|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 07 May 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
Which Letters are Authentic?:
Archive through 07 May 2002
Author: Allan Small
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 07:38 pm |        | I am surprised not to see anything about graphology on the Casebook site or in this message forum. While many Americans think of handwriting analysis as nothing more than a parlor game, in fact it is studied as a serious aid in psychoanalysis and in understanding personality, especially in Europe. It has been used for decades, for example (both in Europe and the U.S.) in evaluating candidates for employment. Furthermore, it has long been known that the handwriting of seriously disturbed persons invariably exhibits wildly exaggerated characteristics not present in "normal" writing -- features evident to even an inexperienced graphologist.
For people suffering from serious sexual disorders, these include the crowding of words onto the page with very narrow margins, (often-narrow) letters jammed closely together, unusually narrow (or absent) spaces between words, narrow o's and e's sometimes closed up with ink, ill-formed exaggerated scrolls or curls in the middle zone, and unusual elaboration of the lower zone (below-the-line tails on letters such as y, g & p).
The handwriting of angry persons prone to violence contains jagged, saw-like up-and-down strokes with sharp points.
The handwriting of dangerous sexual psychopaths generally contains the above features coupled with jagged, knife-like exaggerated tails in the lower zone, which overlap subsequent lines in the text.
The "Dear Boss" letter absolutely could not have been written by a psycopath. The "From Hell" letter, on the other hand, was written by someone seriously disturbed -- almost certainly psychosexually maladjusted, dangerously angry, and prone to violence -- whether JTR or not.
Does anyone know of published research in this arena? |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 08:05 pm | | Hi, Alan
I'm no handwriting expert, but your descriptions of different samples sound awfully generalized for comfort. Aren't there exceptions to the rule?
I agree with you, though, about the Dear Boss letter--no reason to think it was sent by Jack. I also think that if any of the letters are genuine, it's the From Hell letter, because of the kidney. I know nothing has been authenticated, but I'm intrigued by Dr. Thomas Ind's search for a surving slide of the Lusk kidney and that someday the From Hell letter might be authenticated (or finally disproved).
I haven't read it yet, but you might try the book by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner on all the different JTR letters. I believe it's featured on the main page of this casebook.
Take care,
Dave |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 09:04 pm | | Hi Allan,
You might take a look at Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner's book "Letters From Hell." It has many photographs of letters sent to the authorities and the media.
The book does not seek to provide any handwriting analysis.
The problem with the letters is that many were sent by disturbed persons who were not the Whitechapel murderer. Indeed, most letters are either proven or suspected hoaxes.
My impression is that none of them are from the actually killer - including the Lusk letter. But this of course is speculation.
The Evans/Skinner book gives a good history of the letters.
Rich |
Author: Allan Small
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 09:45 pm | | Rich -
Many thanks for the reference. I am assuming, of course, that many letters were from disturbed persons; but the handwritings of dangerously violent persons display remarkable features not present in the handwriting of the just plain loony. Now I'm relly anxious to read "letters From Hell."
Also, some folks have written that misspelled words (especially "knif") are virtual proof of a hoax. On the contrary, missing letters (especially missing final letters, and most often e's) are a common feature in the handwriting of people who are agitated, and appear in every example of insane writing I have seen. |
Author: Allan Small
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 10:01 pm | | Dear Dave,
You're quite right to say that my description of lunatic handwriting is rather generalized -- but that's because I wanted to keep the remarks as brief as possible. Whole volumes could be written about the handwriting of the clinically insane, and there are many other features I'm looking at when I see this letter.
I am no expert on JTR at all, but when I discovered the Casebook site, I looked at the "Dear Boss" letter and immediately said "No way is this the handwriting of a psychopath." Then I saw "From Hell," and thirty years' experience analyzing handwriting made my hair stand on end. This is the sort of sample published in scholarly books on the subject (such as Klara Roman's "Handwriting: A Key to Personality') -- but one sees the like very rarely in real life -- I've seen handwriting samples this scary only two or three times outside of books, and one was a "nut letter" written to President Carter which I was asked to look at while working for the Department of Labor. As I recall, it was forwarded to the FBI.
Thanks to you and Richard Dewar for the the reference to the Evans & Skinner book -- the appearance of the letters interests me as much as the content. A. |
Author: Allan Small
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 10:32 pm | | Oh, David:
I just realized I never answered your question. The answer is: no, there are no exceptions to the rules (none known, anyway; and lots of people have looked) -- but there are many, many rules, and none should be taken in isolation. It would take a lot more convincing than I could do here, but handwriting never lies -- the only variables are in the skill, experience, and seriousness of the analyst. Careless amateurs are likely to look for high I-dots or low T-bars or such specific features and draw questionable conclusions; serious graphologists look for a great many more characteristics and analyze the complete package.
Sharp & jagged forms, for example, may mean wit, sarcasm, temper, impatience or irritability in handwriting that is otherwise "normal," depending on a whole host of other features with which they're combined.
