The Lusk/Openshaw Letters

** 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/Openshaw Letters

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion: The Lusk/Openshaw Letters

Author: David O'Flaherty Friday, 15 November 2002 - 12:45 pm
With all the talk about Sickert and the Openshaw letter, I thought people might be interested in a comparison with the Lusk Kidney letter. In "Letters from Hell" Evans and Skinner write: "It has been stated (most notably by Derek Davies in his article 'Jack the Ripper--The Handwriting Analysis', The Criminologist, Vol. 9. No. 33, 1974) that the 'Lusk letter' and the 'Openshaw letter' were written by the same hand. This must remain a matter of opinion. . ." (p. 68) So what do you think? Does anyone see any similiarties between the two letters? I say they are from different hands--the "O"s in the Openshaw letters are closed, where the writer of the Lusk letter tends to leave his "O"s slightly open at top (which has led to the "Sir, Sor" debate). The author of the Openshaw letter uses the lower case "i" while the upper case is used in the Lusk Letter. The formations of "s" seem to vary from Openshaw to Lusk, as well. In Openshaw, the writer seems to have trouble keeping his lines straight, while they seem a little neater in Lusk. And then there are also the different "accents"--cockney in Openshaw, Irish in Lusk. Someone who has read her book, what does Cornwell have to say about the Lusk letter? Does she also attach Sickert to it? Apologies if this has been discussed before, but if that's the case, I thought some might find it an interesting topic to talk about again. Cheers, Dave
Author: Jason Raymond Stone Friday, 15 November 2002 - 01:35 pm
I live in Stratford E15 and have just come in having visited (for the first time -despite having lived in the East End for almost a decade) all of The Ripper Sites (except Bucks Row-which apart from ironically being the closest one to my house is also the area which seems to have been most extensively redeveloped. Bucks Row itself does not exist anymore I drank in the Ten Bells (quite possibly-in fact most certainly one of the most minimalist pubs I have ever visited) I can quite believe (as I had previously read)that the interior has not been redeveloped since 1888 ! The pub seems very reluctant to cash in on its Ripper Heritage.it was renamed "The Jack the Ripper" from 1976-88, but reverted to it's ancestral name thereafter- apparently as a result of local sentiment. The barlady confirmed that in her opinion the owners/management were reluctant to exploit the Ripper name..and the large sign on it's interior wall which outlines its place in Ripperology is obscured by both a table and chairs and a DJ Booth ! The only other reference is a series of signs leading downstairs to the toilets which reproduce some of the newspaper artistic renderings from the period. Understated or what ? Along the way I passed the "City Darts" which is another pub dating back to 1888 and which is apparently referred to in a "recently unearthed" letter by my joint favourite Ripper suspect Aaron Kosminski..I have recently finished former FBI agent John Douglas's book "The Crimes that Haunt Us" (2002). The first chaptor deals with the Whitechapel Murders ...(this is itself something of a misnomer-the most notorious murders were commited in Spitalfields).. Douglas (one of the pioneers of modern Criminal Profiling) has continued to develop his profile of JACK (first outlined in the 1988 TV Special hosted by Sir Peter Ustinov. He has no doubt that the "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jack" letters were hoaxes, but believes that the "Lusk Letter" (aka "From Hell") letter is GENUINE !!-this opens a couple of possibilities a) Since the lusk letter contained half a kidney which may (or may not) have been removed from the the Mitre Square victim Kathy Eddowes,I would like to know ..does this kidney still exist ? If so it might be possible after an exhumation to determine via DNA testing perhaps whether it is indeed from her body...if THAT were confirmed then the Lusk Letter MUST be genuine and we therefore have a sample of the RIPPERS handwriting..to compare it with.... b) The Kosminksi letter ? Has it been in any way authenticated ? If so does the handwriting bear any relation to any of the Ripper letters ? I am convinced that a combination of Psychological Profiling, modern forensics and solid research of secondary sources will ultimately tell us just who JACK was (perhaps not beyond the reasonable doubt which would be required for a conviction in a court of law perhaps..but close. I also believe however that it will be quite a sad day for Ripperologist in some ways. As children in the East End still sometimes sing in the Playground "Jack The Ripper is DEAD, JACK the Ripper is DEAD"... And so he will be ...finally.. JASON R.STONE
