The Lusk Mystery

** 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 **

The Lusk Mystery

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion: The Lusk Mystery

Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 03:54 pm
Hi guys Glad you could all make it. This will be a new thing for me, making a post that doesn't relate to James Maybrick. Genuinely I would appreciate points of view on this - bearing in mind that what I am about to write is nothing more than an opinion based on speculation based on an observation of mine. Here it is: I've got problems in believing that Lusk received the parcel and letter exactly when he did and exactly how he did. Why? Well, because when Lusk attended the meeting of the vigilance committee at the Crown, he is alleged to have said " ...I had a little parcel come to me on Tuesday evening, and to my surprise it contains half a kidney and a letter from Jack the Ripper". The reason that I have a problem with that statement is this: If you observe the 'Lusk Letter' you will notice that nowhere does it mention the words 'Jack the Ripper'. George Lusk is supposed to have received the letter and parcel on 16 October, the letter that was supposed to have introduced the name 'Jack the Ripper' was published on 1 October, thus leaving only a fortnight for the miscreant who was previously known as 'Leather Apron' and the 'Whitechapel Murderer' to become commonly known as 'Jack the Ripper'. So why did Lusk say the letter was from 'Jack the Ripper'? And even if he was just referring to the Whitechapel Murderer, why did he assume the letter was from the killer of the other women? The letter writer stakes no claim to having murdered anyone apart from Eddowes, and even then only indirectly - as he doesn't name her. So I have a problem with George Lusk. I just don't know quite where to go with it, as it seems to me that there are numerous possibilities. a) Lusk could have penned the letter himself. b) Lusk could have penned the 'Dear Boss' letter. c) Lusk could have been Jack the Ripper. Out of all the 'possibilities' I have a problem with believing that Lusk received the letter and parcel as he stated he did. Especially as he is supposed to have just put it in a drawer and treated it as a joke. Something doesn't add up. Is John Omlor here yet? Regards Peter
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 04:23 pm
Hi, Peter: I don't agree with your suspicions about George Lusk. Lusk was just one of a number of people who received letters allegedly written by the killer. He had received at least one other missive before the parcel, a postcard now lost, known as the "Box of Toys" postcard. What makes the From Hell letter received October 16 very different of course is the half a kidney that accompanied it and that allegedly came from Catherine Eddowes. I don't think it strange at all that Lusk would assume the letter was from Jack the Ripper even if it was not signed that way. As you stated, the text of the Dear Boss letter and postcard had been published in the press. Are you aware though that images of these missives were also published and distributed and in facsimile form on a broadside that the police distributed asking anyone who recognized the handwriting to come forward? So the name "Jack the Ripper" was on everyone's lips. Moreover, there is the possibility that the name Jack the Ripper may have been current in the streets even before the Dear Boss letter writer used it. This may be one of the conclusions from an entry made in a ledger by the pastor of the Swedish church dated September 30 mentioning that Elizabeth Stride (born Gustafsdotter) had been killed that day "by Jack the Ripper." (An image of this entry appears in the book by Andy and Sue Parlour.) True, that entry may have been written after the newspapers on October 1 reported the arrival of Dear Boss signed by Jack the Ripper, but if it was not written later, then it may indicate the name was already current among the populace of the East End at the time of the Double Event. In short, I don't see any evidence or indication that George Lusk could have written the letter himself. If he did write the letter, and somehow found a half kidney to pretend to mail to himself, might have been his motivation, Peter? Best regards Chris George
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 07:23 pm
Chris, There is absolutely no reason at all to think that the name 'Jack the Ripper' was current 'in the streets' before the public release of the 'Dear Boss' letter and the 'saucy Jacky' postcard. This idea has been suggested as a result of the Swedish Church ledger find but there is every reason to believe that entry would have been retrospective anyway. All the contemporary records indicate that the 'Dear Boss' letter was the first use of the name and there is no evidence to the contrary. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Jack Traisson Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 07:44 pm