But real rage, serious mental disturbance, and a tendency toward violence fairly jump off the page to the experienced graphologist. I am an amateur graphologist, mind you, not a professional -- but I 've been at it for thirty years, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the writer of "From Hell" was one truly disturbed person inclined to be dangerously violent. This is not, of course, to say he was JTR by any means.
My main point was the the writer of "Dear Boss" COULD not be JTR -- no disturbed, angry, violent person is capable or that sort of writing -- even lunatics whose writings appear more or less "normal" to the uninitiated betray to the graphologist elements simply not present in that letter anywhere.
I'd love to see comments on the letters by a well-respected professional graphologist working in the psychiatric field.... |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 11:26 pm | | Thanks, Alan, for the response to my question. To express my gratitude, I've another for you 
How much can an individual's handwriting, in your opinion, vary according to emotional state? Could my handwriting take on the characteristics of someone else's?
Dave |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 01:26 am | | My bet, if any are genuine, has been on the Lusk letter. Originally, that was based on the renal artery evidence, however, I have since read that the kidney portion was "trimmed", meaning there was no renal artery on the portion sent. I believe this was a statement by Openshaw himself when interviewed by the press where he clearly disputed what had earlier been written in the press about his findings. He also pointed out that one couldn't tell if it was a male or female kidney. This information can be found in Sudgen's book, and I recommend it be checked out for those interested, rather than base it on my memory.
However, although these things do make a hoax more possible, the kidney was not "charged with fluids", meaning "not in formaldihyde" (Skinner & Evans), but was kept in "spirits of wine". If the kidney was a medical students prank, then the body would have been "charged with fluids", according to the same source quoted in Sudgen and Skinner & Evans. This seems to rule out a hoax that begins with med students stealing a kidney from the disection lab.
Also, sending the kidney to Lusk, and not to the CNA or the police station makes a wee bit of sense. I'm way out on a speculative limb here, but ... What I'm assuming is that the killer is from the local area. Lusk is known by the locals because he's the head of the Vigilance Com. He might have appeared to the killer as the "one to beat" because they are of the same "community". The police are "outsiders", the "press" are "outsiders", but Lusk and Jack are from the same environment. Hence, he's the competition. And by community I just mean Whitechappel area, not that the killer lived necessarily near Lusk himself.
And, a reason for the lack of a Jack the Ripper signature might be that the letter was only sent because of the Dear Boss letters. If they are a hoax, then the Ripper may have seen this as someone stealing his thunder. So, he sends the kidney to prove this one is from the real killer and doesn't sign it JtR to steal back the credit (prove the JtR's are not real). I would think a hoax would have used JtR.
Of course, if the Lusk letter's a hoax, which it could be, these last paragraphs are moot. We can never know for sure, unless some new information turns up. But, if it's not a hoax, maybe something like this could explain why it was sent to Lusk, and why it's not signed Jack the Ripper.
Just a few thoughts really.
- Jeff |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 02:56 pm | | Hi Jeff,
You make some persuasive arguments in favor of the Lusk letter. I agree with you that it is possible that this is actually from the murderer. I won't so readily rule out the potential of a hoax. It would have been possible to obtain a kidney without preservatives. Indeed, one must wonder about the examination of the kidney when the Lusk letter itself says the kidney was preserved. Could this possibly be a hoaxer trying to explain why a preservative might be found in the kidney?
There are hundreds of letters on file and many possibly could be from the killer. However, the nature of this murderers offenses make me doubt the killer was a scribe.
Rich |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 05:55 pm | | Just a couple of points to set the record straight. It was Dr. Gordon Brown, the City Police surgeon who had carried out the autopsy on Eddowes and subsequently examined the section of kidney, who stated that the renal artery had been trimmed off. I located this report and first published it in 1995.
The fact that the section of kidney 'was not charged with fluids' merely meant that it was not from a cadaver that had been preserved for medical dissection in teaching. However, the section of kidney had been preserved in spirits of wine which was the standard medium for preserving anatomical specimens in jars. Thus it still remains likely that a medical man, possibly a student, had indeed preserved this piece of kidney which may well have been obtained at any autopsy. This episode is examined at length and detail in Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell.
It must be significant that not only did the police think that it might 'be the act of a medical student', but Lusk himself also thought that it may have been a practical joke carried out by someone at the London Hospital where he was known as he had been doing some work there. Lusk had already received a high profile in the press and had received some correspondence signed 'Jack the Ripper'. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 06:16 pm | | Hi, Stewart
I've a quick question--what is the source that Lusk thought the kidney a practical joke? I've seen it mentioned in one of the newspapers, but it wasn't clear (to me) if he had been interviewed or not.
I wrote an earlier post on the subject.(March 26, 2002 8:26 pm, bottom of page) on Lusk's reaction about a month back, /link{http://forum.casebook.org/messages/4/3602.html?1017192363
Standing by to be corrected, am I reading too much into the newspaper reports?
