From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Bridewell]

The preceeding discussion answered this question BW....if the cut was made between 12:46 and 12:56....note that the Doctor didnt round it off to the hour.

"From 20 minutes to half an hour when I arrived". That sounds like an approximation to me. I certainly don't see how we can argue from that statement a certainty that the death occurred between those times exactly.
I'm not arguing that the killer was interrupted btw. I simply take issue with the expression of certainty that he wasn't - and of course it doesn't have to be Diemschutz. A killer who thinks he's about to be caught will break off and do a runner.

[Michael W Richards]

How do we have "no basis" for an interruption? We don't know at what time exactly the attack on Stride took place, do we? If it was 12.45am your point is valid, but if it commenced 20 seconds before Diemschutz turned into Dutfields Yard there is a basis for interruption. When we know the time of the attack we'll know whether or not Diemschutz's arrival interrupted it. Until then we don't.

The preceeding discussion answered this question BW....if the cut was made between 12:46 and 12:56....note that the Doctor didnt round it off to the hour....then Louis is 4 minutes away when the cut is made. By his account of course...and only his. The killer in Mitre Square may have met his victim just before or around 12:35...taken her to the square and done all that he did before leaving at around 12:42-:43.....thats 8 minutes......and you dont expect to find a single bit of evidence that Liz Strides killer intended to mutilate her when he has almost 4 minutes alone in the passageway...after cutting her throat and she is on the ground??

Nope. The only argument that can hold any water here for a Jack killing is that Jack chose to only kill Liz...and with a single stroke.

When compared to the 2 preceding murders, and the subsequent one? Hardly probable.

Best regards BW

[Bridewell]

The Time Of The Attack?

And since we have Louis himself stating that he didnt enter the passageway until 1am, we have no basis for an interruption to explain Strides lack of wounds.

How do we have "no basis" for an interruption? We don't know at what time exactly the attack on Stride took place, do we? If it was 12.45am your point is valid, but if it commenced 20 seconds before Diemschutz turned into Dutfields Yard there is a basis for interruption. When we know the time of the attack we'll know whether or not Diemschutz's arrival interrupted it. Until then we don't.

[Michael W Richards]

Blackwell stated that the death had occurred within the previous twenty to thirty minutes, Colin, thus making the estimated time of death at some point between 12:46 and 12:56am.

Precisely Gary. And since we have Louis himself stating that he didnt enter the passageway until 1am, we have no basis for an interruption to explain Strides lack of wounds. Since the entirety of damage done to Kate appears to have taken about 6 minutes. Just wanted to use the opportunity you gave me to punctuate that point.

Doesnt it seem odd that he seems to work faster and yet sloppier in Mitre Square.?

Cheers

[lynn cates]

significant

Hello Colin. Thanks.

Actually, the good doctor said between 20 and 30 minutes. That makes 12.56 the terminus ad quem.

45 minutes delay and 15 minutes walking are significant? At what time for either do they become insignificant?

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

Dr Blackwell arrived at the scene of the Stride murder at 1.16am and gave it as his opinion that she had been dead for no more than 20 minutes. It is likely, therefore, that Stride was killed between 12.56am and the arrival of Diemschutz not more than 5 minutes later.

Blackwell stated that the death had occurred within the previous twenty to thirty minutes, Colin, thus making the estimated time of death at some point between 12:46 and 12:56am.

[Bridewell]

But my biggest objection to the interruption theory is that it is ad hoc. It begins by assuming that "Jack" did Liz, then trying to fit the facts to suit the hypothesis.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I think the assumption was that two murders within a 15 minute walk of each other, and within 45 minutes were more likely to be the work of one killer than of two. Whether or not the assumption was valid, I think this was its nature.
Dr Blackwell arrived at the scene of the Stride murder at 1.16am and gave it as his opinion that she had been dead for no more than 20 minutes. It is likely, therefore, that Stride was killed between 12.56am and the arrival of Diemschutz not more than 5 minutes later. I don't therefore follow the argument which ridicules the "interruption theory". No, we don't know that the killer was interrupted but, given the narrow window of opportunity, I think it entirely possible that he may have been.

One other possibility which I am reluctant to discount is that the killer was the same, but the motive different. (Elizabeth Long gave evidence at the Chapman inquest and may have seen the killer. The next victim was Long Liz. Coincidence? Probably so - but possibly not.)

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

Show me in my post where I was 'assuming' anything at all.

I merely pointed out that the reference to 'one woman' can be taken in two ways: the author either meant one of the victims to date, or one of the two women murdered on the night when a kidney was taken. I wasn't even making an argument for the author being the killer of Eddowes, or of both women. I was simply exploring what the author (killer or hoaxer) was actually claiming in that letter - and I defy anyone to demonstrate how the wording used proves anything either way about Stride's murder. Clearly, if the letter was another hoax it proves nothing. But even if it was genuine there is no denial of the double event, which one might have expected if he didn't kill Stride and - as some have argued - was actively distancing himself from the writer of Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky by not signing himself Jack the Ripper.

