its office at Commercial-road-east. The districts weren't sub-divided then, and the 'E6' coding does not refer to a specific district. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 21 February 2000 - 03:53 pm | |
| Many thanks, Stewart. I had a notion I might be wrong, but at least I'm proven wrong by an expert! |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 22 February 2000 - 11:09 am | |
Pathological curator
That is a big word to spell for someone who can't spell kidney (although I can spell pathology but not many other simple words!).
It would be interesting to see if THOs official post title was 'Pathological Curator' or something else like "Curator of the the Pathology Museum". If it was, this would suggest inside knowledge and support the hoax theory. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 22 February 2000 - 02:16 pm | |
Thank you for all your e-mails. Again, I am sorry for not replying immediately but my e-mail doesn't work at work.
I have spoken to John Evans (the archivist at London) since my last post. I was not thinking when I spoke and now need to quiz him again as I pondered on something he said afterwards. A pathological curator is something completely different from being curator of the museum. They did the medical post-mortems and often got the specimens for the museum. THO might have been one as well as Curator of the Museum but I need to check this.
However, to know this kind of terminology suggests an inside understanding of hospital positions and heiracy. If there is no newspaper report referring to THO as a 'pathological curator', this implies that the letter was sent as a student hoax or someone with an understanding of hospital positions. |
Author: JacksBack
Tuesday, 22 February 2000 - 10:48 pm | |
| Dr. Tom, concerning your last post here, maybe you would refer to my double (by mistake) posting in the Medical Roundtable Discussion Group. You certainly might be in a position to check this out. JiB |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 09:55 am | |
Tom -
The "Star" of October 19 (that is, three days after the arrival of the Lusk Kidney) referred to Dr Openshaw as "the pathological curator of the London Hospital," and the "Telegraph" of the 20th as being "of the Pathological Museum attached to the London Hospital." Chief Inspector Swanson, in his report of November 6, pronounced Openshaw as being "curator of London Hospital Museum."
I believe the term "pathological curator" was also used in the October 19 "Telegraph," but that particular file is buried somewhere in my reams of useless paper, and so I cannot pronounce authoritatively.
CMD |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 03:50 pm | |
Thanks CMD
In fact I have spoken with John Evans again. The pathological curator was a completely different post. It was either held by Sutton (name rings a bell!)or Charlie Turner (Openshaw's co-author of the catalogue) but as there was a cross over it is difficult to establish who exactly it was at the time.
Regretably however, it appears that from the evidence you gave the term was incorrectly used by the press which would have accounted for the incorrect title on the letter.
I am about to look at something in the archives again and have a few more posts |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 11:50 pm | |
QUESTION...Could someone please tell me the origins of the piece of verse used in the Openshaw letter (i.e. Have you seen the devil, etc.). I know that it was a paraphrase of a poem appearing in a piece of literature by a reknowned author. Could somebody please tell me the name of the author and the work it appeared in? I believe this little piece of info was discovered by Chris George. How the hell he came upon it is beyond me, but kudos to him!!! His mag, RIPPER NOTES, kicks ass by the way, so if you're not subscribing to it you'd better whip out the checkbook and get on over to www.casebook-productions.org!!!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 12:14 am | |
Hi Tom -
Actually, a former regular of the Casebook back in the EARLY days of 1997/98 named A. Dylan Gable came up with the source for the ditty. His original post is copied below, and can be found under Ripper Letters: Previous Conference Discussion.
------------------------------------------
By A. Dylan Gable on Saturday, November 14, 1998 - 09:30 pm
Today, I was in my library at school looking through a book on English folktales for information totally unrelated to JTR, but ended up finding something that might be of possible relevance.
At the end of the second Old Boss letter, the one that begins "Old boss you was rite it was the left kidny...", there's a brief verse.
O HAVE YOU SEEN THE DEVLE
WITH HIS MIKERSCOPE AND SCALPUL
A LOOKIN AT A KIDNEY
WITH A SLIDE COCKED UP
There is an English folktale called "Duffy and the Devil." The story is a familiar one of the Rumpelstiltskin type, one in which a demon appears. The demon's name must be guessed before it is dispelled. Now in that folktale (I'm not certain, but I think it's from Cornwall) there appears the following song:
HERE'S TO THE DEVIL
WITH HIS WOODEN PICK AND SHOVEL
DIGGING TIN BY THE BUSHEL
WITH HIS TAIL COCKED UP
A little bit of similarity, isn't there?
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0500.html#duffy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 05:50 am | |
If you'd seen what I've seen tonight, ha, ha, ha!
I determined to hunt all night, but that I'd have a brace to bring home.
Creepy, eh what?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 11:04 am | |
Hi, Spry:
Thanks for directing Tom Wescott's attention to that old post by A. Dylan Gable. I had recalled that someone had posted the origin of the rhyme, and I am glad that you were able to locate it so quickly and reproduce it here once again.