Hi Peter, If Lusk indeed said the letter was from Jack the Ripper, it was a natural assumption on his part. The Times of October 15, 1888, published a letter Lusk had received signed 'Jack the Ripper' (reprinted in 'Letters From Hell, p57). Chris is quite right, by the time Lusk received the parcel, the name of Jack the Ripper was on everyone's lips. The facsimile posters were distributed by the police on October 3, and the papers published both the 'Dear Boss', and 'Saucy Jack' letters on October 4. If Lusk wanted to fake a letter, it would seem logical to sign it Jack the Ripper. Since it wasn't signed this way it lessens any motive Lusk might have for perpetrating such a hoax. Cheers, John
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 09:32 pm
Hi Peter, Yes, I'm here, but I must confess your initial post lost me. As you say, Lusk got his package on October 16th. The newspapers carried the letter signed "Jack the Ripper" on October 4th. I'm not sure what the problem is with Lusk using the name from the paper to refer to the Ripper who had been assumed to be Eddowes' killer. But maybe I've missed one of your points. Still interested, --John PS: At least Eddowes was actually dead when Lusk got his kidney, unlike in the latest movie version.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 09:40 pm
Hi, John: Actually I think Peter is missing a few points, as you yourself have well observed. . . Hi, Stewart: Thanks for your response. I am not especially lobbying for the Swedish church register proving the name "Jack the Ripper" was current in the streets of the East End before the Dear Boss letter was made public, I am just saying it is a possibility if the entry was written on the day it is alleged to have been written (at least per the Parlours). More likely though, you are exactly right and the writer of the Dear Boss letter introduced the name, i.e., "Leather Apron" was the name used before being supplanted by "Jack the Ripper," as per the accepted wisdom. Best regards Chris George
Author: Tom Wescott Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 11:55 am
Chris and Stewart, There's a perfectly logical explanation for the Swedish Church registers use of 'Jack the Ripper'. I believe it was written on the day it was alleged, but that the name was certainly not known to the general public before release of the 'Dear Boss' letter. I'd write more, but I must be off to work in a moment. Perhaps this would make a good 'Short Takes' in RN? Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 01:51 pm
Hi, Tom: I don't follow your reasoning. If the name "Jack the Ripper" was not current on the streets on September 30, how could the pastor of the Swedish Church know the name if the only people who knew the name for the killer were the staff of the Central News Angency and Scotland Yard? I think you better elucidate. Best regards Chris George
Author: Peter Wood Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 02:06 pm
Hi guys It's Lusk's exact wording that bothers me. He didn't say " ...received a letter allegedly from Jack the Ripper" or " ...received a letter from someone claiming to be Jack the Ripper". I believe there were still people referring to the Whitechapel murderer as exactly that - the Whitechapel murderer even after the name Jack the Ripper became first known. Some still referred to him as leather apron. Lusk received a letter that was neither signed 'Jack the Ripper' nor did it claim to have killed anyone except the last victim. Let me say that again - it laid claim to just one killing. How many other JTR missives can say that? I'm not even suggesting that Lusk faked the letter, just wondering why he assumed it was from 'Jack the Ripper' and then shoved it in his desk, apparently treating it as a hoax. If someone sent you half a kidney would you throw it in your draw? Thought not ... There's something strange about Lusk - I just haven't quite sussed it yet. Regards Peter
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 03:37 pm
Hi Peter: Come on, Peter. The whole bravura and threatening attitude of the letter suggests that it is from the killer who is scaring the s*** out of Whitechapel and who has done a series of murders. Remember that the murder series did not begin, it was thought, with Nichols but began earlier with Emma Smith, so add two [Smith and Tabram] to the total and make Stride and Eddowes not the third and fourth victims as we would think of them, in canonical sequence, but the fifth and sixth victims, in the accepted media-driven popular imagination. And the killer who everyone thought was responsible for this horrific murder spree had by October 16 been christened "Jack the Ripper." Besides, the writer even says he is sending Lusk a kidney he took from "one woman" as if he well knew Lusk would know he was claiming to have killed the other women. Really, Peter, your "Lusk Mystery" is no mystery. Better crawl back down in the basement, Peter, and stick to your mate Maybrick! Best regards Chris George