Take care,
David |
Author: Diana
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 08:39 pm | | Ripper Letters
From hell.
Mr Lusk,
Sor
I send you half the Kidne I took from one woman and 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
Let's assume for the moment that Jack wrote this letter. If he is the author then: 1)Why did he choose George Lusk to write to? Did he feel threatened by Lusk? Did he know Lusk? Did he have some grudge against Lusk? Is it possible that a member of Lusk's committee almost caught him? 2) This was received by GL the 15th of October. Why at this particular time? Is it possible that with all the hue and cry JTR wasn't able to do his thing for two weeks and as his frustration built this was the only outlet? |
Author: HERBERT SHAFFER
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 08:43 pm | | Allan;
What you seem to forget is that not all mentally deranged persons are deranged all the time. They know who they are, and they know what they have done, and their instability is always present, but they are also able at times to act completely normal.
Even the most highly trained can miss the clues that are not always there anyway.
Ask anyone!!!!!!!!
Herb |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 09:27 pm | | Stewart,
Thanks for the info on the preservative technique. I thought that being in wine pointed towards someone "kept it at home" since I didn't realise that was the normal practice. So, as you point out, it doesn't lessen the possibility of a hoax as I suggested it did. Oh well.
- Jeff |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 04 May 2002 - 02:03 am | | David,
A few years ago I purchased the Ripper collection of the late Leonard Archer. Leonard Archer was the grandson of George Lusk and wrote a letter in 1966 to the editor of The London Hospital Gazette when that journal published an article on Jack the Ripper by the London Hospital-based pathologist Francis Camps. This article was the first time an image of the Lusk letter had been published. In this letter Leonard Archer wrote the following:-
"I believe he either did some work in the hospital or for some of the staff and in his later years he believed that the kidney was sent to him as a practical joke by someone in the London Hospital!"
The Times of 19 October 1888 reported the 'kidney episode' stating, "Mr. George Lusk, builder, of Alderney-road, Globe-road, Mile-end, has received several letters purporting to be from the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders, but believing them to have been the production of some practical joker he had regarded them as of no consequence..."
The 'From hell' letter with its disgusting enclosure was a slightly different matter and the same article reported, "The receiver was at first disposed to think that another hoax had been perpetrated, but eventually decided to take the opinion of the Vigilance Committee."
It was then that it was decided to take the letter and the section of kidney to a doctor for his opinion, finally resulting in the items being handed over to the police. There can be little doubt that this episode, and the story that a man with an Irish accent had been trying to obtain Lusk's address the day before the parcel had been sent had worried Lusk.
Joseph Aarons, the treasurer of the Vigilance Committee, stated [Daily Telegraph, 18 October 1888], "To tell you the truth, I did not believe in it, and I laughed and said I thought that somebody had been trying to frighten him. Mr. Lusk, however, said it was no laughing matter to him..."
Inspector McWilliam, head of the City of London Police detective department stated, "It might turn out after all, to be the act of a Medical Student who would have no difficulty in obtaining the organ in question." [HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 163-170].
As I said, the whole episode is fully covered in Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell in which the whole of chapter six, 'A Letter "From hell"', is devoted to it.
Diana, the letter was received by Lusk on Tuesday 16 October 1888, not on the 15th. The reasons why must remain opinion, but this was a time when there were many hoax letters being sent and the press was affording it maximum publicity.
Jeff, apropos the 'preservative technique', spirits of wine was the standard medical method of preserving these specimens. It was even discussed by Coroner Wynne Baxter at the Chapman inquest, on 26 September 1888, in relation to the 'medical man' who had been attempting to purchase wombs. Baxter stated, "He wished them preserved, not in spirits of wine, the usual medium, but glycerine, in order to preserve them in a flaccid condition..."
Keep up the good work as it is from discussions such as these that we may all learn a bit more and shed a little light in some of the darker corners.
As to the 'authenticity' or otherwise of the 'Lusk letter', it must remain a matter of opinion. You can simply read and internalise all there is on the incident, then form your own opinion. No-one can prove the argument either way; as with so many of the incidents forming part of the greater mystery.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 04 May 2002 - 02:15 am | | Thank you, Stewart, for taking the time to clear the matter up for me. I was unaware of the 1966 letter from Mr. Lusk's grandson. I'd read the Times story, but it wasn't clear if they had actually spoken with Mr. Lusk or were reporting the information second-hand. And like Jeff, I too was also unaware that spirit of wine was commonly used by medical students to preserve organs.
Looks like I shall have to buy your book!
Have a good weekend,
David |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 04 May 2002 - 12:54 pm | | Allan
As an amateur graphologist you state your opinion that the September 25 letter could not have been written by a psychopath.
First question: Are you assuming that Jack the Ripper had to be a psychopath? (Witness someone like Ted Bundy, perhaps?)
Also, have you done any research into the effect of multiple personality disorder on handwriting?