Hi, Tom:
As you see, I must disclaim the privilege of having identified the model for the rhyme at the end of the Openshaw letter. I am glad that Stephen found what you needed. Thanks for the plug for Ripper Notes. I will have much to say about the Old Boss (Openshaw) and From Hell (Lusk) letters in an article upcoming in the April issue of Ripper Notes. We better get our JtR letters theories out quickly before the Skinner and Evans book on the letters comes out. 
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 02:20 pm | |
Stephen,
Thanks for the info! I don't know why I thought Chris wrote that. It's been a very long time since I'd read the post, and didn't know where to begin looking for it in the verbal labrynth that is this message board. Much appreciated!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 04:27 pm | |
Excuse me for interrupting the thread a little,
but is the name Openshaw a very common one in
England, or Lancashire? I have only heard the
name once before.
Jeff Bloomfield |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 05:21 pm | |
Hi, Jeff:
Peter Birchwood, our genealogist friend who often visits this site, is probably the best one to tell us whether Openshaw is a common name in England or Lancashire. My hunch would be that it is on the commonness/rarity scale it would probably be rated not rare or common but somewhere in between, if that makes sense. That is, I would think that in Lancashire and in the north of England, it would be a fairly common name but probably not common in England overall. Hope this helps. Peter could probably give you a more definitive answer. There is, by the way, a suburb of Manchester called Openshaw.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 05:48 pm | |
Hi, all:
Here is a picture of Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw kindly provided by Dr. Thomas Ind. It dates to 1902, fourteen years after the Whitechapel murders.
 |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 06:04 pm | |
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your response. I understand what
you mean is that "Openshaw" is a very common name
in the Lancashire and North of England, but not
in all of England.
Until I heard of Dr. Openshaw I had heard the name
only in one place. The Sherlock Holmes story,
"The Adventure of the Five Orange Pips", from
THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, has a doomed
family in it named Openshaw. I was surprised to
hear any reference to an actual person with the
name, thinking Conan-Doyle just made up a last
name.
Thank you again.
Jeff |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 10:18 pm | |
Jeff and all,
It's just a possibility, but considering Doyle's interest in the Ripper case, and the fact that he harbored an interest in the letters, perhaps it was Dr. Openshaw himself who influenced Doyle's use of that name. After all, writers generally base, and even name, their characters on/after someone living. Of course, I have no idea when the book you read was published. If it was before 1888, then this wouldn't apply, but if it were after, then perhaps the two sources you've seen for the name actually originate from the same source, Dr. Openshaw himself.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Incidentally, the rhyme from 'Duffy and the Devil' paraphrased in the 'Openshaw letter' was not written by anyone named cornwall, but is a folktale originating FROM Cornwall. I intend to look into this more in the near future.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 12:23 am | |
Dear Transatlantics (i.e. where I'm now resident) all,
Openshaw is not an especially rare English surname - certainly not comparable with the back-to-Norman-Conquest name Fido (deriving from FitzDieu), or my mother's even rarer Jutish (pre-Norman Conquest invasions of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes) maiden name Hobrough.
Martin Fido |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 01:08 pm | |
Jutes! Maybe that's what he meant to say! Not Juwes!
David |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 11:08 pm | |
Dear Tom,
"The Adventure of the Five Orange Pips" first
appeared in the Strand Magazine in 1891. It appeard in the volume THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK
HOLMES within a year.
The story is set in 1887. A young man named
John Openshaw has been to Scotland Yard, but
they have laughed at his story, though they
suggest that he visit Holmes. He tells the
following story. He lived for a number of
months with his uncle, who had made a fortune
in the American South, but had also fought for
the Confederacy during the Civil War. The uncle
gets a message one day in an envelope. It is
five orange pips (seeds) and an order, "Put the
papers on the sundial". There is a sundial is
in the uncle's garden. The message is signed
"K.K.K." The uncle burns some papers shortly
after. John sees one, and saves it (it is shown
to Holmes) and is a list of men who seem marked
for visits by people. A few weeks later, the uncle is killed in a peculiar accident. This
is in 1883. The estate is inherited by Openshaw's
father, but in 1885 he too gets an envelope with
an identical message. He and John don't know what
to do with it. Shortly after, the father dies
in a peculiar accident. Now, in 1887, John
Openshaw has gotten a similar envelope. Holmes
senses great danger to young Openshaw, and suggests he leave a message on the sundial that
the papers were destroyed by the uncle. He also
urges Openshaw to be careful whereever he goes.
What happens is that the next day Openshaw's death
(he's been drowned in the Thames) is announced in
the newspapers.
Holmes, extremely angry that a client who sought
his help was killed after seeing him, spends the
next day investigating. It turns out that the
killers are connected with the Ku Klux Klan, and
Holmes sends a message to their chief using the
pips. It later turns out that the ship with the
killers is lost at sea.
I don't know of any connection between Conan
Doyle and Dr. Openshaw prior to any possible one
in the Second Boer War of 1899 - 1902. However,
this is the first time that I heard of any real
person with the name.
