The from hell letter

Of course, the hoaxer would need to know the similarity between a pig's kidney and a human one, in order for it to be plausible. I don't know how widespread this sort of knowledge was (or how feasible coincidence would be--that he just happened to choose a pig's kidney rather than one from any other animal).

I'm not particularly convinced of the authenticity of the whole thing (the letter, postcard or partial organ), but the selection of the recipient does strike me as being rather intriguing.

I think one thing is clear at this point Claire, the access to a human organ would be something that was limited to med students and researchers, and Jack.

Perhaps one and the same...at least the police suspected as much at one point.

Best regards

[claire]

Of course, the hoaxer would need to know the similarity between a pig's kidney and a human one, in order for it to be plausible. I don't know how widespread this sort of knowledge was (or how feasible coincidence would be--that he just happened to choose a pig's kidney rather than one from any other animal).

I'm not particularly convinced of the authenticity of the whole thing (the letter, postcard or partial organ), but the selection of the recipient does strike me as being rather intriguing.

It seems "From Hell", like the apron section, refers only to one murder on that night, and the GSG hasnt even been proven to have any connection with the apron section....so if "From Hell" was real, it seems to me we are still lacking his claim for the murder in Dutfields Yard.

The only reference to any double murder by Jack is almost certainly a press hoax.

Best regards all.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Gary,

Agreed. I was just letting the possibility run a little.

Have a Happy New Year!

best wishes

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry, Phil, but the reference to the Goulston Street message was merely an example of how the simple task of copying a few words descended into farce.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Gary,

Agreed about the evidence of handwriting.

There is one thing I think of upon reflection here.

Are BOTH the writing on the wall, and a PIG'S kidney, pointing a disguised finger at the Jewish community?

If the killer DID send these messages out, then we have someone taking the precaution to deflect responsibility upon other members of society... Not once, but twice. Connected to the two murders in one night.
And that, to me, is eyebrow raising. Because no such "message" was sent out after the C5 murder.

Food for thought perhaps?

best wishes

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

Let's not forget that the From Hell letter, like the Dear Boss, had it's companion piece. I'm referring to the 'Box of Toys' letter, which DID reference the 'Dear Boss' missives, but like 'From Hell' did not carry a signature. Those who saw it said it was in the same hand as From Hell. This significantly damages the argument that the author of From Hell was trying to distance himself from the Dear Boss letters.

Since no copy of the Lusk postcard appears to have survived, Tom, we have to take a great deal on trust regarding its hand style. In this context, it may be worth remembering the ensuing confusion when trained policemen copied the Goulston Street message. Likewise, there is controversy even today over assertions of common authorship with respect to several of the ‘Jack the Ripper’ letters. And this is to say nothing of the miscellany of inaccuracies that emerged during the press coverage of the case. Personally, Tom, I would require a little more in the way of evidence before being satisfied with a link of common authorship between the postcard and From hell letter.

But surely the fact that the kidney was too fresh to have come from Eddowes points more towards a hoax than the real killer?

Again, Tom, where is the evidence to substantiate such a ‘fact’? Whilst I’d be reluctant to take any of Major Smith’s assertions at face value, I would certainly not dismiss his claims out of hand. And since Smith’s narrative involves a human kidney whose abstraction accords well with the Mitre Square murder, there exists at least a possibility that the organ had indeed been removed from Kate Eddowes’ body.

The gross anatomy of pig versus human kidneys is rather similar - especially, one would think, with "trimmed-up" specimens; even the microscopic differences are quite subtle, and from what I've been able to ascertain, the differences between the two weren't well-documented until the 20th century.

I don’t doubt it for a moment, Sam. Again, though, if Smith’s assertions were even remotely credible, Dr Sutton stated that the kidney had been preserved in spirits of wine. Given the relative ease with which a hoaxer could have acquired a pig’s kidney, the alleged preservational process would have been wholly unnecessary. Hence, if one accepts Smith’s version of events, the presence of a preservative would seem to indicate a human specimen – irrespective of Sutton’s ability to discriminate between a human and pig kidney.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[joelhall]

Hi Jon,

I do believe the lusk letter to be genuine.
For a couple of reasons.