Have you at any time examined the handwriting of Peter Kurten, the 'Dusseldorf Ripper', who wrote letters that were published in the local press and was so confident that he had disguised his handwriting that he showed the letters to his wife? For the record she didn't recognise her husband's writing.
For what it is worth, I happen to believe that the 25 September letter was written by Jack The Ripper, for the same reasons that Paul Feldman points out in The Final Chapter.
Allan, would you please also give me your opinion on whether or not you feel it is possible for one person to exhibit more than one style of handwriting?
Many Thanks
Peter. |
Author: Allan Small
Saturday, 04 May 2002 - 02:05 pm | | This is for Dave and Herb:
Deranged people may act more or less normal at times, but their handwriting betrays them all the time. It will show more more extremes when they're upset, but the derangement is evident even at their calmest. This is so well known to those who have studied the handwritings of people in psychiatric institutions that it's basic.
You said it yourself, Herb: "Their instability is always present." And it's always present in their handwriting -- more exaggerated when they are upset, but never altogether absent.
The handwriting of EVERY individual differs with mood, physical state, health, and present circumstances, but certain essentials in the style & character of the writing remain consistent (as do some specific individual features). I'm talking about adults who's basic handwriting style is established, here; the handwriting of children is still developing, and that of adolescents is full of conflict and growing pains (another whole field of study, by the way).
Dave, you may mimic someone else's writing, but the stroke, pressure, angularity or roundness, relative size of the upper, middle and lower zones, style of connecting letters, spaces between words and lines, etc. etc. (there are literally many hundreds of features to look for) are always fundamentally yours, not somone else's. Your natural handwriting will change only within a normal range, and will always look essentially like yours, rather than someone else's, unless you're deliberately trying to disguise it (and a really experienced graphologist may not be fooled even then). Likewise, the handwriting of a murderous lunatic will change only within a reasonably predictable range -- it's the subconscious which controls the handwriting, and the subconscious of a murderous lunatic is always teeming with hostility, even when he's acting (or feeling) halfway normal.
Real changes DO occur -- usually with dramatic life changes (the writing of Napoleon, Oscar Wilde, & Hitler are commonly published examples, as are famous suicide notes and before-and-after writings of the terminally ill). These kinds of changes do not reverse themselves, though; and to the extent that it's been studied (and it has), the handwriting of serial killers has consistently shown progressive and permanent deterioration.
People who gradually descend into madness from "normal" states have handwriting which changes dramatically along the way. Schizophrenics who are treated with drugs have handwriting which changes from bizarre to merely deeply disturbed when under treatment (but back again to bizarre as soon as drug treatment is stopped). People who suffer from milder neuroses have handwriting which sometimes shows marked positive change under successful treatment -- one of the chief uses of handwriting in psychiatric treatment is that the improvement is visible, and tends to confirm direct observation and other means of gauging progress. Handwriting can also tell you right away when a psychotic has stopped taking his medications.
I do aplogize for going on at such length, but volumes have been written about this subject, and some psychiatric studies have followed the writing of clinically insane people in detail over years.
I asked about graphological analysis initially only because it seemed to me so very surprising, in view of the letters' having been so widely publicized, not to read that some well known graphologist(s) had studied them and commented on their authors -- and because the first thing that struck me about the "Dear Boss" letter is that it was obviously a fraud. Being a neophite in Ripperology, I found its content pretty convincing (and those of the follow-up postcard as well), but it was plain as day that the document we're looking at was not penned by a psycopath -- while the "From Hell" note, as I wrote earlier, jumps off the page and shouts "twisted" to a graphologist before the content has even been read.
By the way, I have several times seen the "From Hell" greeting transcribed as "Sor." The word written on that card is "Sir" -- it's simply penned by someone who is very agitated -- extra strokes (as well as omitted letters or words, and phonetic spellings, are common in the writing of very agitated individuals -- they occur spontaneously when emotional exitement dominates the writing process). The initial "S," by the way, shows precisely the kind of ill-formed tense scrolls that emotionally troubled handwritings exhibit over and over -- it has to do with secretiveness and disturbed imagination (though NOT with violence, which comes out in the cramped up-and-down strokes, jagged points, and dagger-like extensions of the lower zone. This note may very well be a fake, but it was nonetheless penned by a very troubled and angry individual with serious psychosexual problems. The COMBINATION of features separately indicating disturbed imagination, secretiveness, psychosexual maladjustment, and violence is what intrigues me -- separately, these features are not terribly common, but to find them in combination is so rare as to make me wish other analysts more expert in the field of abnormal writing than I had examined this.