Of course, what is often overlooked is the small fact that if a hoaxer can lie, so can a murderer. And there's a fine line between boasting about a particular murder (if it went well, for example) and not wanting to be associated with it (if it was botched). Sending Lusk the piece of kidney was akin to a cat proudly bringing home a dead mouse. So again, even if you can see something in the letter itself that smacks of a denial regarding Stride and the double event, it doesn't prove anything.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Im sorry if I misread your intent originally, but when you start with the above I believe I did read it as intended. You say "I merely pointed out that the reference to 'one woman' can be taken in two ways: the author either meant one of the victims to date, or one of the two women murdered on the night when a kidney was taken", both of which have Ripper connotations. He didnt sign it as a "Ripper" though. He signed it as someone who he believed was being sought by Lusk. Does that mean in his capacity as Vigilance Committee Chairman for certain? I can see several possible reasons for "one woman", including possibly his taking samples from cadavers multiple times, or from "one woman" instead of "one man", who he may also have killed. "One of the women" would have been a more powerful way to illustrate a multiple kill night.

If its possible for you to look for one moment as the acts on Sept30th as independent kills, then this letter and parcel to Lusk could well be about something that connects Lusk with Eddowes killer, not Jack the Ripper with the Double Event and the Vigilance Committee.

All this assumes that the letter was genuine...granted...but as time has gone by I still believe that this correspondence could have originated from Eddowes killer, and the absence of ownership of the other, unmutilated woman murdered, I believe is perhaps a clue to his identity.

He may well have been someone in Lusk's life that felt he had a reason to screw with him and scare him. Maybe Lusks reluctance to take action on this communication for almost 48 hours is suggestive of some concerns he had about his possible connection to the man who sent it. And after 48 hours does he then take it to the Police? No. To a medical expert.

I think its possible Lusk may have believed the letter writer killed one or both women and was this mad Jack fellow and that he might have a connection to him. The medical opinion was to sort out IF it COULD HAVE been from Eddowes. Perhaps Lusk wanted to hear that it could not have been from Kate before taking it to the police. Making it just a nasty package from a non-Jack source, and as such, less of a problem if Lusk thought he knew the man who sent it.

Cheers Caz, all the best.

[Michael W Richards]

But IF there is one hand at work, it is in spite of the differences, not because of the similarities, in wounds.

Cheers.
LC

Nicely put Lynn, first time Ive seen it worded quite like that.

Cheers mate

[caz]

Hi All,

We don't know the killer's mentality, so we are all just guessing when it comes to whether or not the ripper would have begun mutilating Stride if he was the one who cut her throat.

After Chapman it may have been 'all or nothing' for him. If he feared he wouldn't have time to do a thorough job on Stride (possibly because Schwartz and Pipeman could have been fetching assistance, or the location was just too busy and she was refusing to go somewhere quieter and more private) would he really have bothered with a couple of trademark rips to show willing (and to help identify himself as the Whitechapel murderer for all the sceptics among us)? Or would he have slit her throat to prevent her from 'squealing' to the cops about his rough attempts to make her co-operate, then hurried off to find easier prey?

I don't know the answer, but then neither does anyone else.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The problem with that thinking Caz is that youre assuming that "one woman" inferred to another or others that same night.

Hi Mike,

Show me in my post where I was 'assuming' anything at all.

I merely pointed out that the reference to 'one woman' can be taken in two ways: the author either meant one of the victims to date, or one of the two women murdered on the night when a kidney was taken. I wasn't even making an argument for the author being the killer of Eddowes, or of both women. I was simply exploring what the author (killer or hoaxer) was actually claiming in that letter - and I defy anyone to demonstrate how the wording used proves anything either way about Stride's murder. Clearly, if the letter was another hoax it proves nothing. But even if it was genuine there is no denial of the double event, which one might have expected if he didn't kill Stride and - as some have argued - was actively distancing himself from the writer of Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky by not signing himself Jack the Ripper.

Of course, what is often overlooked is the small fact that if a hoaxer can lie, so can a murderer. And there's a fine line between boasting about a particular murder (if it went well, for example) and not wanting to be associated with it (if it was botched). Sending Lusk the piece of kidney was akin to a cat proudly bringing home a dead mouse. So again, even if you can see something in the letter itself that smacks of a denial regarding Stride and the double event, it doesn't prove anything.

Love,

Caz
X

[niko]

The knife, fake or not ? it was there.

Hi Ayailla, I agree with you on what you say, except the knife was not found on the night of the murder's but nearly 24 hour's after they were commited, "who know's what went through the rippers mind" I think the knife was left to be found by the police.

Hi Abby, the thought that he may of lost his knife has also crossed my mind, who know's. Like I said before, the letter could of been written some day's before the double murder and he played the letter out, BUT thing's got compilcated, his plan's got twisted, for example the interuption in Strides murder ( that is if there was an interuption in the first place, it could of been Dimichuts or he cut himself) my personal opinion to tell the truth I think the letter and the knife found were hoaxes, but on the other hand maybe they were not !! it's very,very differcult to know the truth, wich we will properly never know, all the best.

Niko.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Neil.

"How's that for timing? Or had he done?"

Precisely.

"Of course, none of this excludes Eddowes killer."

Right again. But IF there is one hand at work, it is in spite of the differences, not because of the similarities, in wounds.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mutilatus interruptus

Hello Ayailla. Ally's argument is, of course, sane and intelligent.

But my biggest objection to the interruption theory is that it is ad hoc. It begins by assuming that "Jack" did Liz, then trying to fit the facts to suit the hypothesis.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

http://static.flickr.com/44/163709655_9bc246b900_o.jpg