1)The letter was wrote in whoevers normal handwriting it was.
2)The letter was not signed "Jack the ripper"
3)He said find me WHEN you can not IF you can.
4)By the writer titling the letter "from hell" shows a demented mind set, reacurrent with a serial killer
5)It was sent with half of a left kidney. Dr.Openshaw declared the kidney to be that of a femal and to be left.
6)The writing style shows dementia and signs of a serial killer.

yours truly

as said before, these are all simply guesses, and offer no proof.

last year i was also stuck on the mistaken belief that openshaw declared it to be female, and though of a myriad of reasons why he might say that. needless to say i soon discovere he was not the source of this information so i dropped my arguments (think youll find the thrad somewhere on here).

Hi Jon,

The missing kidney was news long before Lusk received the kidney. The kidney was too fresh to have been Eddowes, so I don't personally think it was legit.

Yours truly,

to be fair, the act it was known doesnt prove it was fake - the killer could have sent it regardless of whether it was a known fact or not.

Tom Wescott

I'm not so sure that he did, Garry. The gross anatomy of pig versus human kidneys is rather similar - especially, one would think, with "trimmed-up" specimens; even the microscopic differences are quite subtle, and from what I've been able to ascertain, the differences between the two weren't well-documented until the 20th century. It's quite possible that we've been sold a pup... or at least a piglet.

agreed. the structures between various parts of humans and pigs are so great ive actually studied some human cardiac anatomy by dissecting pigs hearts (obviously done to a point). i doubt the expertise were available in the 19th century to definitively tell if a kidney was human or not - the best would be an educated guess from an experience anatomist or doctor.

of course the power of suggestion can be powerful - the letter implies it is human so it is the first assumption most people would meet.

regarding sending the letter to lusk - i dont think this in any way implies it could be genuine. i think that sending it to lusk simply would convince people to think this.

[Sam Flynn]

why did he go to the time and trouble of obtaining a human kidney

I'm not so sure that he did, Garry. The gross anatomy of pig versus human kidneys is rather similar - especially, one would think, with "trimmed-up" specimens; even the microscopic differences are quite subtle, and from what I've been able to ascertain, the differences between the two weren't well-documented until the 20th century. It's quite possible that we've been sold a pup... or at least a piglet.

[Tom_Wescott]

Let's not forget that the From Hell letter, like the Dear Boss, had it's companion piece. I'm referring to the 'Box of Toys' letter, which DID reference the 'Dear Boss' missives, but like 'From Hell' did not carry a signature. Those who saw it said it was in the same hand as From Hell. This significantly damages the argument that the author of From Hell was trying to distance himself from the Dear Boss letters. If not for the fact that a piece of kidney accompanied it, there'd be no reason at all to assume it was from the murderer. But surely the fact that the kidney was too fresh to have come from Eddowes points more towards a hoax than the real killer?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

The other issue, of course, is that the From hell author elected to send his letter to George Lusk. Had he been a hoaxer, one would assume that his primary motivation would have been to generate maximum publicity from the stunt. If so, why did he go to the time and trouble of obtaining a human kidney in order to add plausibility to the hoax, only to send the cardboard box to Lusk rather than the Central News Agency? It makes no sense.

What might be borne in mind, however, is that the murder of Kate Eddowes precipitated a sharp increase in the activities of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. Indeed, it could be argued that the high visibility and frequency of the Committee’s street patrols provides a cogent explanation for the unprecedented six-week hiatus between the Eddowes and Kelly murders. When one remembers that Lusk’s men also committed themselves to local intelligence gathering, and posted a reward for the killer’s capture, it isn’t difficult to see how an angry and frustrated Whitechapel Murderer might have come to view George Lusk as a major threat – an adversary deserving of some special attention.

On this basis, I continue to view the Lusk communication as almost certainly genuine. I’m led to believe that this is a viewpoint with which ‘the experts’ demur. Well, when I first began researching the Whitechapel Murders, ‘the experts’ were in universal agreement that Liz Stride was a definite Ripper victim and that George Hutchinson was an honest, reliable eyewitness. Enough said.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[AdamWalsh]

Hi all,
I may be a little late in joining this thread, but I'm trying to catch up after a loooong absence.