I'll still be looking for a dispassionate personality analysis aimed at the writers of at least the most famous missives by a respected graphoanalysst -- preferably one who's NOT a Ripperologist, and who therefore has no pet JtR theory to influence the graphoanalysis). The findings would be one more valuable additional tool for everyone. The challenge would be to ignore the attempts of rank amateur handwriting analysts, whose commentaries are often dead wrong, and usually worse than useless. |
Author: Allan Small
Saturday, 04 May 2002 - 03:31 pm | | Dear Peter,
I want to answer your questions as well as I can, but I don't want to appear to be trying to turn this forum into a message board about handwriting analysis instead of about the Whitechapel murders. All I intended at the start was to find out if anyone knew of such an analysis having been undertaken.
(1) I haven't examined the letters of other multiple killers, except to the very limited extent that brief samples have appeared in texts on general graphoanalysis. My personal interest in graphology has not had much to do with pathology -- that's why I say I'd be interested for someone who specializes in this field to go to work on this material.
(2) I don't know whether anyone has systematically studied the effects of multiple personality disorder on handwriting (I suspect someonE has) -- it's something I've wondered about myself, but not pursued.
(3) I have read of Peter Kurten's showing his disguised writing and not having it recognized. Some people are able to disguise their writing very effectively (really good forgers can fool almost anyone). But really good forgers are rare, and most people cannot get rid of telltale "signature marks" in their writing. Bear in mind that what a graphologist looks for in writing is not what the average reader may be looking for. FBI, CID and other experts in this field look for specific traits that are extremely hard to eliminate from one's writing. Just to give one example: no matter how hard I may try, I cannot keep the third arch in the miniscule letter "m" from being slightly separated from, and taller than, the other arches in the "m." This feature appears in the writing of my father, brother and sister as well -- even though their writing otherwise does not resemble mine in the least (there are a number of such features known to run in families, by the way). It is many small details like this which help criminological graphologists identify frauds, forgeries and attempts to disguise writing. What the criminologist is looking for are paralells in tiny details of different handwriting samples to establish whether they're by the same hand or not.
What the psychiatric graphoanalyst is looking for, on the other hand, are signs of specific personality characteristics -- and even when the handwriting is well disguised and looks quite different, these "personality markers" tend to be still present in one form or another.
(3) Many people DO exhibit more than one style of handwriting (at least superficially), just as many people have more than one vocal style when singing, or more than one manner of speach in different circumstances. And some specific handwriting features change with the writer's mood, intent, and state of health, while others do not (like my "m", for instance). This, by the way, is not a matter of opinion, but a widely observed phenomenon commented on by many graphologists.
(4) In my experience, to an accomplished pshychiatric graphoanalyst the handwriting of deeply disturbed people shows remarkable danger signs even when it looks "average" or "normal" to others. As I indicated above, I have not myself made any special study of such matters (although I have several times had people bring me samples of the handwriting of people they were suspicious of, and occasionally I've observed textbook signs of serious trouble).
In one case I was worried enough to warn someone to stay away from an apparently normal and rather pleasant acquaintance, whose writing told me he was desperately emotionally needy, deeply troubled, controlling, and prone to violence. He later turned out to be a classic stalker. There were several severe beatings and serious murder/suicide threats. It was finally stopped only after the victim got a restraining order and the police apprehended the stalker during a break-in at the victim's home. The victim was still forced to move away, get an unlisted number, and take other precautions. The fellow appeared quite normal, and his handwriting wouldn't worry most people, but even to an amateur graphologist like me, it was very disturbing.
This is only by way of saying that handwriting DOES NOT LIE if you know what to look for. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 06:36 am | | Thanks Allan
Interesting to read what you wrote of the Lusk letter, I looked it up quickly in Stewart and Keith's "From Hell" book and there is transcribed as "Sir", although I think just about every other book I have read on the subject transcribes that as "Sor", and then tries to make some argument about Irish dialect.
I have no basis upon which to argue this subject with you, for if you are an "amateur" graphologist, then I am but an amoeba in the vast pond of graphology.
I had always viewed the Lusk letter as a forgery, deliberately overplaying on untidy pen strokes and bad spelling.
Are you convinced that it was written by someone who could have shared the same mental characteristics as JtR?
Bit of a coincidence that.
I don't suppose you could have a look at "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" for me and give me your opinion of the handwriting in there, could you?
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 08:20 am | | Allan -- Did you know that the FBI profilers agree with you? Only they analyzed content, not handwriting. At first they said all the letters were hoaxes, but I believe it was Douglas who came out later in one of his books and said that of all the letters, only Lusk conceivably might be genuine.
Can you tell if the writer was agitated when he wrote "Lusk" or merely suffering an underlying ongoing mental disturbance?
We need to know a lot more about George Lusk to see what would provoke JTR to write him. (If indeed the writer was JTR.)
I am really impressed by your analysis. I have to admit to you that I had always viewed graphoanalysis as pseudoscience. Perhaps you could tell us some more so the credibility of the discipline itself could be established? |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 02:43 pm | | | The first person who will have to be eliminated will be GL. It is (remotely) possible that he was JTR and produced the letter himself. Are there any samples of his handwriting still in existence? |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 02:54 pm | | Here's another point. If I'm a hoaxer and I want to send a human kidney to someone with a letter, what possible reason would I have to send only half of it?