Author: David O'Flaherty Friday, 15 November 2002 - 01:53 pm
The very first thing I asked about when I first started posting here was "where's the kidney?" I was told the kidney is no more, but that a few slides may have survived and that a former poster here, Thomas Ind, is searching for them. As far as I know, he's had no luck yet. I don't know if it's possible to obtain DNA from a slide. No doubt as in all things Ripper, it would be an uphill struggle Cheers, Dave
Author: Brian Schoeneman Friday, 15 November 2002 - 02:41 pm
David, As for the Openshaw and From Hell letter's handwriting similiarities, I was reading that same section in Stewart's book last night, and I have no idea how Major Smith's handwriting expert says they come from the same hand - the way the T's are crossed is a total tell tale. The "From Hell" author doens't lift his pen - the Oppenshaw does. That's fairly conclusive for me - and if he was trying to hide his handwriting, he would still not lift the pen, or if he did, he would not consistently write them all the same way. Granted, I am not close to being the world's expert in handwriting, but I know enough to made an educated opinion. The DNA idea is intriguing, but again we've got issues with it. First, the nuclear DNA will have completely deteriorated by this point, so we'll only have mitochondrial DNA. As has been beat to death - this is less accurate. And this also assumes that we can find the slides of the kidney and they can be authenticated. Second, we'd have to be sure we could dig up Kate Eddowes, and confirm that the body buried in her grave is actually hers...she was a pauper and we can't confirm that where her tombstone is located acutally corresponds to her last resting place. Then after the exhumation, we've gotta be able to extract some usable DNA, but you should be able to get that from bone marrow. Anyway, lot's of ifs. Personally, I've always felt that the Lusk letter was genuine. 1.) It wasn't sent to the press, or to the police. It was sent to George Lusk, and I think that's telling. If someone was merely playing for publicity, why go after the head of a vigilance committee? Why not mail it to the Queen, Sir Charles or the Daily Telegraph? 2.) The language is fairly unique to the letter. I don't recall seeing any of the other letters that indiciated cannibalism. That's a frequent component of sexual homicides...not all the time, but frequently. 3.) The lack of a "Jack the Ripper" type nickname at the end. This was after the Dear Boss letter, and I firmly believe that any letter signed Jack the Ripper is a hoax. Other than Son of Sam and the Zodiac, I can't think of any other serial killers that voluntarily gave themselves a nickname. 4.) The Kidney makes it more real to me as well. I know there are differing camps on this, but this is the only letter that came with something that could possibly be linked to the murders of one of the victims. And the only consensus that there was was that the kidney was indeed human. I know the arguments against the letter, the theory it was a medical student who knew Lusk teasing him. But I doubt that most medical students would've preserved a kidney in wine, and that they wouldn't have told Lusk it was a joke when they realized how much it affected him. All of the above is merely conjecture, and informed opinion. Feel free to tear me up. B
Author: David O'Flaherty Friday, 15 November 2002 - 03:06 pm
Hi, Brian Thanks for the comments--great points about the lifting of the pen, something I never thought about. I think we agree about a lot. I still haven't made up my mind about the Lusk letter--some days I think it might be authentic, and others I think it can't possibly be. I guess I'm trying to keep an open mind. Just for the sake of debate, the kidney was preserved in spirit of wine, not just plain wine. And I believe Stewart Evans posted awhile back that this was indeed used sometimes used as a preservative by medical students. And re: the funeral of Catherine Eddowes--rather than a pauper's funeral, it was quite an affair. I believe there was such an outpouring of public sympathy that she was given a fine elm casket and there was a tremendous bit of pomp when she was buried, (contrast that to Liz Stride, who had almost none). I know in England, people are sometimes buried on top of one another, but I'm not sure if this would have happened in Kate's case. I wonder if sonar would give an accurate picture of what's under the ground there. But if she shares a grave, she had quite a distinctive casket (bearing a plaque with letters of gold). But who knows how it's stood up after a hundred years in the ground? It might have completely disintegrated by now. Anyway, I'm not really advocating they dig up poor Kate Eddowes--there's no reason for it. Back to Lusk/Openshaw: Does Pat Cornwell attempt to connect Sickert to the Lusk letter thru the Openshaw letter? Cheers, Dave