Author: Peter Wood Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 05:01 pm
Chris I still don't get it. The tone of the letter suggests to me that the letter writer (like many of the letter writers) had problems with English grammar, so his use of 'one woman' could quite easily have read 'the woman'. And given the fact that I've been told Lusk had received other communications claiming to be from The Whitechapel Murderer/Leather Apron/JTR - it is all the more incredulous that he should accept, out of hand, the one we now refer to as 'The Lusk letter' as genuine. It doesn't add up. He could have chosen to accept any of the other communications as genuine. What reason is there to accept this communication as genuine anymore than the 25 September letter? The letter doesn't mention the Whitechapel murders, it doesn't mention a name, doesn't mention Jack The Ripper or even Leather Apron ...and yet Lusk is supposed to have believed it. But on 'believing' it, what does he do? Sticks it in his draw along with a piece of smelly old kidney! I have a strong suspicion that it may have aided George Lusk's cause if he had received a letter from the murderer. I'm toying with the idea that the Lusk letter originated with George Lusk. And if that's true, then where did the kidney come from? Regards Peter p.s. Chris, please please please, do me an immense favour. Try to e mail me at work on: Peter.Wood@Salford.gov.uk I will explain more later. Thanks.
Author: Tom Wescott Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 10:36 pm
Peter, The author of the Lusk letter was probably better acquainted with the English language than either you or I. I have to agree with Chris that there's no mystery here. Lusk's comment of having received a letter from Jack the Ripper is the same comment I would have made, and most of the people on this board, escpecially if we had made it our business as a vigilance committee to follow the case. Chris, Alright, I'll 'elucidate'. The police called in Dr. Barnado to identify Stride's body. Obviously they had linked her to the Church. It only stands to reason that they were then referred by someone to the Swedish Church where she was known to go and there they spoke with the gentleman who made the mark in the register. He may even have also identified the body. A less likely, but still very possible scenario, is that he was friendly with Dr. Barnado who then shared the news with him. As the man was a priest, it wouldn't seem odd that the police had shared information with him, such as the name 'Jack the Ripper'. In fact, if he were questioned, it would have been inevidible that this would have come up. This explains his knowledge of the name prior to the release of the letter. What we SHOULD be asking ourselves is why he put a question mark after Jack's name. This opens the possibility that the information he received from the police was that they weren't sure Stride was a victim of Jack the Ripper. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 03:46 am
Hi Tom: Thanks for sharing your hypothesis, which sounds reasonable and a possible reason why the pastor of the Swedish church could have known on September 30 that the police believed the killer may be calling himself Jack the Ripper. Someone else might address this point, I am not sure that there is evidence that the pastor was asked to identify the body of Elizabeth Stride. I do personally believe that Stride was murdered by the Ripper, and that per the traditional view he was disturbed before he could mutilate her, but I join with you in finding the question mark in the entry by the pastor "murdered. . . by Jack the Ripper?" to be intriguing. Best regards Chris George
Author: The Viper Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 05:18 am
The Paster of the Swedish Church, Sven Olsson, testified at the inquest on Friday, 5th October. He stated that he had been to see the body at the mortuary on the morning of Tuesday, 2nd October, where he identified Liz Stride correctly. By that time the identity of the Berner Street Body was well-known on the street (despite the confusion at the inquest caused by Mrs. Malcolm). Furthermore, Michael Kidney, and Mrs. Tanner and Charles Preston from the lodging house would all have identified Liz as Swedish. The mythical story about her being an impoverished widow as a result of the Princess Alice disaster was also widely believed. Therefore, the authorities would have been quick to check the Swedish church records for details of alms. That's most likely how they turned up Olsson. Like most of the other commentators here I believe that Olsson's entry in the ledger was retrospective by a few days, i.e. at least after the time that the name Jack The Ripper became common currency, following the publication of the Dear Boss facsimile. The question mark referred to by Chris George and Tom Wescott could be easily explained by the fact that the inquest was adjourned and not finally completed, with a verdict, until 23rd October. Regards, V.