On the other hand, if I am JTR, I might just be sick enough to want to eat half of it first.
Of course if I am a hoaxer I might reason that half a kidney along with a letter claiming that I ate the other half might make more of an impression. Would most hoaxers think of this refinement? |
Author: Allan Small
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 07:56 pm | | Peter -- Thanks for your remarks. I can look at the diary, but I think what's really needed is for an expert in handwriting of the clinically insane to look at it -- possibly someone associated with the British Institute of Graphologists, for example (and as I said, preferably not a Ripperologist. I am not a serious Ripperologist, by the way, but rather a casually curious afficionado of murder, fictional or real; so I am far less well-versed in Ripper lore than 'most everyone else here. Is the diary published in facsimile?
By the way, if you were familiar with genuine handwriting samples of psychotics, you'd realize that the Lusk letter (whether genuine or fake) is far from overplayed; the handwriting (and orthography) of the seriously mentally ill is often truly bizarre -- see the last paragraph of my reply to Diana, below.
Diana -- Many people, including apparently most scientifically minded people in the USA, do consider graphology nothing more than pseudoscience, but it is nonetheless used (not infrequently) in employment testing in the USA. Much better known practitioners of the discipline than I have tried to establish its credibility in the U.S. with very little success. Graphology is studied seriously as a key to personality in other countries because it's well established that the character of handwriting is determined by the brain, not the hand -- and responsible scientific investigation of the way handwriting changes during illness, artificial stimuli, or stress prove that certain charateristics are indeed meaningful.
I took up handwriting analysis many years ago, initially as a kind of parlor trick ("low T-bars mean low ambitions; long lower loops mean high sex drive," etc.), but gradually observed that signs of many characteristics such as intelligence, kindness, organizational skill, laziness, wastefulness, secrecy, stinginess, vanity, musicality, etc., were impossible to mistake. Eventually, I learned to disregard the casual "I can teach you to analyze handwriting in six weeks" methods and focus on a European method aimed at assessing all the features of handwriting as a complete personality package, with specific "signs" like narrow e's, high i-dots, etc. never analyzed in isolation.
I would venture to say that most people who analyze handwriting nowadays still use what I call the "parlor trick" method, and their work is of little interest to me (although not always entirely wrong, as they are, after all, looking for some meaningful characteristics).
I will mention that my faith in the absolute reliablity of graphology came only after considerable study and amazingly successful application (which surprised everyone, including me). I am a generally rational and very down-to-earth thinker (I do not believe in astrology, religion, UFO sightings, or the Bermuda Triangle nonsense, for example; and I am the first to scoff at "paranormal" phenomena and outlandish conspiracy theories). Graphology has proved itself over and over, though; even those who discredit graphology acknowledge that the handwriting of the clinically insane exhibits features never found in the same combination or concentration in handwriting of the sane.
Oh -- and the writer of the Lusk letter was agitated and disturbed. It shows up in the "s" and "i" in the word "sir," in the placement on the page, in the nervous and jagged up-and-down strokes, and in the careless spelling -- which appears to me neither a deliberate attempt to mislead nor a sign that he was a just plain bad speller (though he may very well have been), but rather a sign of unstable mental excitement. The same feature shows up in virtually all the "nut letters" received in Federal agencies in Washington -- every Senator's office has a big collection of them. |
Author: Allan Small
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 08:25 pm | | Diana,
I'm with you on the point about the half kidney -- it just has that wierdly authentic quality to it.
I confess I do not see any reason to be supicous of Lusk. I have read comments by some questioning why he kept the thing overnight, but, you know, what would you do with it? I think I'd keep it over night, simply not being sure what else to do.
Regards, A. |
Author: Allan Small
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 10:19 pm | | All:
"Dear Boss" & "Saucy Jack" were definitely written by one or more right-handed persons (I cannot tell whether the hand is really the same from what I'm seeing on line). "From hell" was probably, but not certainly, written by a right-handed person (it is not always possible to tell). Comments?
Is there general agreement that Jack was a leftie? |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 10:55 pm | | Mr. Small,
Regarding the 'saucy Jacky' postcard:
Would you agree that the dash in "double ev-ent" looks intentional? Just curious. Thanks.
Rob |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 11:48 pm | | | I agree that handwriting is controlled by the brain. I am a teacher, a special education teacher and I work with disabled children. Those with motor problems (fine and gross) have a tough time writing legibly and motor problems originate in the brain. Usually (not always) the kid who is clumsy in phys ed. or on the playground is also the kid who can't control a pencil. I have to ask, though, couldn't someone with a motor problem produce jerky spiky letters? You know, like a mild cerebral palsy or parkinsons? |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 08:21 am | | Hello again Allan
The diary is published in facsimile form in Shirley Harrison's book "The diary of Jack the Ripper". I dare say you'd find it at your local bookshop or on ebay, perhaps.