Author: Brian Schoeneman Friday, 15 November 2002 - 03:34 pm
Dave, I can't believe I did that, but you are right - I had confused Stride and Eddowes funerals. Oops. In her case, there is a possibility that we could exhume - but still...the chances for DNA are tough. I haven't gotten through Cornwell's book yet, but I know some of the other posters have...I wonder if she mentions it? My guess is probably not - since its lost, she couldn't review it or DNA test it, so I'm sure she rights it off. But I won't start pillorying her for it til I've finished her book. B
Author: David O'Flaherty Friday, 15 November 2002 - 03:52 pm
Brian, Well, if I were going to write a book filled with ungrounded conclusions, I'd go all out I'd write something like "Sickert wrote the letter to Openshaw. Other researchers have argued the same author for both the Openshaw and Lusk letters. Therefore Sickert also wrote the From Hell letter and mailed a portion of Kate Eddowes's kidney to George Lusk. So this proves Sickert was Jack the Ripper." So, since I have the Openshaw letter, I wouldn't need the Lusk letter. Anyway, that would be my reasoning, if I wanted to write a b.s. book. Without John Omlor around to correct my logic, I bet I could make a million bucks! (laugh) Cheers, Dave PS The Lusk letter may not necessarily be lost forever!
Author: Scott E. Medine Friday, 15 November 2002 - 04:07 pm
Ok. I have just spoken with a handwriting expert. The only way he could compare the two, is if both are written in cursive or both are printed. He also needs a first generation photograph of both documents. If we could arrange for the photographing of the two letters, we are well on our way. Peace, Scott
Author: Brian Schoeneman Friday, 15 November 2002 - 04:49 pm
Scott, That's great...both are written in cursive, if I recall correctly...my book is at home. I'm sure someone has photos of the two letters...how recent they are, I'm not sure. Perhaps Stewart Evans has first generation photos of both letters? B
Author: Stewart P Evans Friday, 15 November 2002 - 05:11 pm
I have first generation photographs of both letters and I had the original Openshaw letter in my possession for about seven months before Ms. Cornwell even heard of it. Needless to say I photographed the watermark at that time. The two photographs of the letters are reproduced in Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell. There is no way that Sickert wrote the Openshaw letter in my opinion. His name did not attach to the case as a 'suspect' until the 1970's.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 15 November 2002 - 05:18 pm
Hi Brian, The first generation of the Lusk letter has been missing for some time - all that exists are photographs. It is important to remember that when considering if two letters are written by the same hand just because there are differences in the formation of letters does not necessarily mean they are of different authors. Many people (of which I am one) have different handwriting styles which changes based on paper, writing utensil, or even mood. Handwriting experts look for similiarities between two pieces of writing - unusual characteristics that appear to be natural. Serious handwriting experts will tell you that it is not an exact science - frequently different experts will come to different conclusions. Rich
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 01:52 am
Hi all: Tom Wescott and I have theorized that the Lusk and Openshaw letters were by the same hand, and have likened the two letters to D'Onston's letter of 16 October 1888 to the City of London Police. All three letters can be seen in Evans and Skinner's Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell on pages 64, 67, and 205, respectively. One of the reasons I connect all three letters is the slant up to the right in all three letters. Also D'Onston places the dot over his "i" high, which can be seen in the Openshaw letter, for example, in "bloomin" where the dot is almost in orbit. Look also at the high dot in "i" in "Signed" at the bottom of the Lusk letter and the long downstroke and slight upstroke stroke in the "p" in all three letters. The high cross stroke on the "t" is similar in the Openshaw letter and D'Onston's letter and to some extent in the Lusk letter. In terms of D'Onston's letter, the high crossbar on the "t" making it almost look like a capital letter is discussed by Jakubowski and Braund in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper (pp. 447-448), who make the point that it is similar to the seeming capitalization of the "t" in "That" and other words in the Goulston Street graffito--perhaps an indication that the suspect may have written the graffito. Compare the writing of the word "Hospital" on the envelope of the Openshaw letter with the same word in the address D'Onston's letter--he