It has occurred to me that someone reading this
summary (and I urge you to read the short story)
will naturally wonder if JOHN Openshaw owes anything to Montague JOHN Druitt. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a theory.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 01:14 am | |
Hi Jeff:
I would think that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as a fellow medical man, knew Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw of the London Hospital prior to or around 1888. In any case, Conan Doyle read the newspapers like everyone else at the time of the murders, so it is possible that the name made a subconscious impression on him.
Of course if we were conspiracists, we could choose to see all types of meaning "The Adventure of the Five Orange Pips."
As you rightly point out, the drowning of the character John Openshaw is reminiscent of Druitt's drowning in the Thames -- although I myself would not be inclined to see too much relevance in the name "John" shared with Montague John Druitt. As with the supposed rather nonsensical anagrams that Richard Wallace "found" in Lewis Carroll's writings that allegedly show Carroll and a pal did the murders, we would expect something more sophisticated from Conan Doyle than just that a common or garden sharing of the same forename, if he really meant to make an allusion to Druitt.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 08:48 am | |
Hi, all:
I should clarify that I am not saying that I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did know Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw as if it were a "definitely ascertained fact." I just meant that as medical men there is a possibility that they were acquainted with each other. At any event, it is probable, as I indicated, that Conan Doyle at least knew the London Hospital man's name from the newspapers of the day.
And just to stir the pot a bit more: Five Orange Pips = Five Canonical Murders?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 09:37 am | |
Actually Chris you are right. Conan Doyle is
more sophisticated in his stories when he blends
factuality with fancy to create some background.
I can give you a small example from "The Five
Orange Pips".
At the end of the story, Holmes has found that
an American registered boat, the "Lone Star"
was at ports near the scenes of the death of
John Openshaw, his father, and his uncle. The
captain of this boat is a southerner named James
Calhoun (a clear reference by Conan Doyle to the
events leading to the American Civil War and the
period of Reconstruction, when the K.K.K. was
formed - "Calhoun" reminds the readers of the
spokesman for the South and it's slavery, Senator
John C. Calhoun). He knows that the ship will
be gone before he can get the authorities to
arrest Calhoun and his associates, so Holmes sends
them a message with the fatal orange pips. In the
story, as it ends, Watson explains that the
gales of 1887 were quite severe, and the Lone
Star never was heard from again - the only thing
ever being discovered being a shattered stern post
with the letters "L.S." floating in the Atlantic.
In 1880, a British training ship, H.M.S. Atalanta,
vanished on a cruise. Some wreckage was seen,
including a stern post. Now Atalanta is the name
of a woman in Greek mythology, but the name was
(and is) frequently erroneously given as "Atlanta", which is the Georgia city, just as
"Lone Star" is the nickname of Texas. |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 03:40 am | |
Hi to all,
Nice to notice that the "Openshaw Letter" was made public yesterday.
The article I've just read (The Mirror) doesn't really add much to anything I don't know just by reading the above posts. That is except that Donald Rumbelow played a large part in having it placed in a public records office about thirty years ago.
To quote young master Evans as saying "Better than most" (straight from the article itself) I would like to know what others think. I personally think that it's a good letter and on a par with the "Dear Boss" letter (I do believe the "Dear Boss" letter to be a fake but does read good).
Will it be a matter of time before a document is uncovered pointing a finger at a journalist ?
Tris |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 06:30 pm | |
Dear Tris,
Devle kidney!? Maybe we should open up the lab again?
Incidentally, my foren sick frend...he slipped up on "kidney" but was this a deliberate 'slip', one
wonders?
Catsh me coper:-)
"Rambling Rosy" |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 07:24 pm | |
I've read the Openshaw letter before this, I don't know it is anymore valid than any other letter (Dear Boss or Lusk Letter). If Don Rumbleow found 30 years ago why is it such a big deal now?
-Mark |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 07:43 pm | |
Hey Rosie, maybe thats the way he ate them, "deviled kidneys" thought of quite highly by English upper "clarsses", don't think David would think much of them though!!
Rosie, I agree, it's funny how Jack can spell pathological but can't spell kidney the same way twice.
Rick |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 08:18 pm | |
To all,
Why is it all important ? Because it adds to the chronology of all thing Rippertastic. The diary, we are told, is a fake, but it's stil important. Druitt (in my strong opinion) is a false suspect. My own beliefs of Tumblety and Maybrick may be a very stupid idea.
All of the above can still count as valid. Yes, we did know about the letter before its release, but it still stands as a mile stone in all our investigations. It's very releases is as important as the most insignificant idea and most important. It goes with the chronology and way of thinking. I'm sorry if this all sounds like a heap of crap but you all know I'm right.
Tris.
Ps
Good to see your still alive our kid Rosemary |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 08:21 pm | |
Triston,
A document DID surface pointing the finger at a journalist. In fact, Stewart P. Evans published a bestseller around it. However, there's no proof or reason to accept that a journalist wrote any of the primary letters (read my article in the new issue of 'Ripperologist).
About the 'Openshaw' letter, though, I intend to do more research on it in the near future. I'll let you all know what comes up.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