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 09:25 am
Hi, Viper: Thanks for your input. I am glad that you have clarified that Sven Olsson, the Pastor of the Swedish Church, testified at the inquest on Liz Stride on Friday, 5th October, that he had been to see the body at the mortuary on the morning of Tuesday, 2nd October, and had then identified her body. Since he did not see her body until 2nd October, this might suggest that he had not known on 30th September that Liz was the woman killed. Hi, Peter: Thanks for your message. I read your e-mail before coming to work this morning but did not have enough time to reply. I should be able to reply to you tonight. Best regards Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 15 February 2002 - 07:42 am
Hi Peter, I didn't think Lusk did accept the From Hell letter and kidney as genuine - 'out of hand', as you suggest. I thought I read that initially he suspected the kidney had come from some animal, and that it was only on the suggestion of friends or colleagues that he took the matter up with the authorities instead of throwing the offal out. Love, Caz
Author: Monty Friday, 15 February 2002 - 07:50 am
Peter, Whichever way you look at it, the Lusk kidney/letter must have been great for publicity and recruiting. Monty PS DON'T mention football....please !
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 15 February 2002 - 09:35 am
Hi, Peter: I had a bad day at work yesterday and zonked out before I could send you an e-mail. Hopefully I can get to it tonight. Again, I think your suspicions of George Lusk are unfounded because there is no other reason to suspect him of suspicious behavior in the case. Hi, Monty: What football? Best regards Chris George
Author: Peter Wood Friday, 15 February 2002 - 01:50 pm
No reason to suspect him of suspicious behaviour? Well, Caz reckons Lusk didn't take the letter and kidney seriously, in fact he apparently thought it was part of an animal. Then why on earth would he put it in his drawer? The letter doesn't mention Jack the Ripper. It doesn't even pretend to be from the killer of the other women. I'm still at a loss to understand how Lusk was in a position to say the letter was from 'Jack the Ripper' when he couldn't possibly have ascertained that. He wasn't even in a position to suspect it. I too believe that Stride was a ripper victim, if only for this: What price Stride NOT being a ripper victim, but the ripper committing a murder (Eddowes) within the hour? It ain't even worth thinking about. Regards Peter
Author: Jesse Flowers Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 04:04 am
Hello Peter- I appreciate your effort to start an interesting thread (except for Steve Haddon's "theory" on the "Space Monkeys" page, the fare around here has been, sorry to say it, pretty bland of late), and I hope you won't mind if I throw in my 2c. It may be just possible that Lusk never used the words "Jack the Ripper" at all. The source of this quote was (I believe) an interview given to the Daily Telegraph by Joseph Aarons, treasurer for the Mile End Vigilance Committee. Since the quote did not come direct from Lusk but secondhand from Aarons, possibly it was not an entirely accurate rendering of Lusk's exact words. (Or perhaps it's this Aarons who needs looking into ). I do concur with you about shoving a stinking piece of kidney in a drawer though- it does seem an odd thing to do. Not quite as odd as eating it...but still odd. AAA88
Author: Peter Wood Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 08:15 am
Thanks Jesse Regardless of who used the words "Jack the Ripper", we still have a problem. Or rather Lusk and Aarons have a problem. You see, to exonerate Lusk, one of the 'excuses' we could use would be to claim that within two weeks of the 25 September letter being published everyone was referring to 'The Whitechapel Murderer' as 'Jack The Ripper'. If that were the case then it matters not who said the words 'Jack the Ripper'. But the murders had been the talk of Whitechapel, he had variously been ascribed the names 'Leather Apron' and 'The Whitechapel Murderer'. When someone changes their name (or someone else changes it for them) how long do you think it takes to take effect? Put it this way, I know people who still refer to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay. Do you get my point on this? The letter Lusk claims to have received doesn't lay claim to any of the previous Whitechapel murders. It doesn't even mention the double event. It most certainly doesn't mention 'Leather Apron', 'The Whitechapel Murderer' OR 'Jack the Ripper', and yet George Lusk