I've just finished re-reading 'Jack the Ripper' by Gary Wroe, who was/is a contributor to these boards a few years ago.

The following is his take on the from Hell letter:

Now the From hell author must have been well acquainted with the case in order to have known about the theft of Eddowes’ left kidney. Given this element of specific knowledge, he must surely have been aware that the police, press and public all believed the murderer to be the source of the Dear Boss/Jack the Ripper missive. So why, if he was just another hoaxer – a hoaxer who went to the extraordinary length of obtaining a human kidney to lend his deception plausibility – did he then make no reference to Jack the Ripper, being content merely to ‘sign’ his letter with an enigmatic ‘Catch me when you Can’?

Why? In terms of both common sense and all the available evidence, it seems virtually certain that, unlike any of those claiming to be Jack the Ripper, claiming to have perpetrated a double event, promising in future to inflict all manner of injuries on specific dates and at specific locations, this man was the genuine article. As will become apparent when the psychology of the serial killer is examined in Chapter Six, this predatory subspecies does not take kindly to interlopers and rarely, if ever, regards imitators with anything less than contempt. As such, the From hell author’s vanity precluded any acknowledgement of either the Dear Boss impostor, his mendacious claims, or the monicker under which he had had the temerity to assume responsibility for another’s ‘achievements’. Not to be eclipsed, the real murderer authenticated his letter in the most explicit of terms – by accompanying it with part of Kate Eddowes’ missing kidney. Furthermore, he regained the psychological ascendancy by confirming the tacitly held suspicion that, besides the ghastly butchery of his killing episodes, he had now acquired an even more hideous depravity.

Cannibalism.

All the best
Dave

well put - that pretty much sums up how I feel about it also - the "Jack" name was for press fun - our boy isnt into silly little games - he is serious - thusly he requires no silly ghoulish name - just his proven sincerity to us........with a piece of body.

[Dave James]

Hi all,
I may be a little late in joining this thread, but I'm trying to catch up after a loooong absence.

I've just finished re-reading 'Jack the Ripper' by Gary Wroe, who was/is a contributor to these boards a few years ago.

The following is his take on the from Hell letter:

Now the From hell author must have been well acquainted with the case in order to have known about the theft of Eddowes’ left kidney. Given this element of specific knowledge, he must surely have been aware that the police, press and public all believed the murderer to be the source of the Dear Boss/Jack the Ripper missive. So why, if he was just another hoaxer – a hoaxer who went to the extraordinary length of obtaining a human kidney to lend his deception plausibility – did he then make no reference to Jack the Ripper, being content merely to ‘sign’ his letter with an enigmatic ‘Catch me when you Can’?

Why? In terms of both common sense and all the available evidence, it seems virtually certain that, unlike any of those claiming to be Jack the Ripper, claiming to have perpetrated a double event, promising in future to inflict all manner of injuries on specific dates and at specific locations, this man was the genuine article. As will become apparent when the psychology of the serial killer is examined in Chapter Six, this predatory subspecies does not take kindly to interlopers and rarely, if ever, regards imitators with anything less than contempt. As such, the From hell author’s vanity precluded any acknowledgement of either the Dear Boss impostor, his mendacious claims, or the monicker under which he had had the temerity to assume responsibility for another’s ‘achievements’. Not to be eclipsed, the real murderer authenticated his letter in the most explicit of terms – by accompanying it with part of Kate Eddowes’ missing kidney. Furthermore, he regained the psychological ascendancy by confirming the tacitly held suspicion that, besides the ghastly butchery of his killing episodes, he had now acquired an even more hideous depravity.

Cannibalism.

All the best
Dave

[lynn cates]

argumentum ad populum

Hello Corey. No, I don't fall for the argumentum ad populum. My rejection is not based on majority opinion (note: the majority opinion is in favour of both Stride and Kelly); rather, it is based on other reasons.

The best.
LC

[corey123]

Lynn,

It seems you always stand on the notion that "if the population believes it, so should I", which is pure rediculous.
I truly believe the only letter to be written from the whitechapel murderer is the "from hell" letter.
p.s. ha now we do know.

yours truly