One other question I had for you was owing to something I noticed in Stewart and Keith's book whilst flicking through it yesterday after noting the Lusk letter.
On page 98 of "Letters from Hell" there is a reproduction of a letter dated 19/10/88 which makes reference to the "From Hell" letter received by Lusk. I was impressed by this letter for a small number of reasons, hopefully someone can help me with my thinking:
Firstly the handwriting looks similar to the "From Hell" letter. Allan, what do you think?
Secondly, the writer makes reference to sending half a kid ne to Lusk "last Monday".
Would someone be so kind as to tell me whether or not the Lusk letter was published in the newspapers of the time in facsimile form? (Paul Feldman says it wasn't). I am interested to know because the sender of the 19/10 letter uses exactly the same spelling of kidne as does the sender of the Lusk letter.
Furthermore, Lusk apparently received his letter (and the kidney) on a Tuesday. The writer of the 19/10 letter refers to having sent the letter 'last Monday'. Doesn't that have a ring of truth about it?
Finally, the date as written 19/10/88 matches the handwriting of the date written on the Galashiels letter of 08/10/88.
If the Lusk letter wasn't published in facsimile form, then it's writer must be the same person who wrote the letter of 19/10/88.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 10:21 am | | Hi, all:
Diana wrote: "We need to know a lot more about George Lusk to see what would provoke JTR to write him."
I think it is clear why the killer or at least someone posing as the killer would want to write to George Lusk. It had been reported in the newspapers that Lusk was head of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee (sometimes termed the Mile End Vigilance Committee) which was charged with the task of hunting down the killer. While the term "vigilantee" is probably too strong a term, these men would have viewed themselves as an adjunct to the police and were detailed to patrol the streets just as the beat coppers did. It was also known that Lusk had lobbied the government to issue a reward to catch the killer, a tactic that was turned down because it was felt, on past experience, that it encouraged people with false information to come forward.
At any rate, George Lusk was known through the press reports to be a man of influence who was working with the authorities on the case, and thus was a target for mail, be it from the killer or from a hoax letter writer.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 06:00 pm | | Stewart,
Once again, thanks. A bit embarassing actually, as I've never put the inquest statement together with the Lusk kidney. Should have, could have, but didn't.
One question which might help determine the authenticity though. Are the "spirits of wine" different from "strong drinkable wine", and more importantly, could it be determined if the kidney was stored in one or the other? If the later (which presumes the former but is the critical thing), then this would highly suggest a hoax.
Since it is stated it was "spirits of wine" and if one couldn't distinguish, then this leaves the possibility that it was just strong wine - cheap sherry maybe?.
The one alternative, if it's authentic and "spirits of wine" can be differentiated from "strong drinkable wine", is that it requires the Ripper be someone who had access to the "preservative form of wine". So it's not definitive in terms of the kidney, but then no one piece of evidence is in this case. Still, it gives more weight to the probability of a hoax.
On a side note though, maybe this was also why the police continued to suspect doctors and med-students? Possible access to a preservative, combined with testimony of possible surgical skill/anatomical knowledge? Since they didn't know if it was real or not, they would have to consider the possibility it was real, and follow up along those lines. Both of which point towards a medical association.
- Jeff |
Author: Allan Small
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 07:13 pm | | Whew! I never expected to be writing so much here; I just wanted to know where I could see someone else's analysis of the handwriting in the letters. Now I really have to go to work on this!
Rob -- Yes, the hyphen certainly looks deliberate (from what I can tell in the on-line pic, anyway). In fact, it looks completely different from everything else in the note. I have no idea what it means. It is often frustrating to try to analyze handwriting in facsimile -- hard to tell sometimes about pressure, random marks, and so forth.
Diana -- People with motor problems do have great difficulty producing copy-book writing -- but the results are more random and spastic in appearance, with generally oversized script and often abrupt shifts in letter size. They tend to combine large irregular curves with jagged strokes, and to exhibit difficulty in maintaining a straight line of text. The up-and-down strokes in the Lusk letter are those of someone who's coordinated (and strong), but hostile.
Just thought you might be interested to know, by the way, that people who are obliged to write with their toes (or teeth) exhibit the same telltale features in their writing as those who write with their hands -- more proof of how largely thoughts and emotions control shape, flow, rhythm, etc.
Peter -- I haven't (yet) read Harrison's book. Not a Ripperologist (at least until now), I haven't even read Sugden (yet). I have ordered Evans' & Skinner's book on the letters, and will read it with even greater interest than previously anticipated after some of the comments in this forum.
I can see you people are going to force me to become a Ripperologist sooner or later. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 09:49 pm | | Thanks alot, Allan:
Well, I would like to think I know what it means! But ya never know...you never know...