was of course writing from the same London Hospital to which the Openshaw letter was written. Compare the "p" with the upstroke at the beginning of the "p" and the long downstrokes to "p" or "J" in both letters. If the kidney was a prank that originated in the London Hospital, possibly D'Onston as a patient who had admitted himself into the hospital could have obtained such a kidney. In comparing the Lusk and Openshaw letters, Brian Schoeneman says the pen was lifted in the one letter (presumably he means the Lusk letter) and not the other. I don't agree. In both letters, though not throughout in the Lusk letter, as I show below, the pen was lifted to make the cross stroke over the "t." I do agree that in some words the Lusk letter writer did the "t" in one stroke, seemingly, for example, in "the Kidne" at the top of the letter but not in "took" or "wate" or "Mishter" at the bottom of the letter. The wierd spelling "Kidne" for "kidney" in the Lusk letter and "devle" for "devil" in the Openshaw letter is another reason why I would connect the two letters. The mock Irish of the Lusk letter and mock Cockney of the Openshaw missive are, I believe, simply the same individual wearing different masks. D'Onston was of course an alcoholic and the wild writing in the Lusk letter could be explained if it was written by somebody who was drunk. A drunken writer could explain differences in the style of the handwriting compared to the Openshaw letter or the neater hand of D'Onston's letter to the police when he was trying to seem like a fine upstanding individual. In regard to Cornwell's book, I don't believe she makes a comparison between the Openshaw and Lusk letters. My copy of the book is at work and I'll check it next week. The point though is that she did not have the Lusk letter for DNA comparison, since that letter is now missing, so her investigation likely did not take her in the direction of comparing the two letters. Best regards Chris George
Author: Brian Schoeneman Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 01:00 pm
Chris, When I looked at the letters again, I noticed that there seem to be a number of differences between Lusk and Openshaw. First, Oppenshaw uses the two "cliches" of hoaxers - the Boss line and it is signed Jack the Ripper. Second, take a look at the Fs. In the Lusk letter they are long and thin, almost a straight line. In Openshaw, they are wider and the cross from the F is visible. Almost all of the letters like F that go below the line - especially J and Y (the Y "bloody" extends three whole lines below the letter!) - all have that same characteristic thinness. Third, the Ts again. You are right, there are examples in the Lusk letter where in the crossing of the Ts the pen seems to have been lifted. Namely in "tother", "took", "ate", "wate" and "Mishter". But he doesn't lift the pen in all of the other Ts..."The", "Itook", "it", "it", "the", "that" (twice), "it", "out", and "catch". In the Openshaw letter, however, he never fails to raise the pen, and he even misses crossing the T in some places, like in "the" in the second line (where he crossed the H instead) and in "just" in the fourth line. The spelling of Kidney is different in both letters - It is spelled "kidne" in the Lusk letter and it is spelled "Kidny" (line 2) and "Kidney" in the rhyme in Openshaw. The "s" letters at the beginning of words are also drastically different. The "s" in "Send" in the Lusk letter can be compared to the "s" in "send" in the Oppenshaw letter: the Lusk has a large, loopy style to it, while Oppenshaw has a more standard cursive style. Now, as for the similarities between D'Onston's handwriting and Openshaw letter, those seem to fit your idea of his being drunk when it was written. I look at the similiarites in T crossing and the the apparent neatness of the two. Also, the shakiness and hesitation of the writing on the envelope could indicate intoxication. So, I would agree with you that the Openshaw letter was probably sent by D'Onston, but I think the Lusk letter was sent by some still as yet unidentified author(or killer). Wow. I'm starting to sound like I actually know something here! At least we'll have something fun to talk about at dinner Tuesday, right Chris? B
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 08:57 pm
Kidney for dinner then Tuesday, Brian?
Author: Brian Schoeneman Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 09:08 pm
Chris, Only as long as you've got some fava beans and a nice Chianti. B
Author: Eliza Cline Friday, 29 November 2002 - 09:54 pm
I don't know if anyone else has brought this up, but is it possible that both the Lusk and Openshaw letters were written by a right-handed person using his left hand, or vice versa. I am right handed. I tried writing with my left hand and produced a kind of writing that looked similar to those two letters.

Add a Message