was in a position to state that the letter came from ...Jack the Ripper. Either that or Aarons used the words for him, in which case Lusk must have intimated either 'TWM' or 'Leather Apron'. But he had no reason to suspect any such thing. If he was treating it as a joke, suggested by Caz, wouldn't he have said "Some jerk has sent me a piece of pigs kidney, probably a journalist"? Wouldn't he have thrown it in the bin? What would you do? One of two things, I guess - a) Throw the offending item away. or b) Hand it over to the police immediately. Lusk did neither. It doesn't add up. I'm still not happy with it. I think Lusk's reaction to 'receiving' the letter and kidney is unacceptable. The explanation is unacceptable. Unfortunately I have no proof, just conjecture (conjections!!! A little joke, oh never mind!), but if Thomas Neill Cream can be put forward as a viable candidate whilst banged up abroad, why not Lusk??? Regards Peter
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 18 February 2002 - 05:36 am
Hi Peter, Put yourself in Lusk's shoes. He may have thought initially, on opening the package, "Yuk, if this is some jerk's idea of a joke...", and, had the kidney arrived unaccompanied by a letter, he might have been more inclined to dump it straight away. But wouldn't he at least have been intrigued, if not rather worried, about being singled out for attention like this, even if he thought it was most likely just a sick hoaxer? I can imagine him shrugging it off somewhat, as he told his colleagues about the episode, saying something like, "Oh it's probably only from a pig or something, I'm intending to throw it out", but nevertheless not quite bringing himself to do so before showing it off to them, along with the sinister note. Then someone remarks, "You know, you ought to get it checked out by a doctor first before doing anything hasty. It might be needed as evidence, and if the killer is targeting you...". Love, Caz
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 18 February 2002 - 06:21 pm
Hi Caz All well and good. But pure speculation. Don't let John catch you doing that. Lusk was trying to court the support of the people. He was a business man, I don't think he was paying his men to walk the streets for purely altruistic reasons. Put it this way. You receive that letter with the piece of meat. What do you do? Put it in a drawer and tell somebody about it tomorrow? In passing? It doesn't make sense. Nothing to do with the Lusk letter does. If he'd treated it as a joke he would have binned it. If he'd taken it seriously he would have taken it to the police. He did neither. But we can't second guess Lusk's motivations. We can't even second guess Mike Barrett's. I still don't think Lusk was in a position to say the letter was from the Whitechapel murderer, let alone to state emphatically that it was from 'Jack the Ripper'. There is simply no reason for thinking that it was. Regards etc Peter.
Author: David O'Flaherty Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 08:26 pm
Hello, everyone. I think Lusk took the letter and the kidney very seriously indeed--to me, he seems to have been extremely disturbed by his receipt of it. In Mr. Sugden's Complete History (1st ed), pg. 263-4 (Mr. Sugden cites as his source materials reports from Inspectors McWilliam and Swanson, as well as a statement from Joseph Aarons), we're told that Lusk was in a 'state of considerable excitement.' To me, Lusk sounds reluctant to bring the matter up (or dreading it). "I suppose you will laugh at what I am going to tell you. . . ." Lusk continues, "it is no laughing matter to me" when Aaron tells him somebody's just playing a joke with him. Here's a possible reason Lusk was so nervous--the News of the World, October 7, 1888 (courtesy of the Casebook): "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." I'm not saying this stranger was the Ripper, but how was Lusk to know? I don't know about anybody else, but I'd have been pretty unnerved. And then a week and a half later, Lusk receives a kidney, along with the creepy letter, advising him the knife was soon to follow. Again from Mr. Sugden, the next morning Lusk shows the kidney to Aarons and some of the other committee members the box containing the letter and the kidney. "'Throw it away,' he said, handing it to them, 'I hate the sight of it!'" I don't think Lusk's storage of the kidney in his desk was nonchalance on his part, but rather that he dreaded facing the prospect that the Ripper knew how to find him. Cheers, Dave P.S. Sorry for the extensive quotations--I'm sure many of you have seen them before.

Add a Message