Rob
P.S It does seem to be one of those "things" that says, "I know why I did this...but do you?" |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 11:24 pm | | Something just occured to me as a bit of wild and unbridled speculation. What if the Lusk kidney is authentic, implying the Ripper knows about preserving body parts in "spirits of wine". Now, if that's true, and if "spirits of wine preservation" is distinguishable from just keeping it at home in a jar of strong wine, or sherry, then we come to "medical knowledge". But, what if the Ripper isn't a doctor or med-student, but someone like a hospital lab tech? They may have kept all their "samples" in the lab, in jars, preserved so they could see them on a daily basis? Sent only half the kidney so they could keep the other half on view? This person might fit some of the discriptions of a "clerk-like" individual? Would have the finances, maybe, to afford different clothes? Has anyone looked into the local hospital records to see if any such individual "went mad", "was killed", "left London", at the appropriate time?
- Jeff |
Author: brad mcginnis
Monday, 06 May 2002 - 11:37 pm | | | Jeff, just so you know spirits of wine would be a wine that has been distilled, extracting the alcohol in purer form. Brandy is an example of this, and the amount of alchohol (or "proof") would depend on how long the distillation process took place. Brad |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 02:20 am | | Thanks Brad. So it's not adding methyl-alcohol (which one shouldn't drink) or something like that, which might be detectable in a laboratory test (not sure if methyl & ethyl alchohol could be distinguished in 1888, but that would be my next question!).
I suppose a preservative would have a much higher "proof" than brandy off the shelf (normally 80 proof, or 40% now; but was this the case in 1888?) and I'm sure the concentration could have been determined. Basically, I'm just hoping there would be some test that would have been made to back the claim that "it was preserved in spirits of wine" that justifies ruling out the possibility that "someone kept it at home in a jar covered in their favorite brandy".
Otherwise, all the spirits of wine preservative means is that either it's a hoax, or JtR might know that if you kept things in brandy they didn't rot so fast. Which doesn't really help one way or the other in terms of trying to decide about the authenticity of the Lusk kidney in the first place because neither explanation seems overly unlikely. Circles again.
Oh, and as for my "med-lab-tech" idea, I want make it clear that there's not any real evidence to support such a theory, nor do I really believe it myself. It just struck me as something worth asking. And, since I know some of the authors here have checked into the asylum records fairly closely, I was just wondering if anyone looked for "mad doctors/med-student" and noted "oh look, mad medical technition". I doubt it as I would suspect none of the current professional researchers would have overlooked such a person just because they weren't "doctor" or "med-student". In fact, I'm sure they would have flagged such a person as "worth looking into".
- Jeff |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 07:49 am | | Hi Allan,
I'll be fascinated to hear what you make of the handwriting in the 63-page Maybrick diary as and when you get round to seeing it in Shirley Harrison's book.
You must be very well aware that there will be people reading your posts who won't agree with a word you have written so far about the ability to determine someone's character from an analysis of their handwriting. I myself take a completely neutral position because I am totally unqualified to comment, and have no experience of such matters, and therefore I don't know how accurate this type of analysis can prove, or has proved, in practice.
You mentioned that 'signs of many characteristics such as intelligence, kindness, organizational skill, laziness, wastefulness, secrecy, stinginess, vanity, musicality, etc., were impossible to mistake'.
I would be very interested to learn what characteristics, if any, you see in the writing of the Maybrick diary, which, in your opinion, are impossible to mistake, and more importantly, I guess, impossible to fake. Any suggestions about the kind of person you think authored this diary would be gratefully received - by me at least. After all, ten years have gone by, and no one has been able to tell me who might have written these 63 pages or what motivated them to do so.
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Robert Maloney
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 09:06 am | | Hi Jeff,
Knowing you are a numbers guy, and just in case you appear on some future Ripper game show and you get asked the question: What are the SEVEN most frequently used letters in the Goulston Street Graffito? You should answer:
E-7x T-6x H-4x A-3x N-4x O-3x L-3x OR
ETHANOL - a colorless volatile flammable liquid that is the intoxicating agent in liquors and is also used as a solvent; called also ethyl alcohol, grain alcohol.
And speaking of Brandy: Brandy distilled from hard cider is called Apple-Jack Hmmm...poisoned apple...Jack...'Witch' reminds me...remember James Kent, who worked in the yard of the BLACK SWAN, (with the green coat and the blue and white spotted handkerchief that he kept lowering his neck into just in case somebody saw the...) and his little detour to get some brandy?
Rob |
Author: P. Ingerson
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 09:41 am | | Hi, Robert.
"E-7x T-6x H-4x A-3x N-4x O-3x L-3x OR
ETHANOL" But you had to swap over the A and N for that. If you arrange them in order, it's ETHNAOL or even ETNHLOA.
Not quite as impressive like that, is it..?
BTW does anyone know if the "box of toys" letter (or a copy of it) survives in the files anywhere? And if so, does its handwriting match the LK letter?
Cheers,
Pi |
Author: Robert Maloney
Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 09:53 am | | I'm outraged!!! I consider that a slur against dyslexic Alchemists. :-/
Rob |
|
|
|
|
