From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Abby Normal]

Lusk headed up the vigilance committee, who were in the business of patrolling the streets on the lookout for the Ripper. I'm gonna out on a limb and say that some of the local crooks in the neighbourhood didn't appreciate their presence. Lusk was already being stalked, and had a strange encounter with a man in a pub. Seems to me like someone was trying to get at him, but rather than an attention-seeking serial killer, I think it was a conspiracy to intimidate the vigilance committee.

Hi Harry
I see what your saying, but why would anyone other than the serial killer who the vigilance committee is after, give a rats ass about him?

I think if there's anything to the story of him being stalked it's from the killer who's got an obvious beef with him.

But that makes me also think-was Lusk Jewish?

[Abby Normal]

Yes but there's no evidence whatsoever that the half a kidney was from Catherine Eddowes. It appears to be more likely that the kidney was sent to give the letter a cachet of authenticity. As Christopher-Michael DiGrazia wrote, it's not even clear that the piece of kidney was human, let alone from the Ripper victim. Major Smith's assertion that the renal artery remaining in the body matched that with the kidney appears unsubstantiated and likely erroneous.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

Best regards

Chris

But it's never been ruled out either. And if your going to go backwards and start arguing if it's even human, when all the medicos at the time said it was, then debating any further is futile.

[Michael W Richards]

It could have been someone who knew Lusk personally, and thus had a personal motive for sending this particular letter to him. Or Lusk could have gotten someone he knew to obtain the kidney and send it to him along with the letter, in the hopes of becoming more than a minor character in the mix. There are numerous possibilities, any and all of which were surely considered by the authorities at the time, and ultimately it was discarded as a hoax.

It was never discarded as a hoax Karl, not then and not now, its that we are unable to determine whether it was real, and human, since we cannot access the sample itself. If you recall Lusk doesnt even mention this to the police for a few days.... not even to fellow Vigilance Committee members, does this perhaps indicate that he was frightened personally?

Why would a letter from an unidentified serial killer who had only killed homeless women frighten him personally...perhaps because he felt it was from someone who had a grievance with him and now he has evidence that the man is also a mad killer?

[Michael W Richards]

Yes but there's no evidence whatsoever that the half a kidney was from Catherine Eddowes. It appears to be more likely that the kidney was sent to give the letter a cachet of authenticity. As Christopher-Michael DiGrazia wrote, it's not even clear that the piece of kidney was human, let alone from the Ripper victim. Major Smith's assertion that the renal artery remaining in the body matched that with the kidney appears unsubstantiated and likely erroneous.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris, the description of the section matched what was seen on her remaining kidney, and it was indicative of a disease that I do not believe pigs can acquire. A pig being the closest animal to a human with respect to organ configuration. To access a excised kidney that was not from Kate, if it was human, would indicate that the sender had access to dead bodies...but if it came from someone who accessed dead bodies then why was it kept in "spirits" rather than glycerin, as was the case with medical students and practitioners? You might say it could have been from a mortuary student...then how did he manage to get one that seemed to have been removed from a human at almost the exact length of time since Kate had been murdered?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris, the description of the section matched what was seen on her remaining kidney, and it was indicative of a disease that I do not believe pigs can acquire. A pig being the closest animal to a human with respect to organ configuration. To access a excised kidney that was not from Kate, if it was human, would indicate that the sender had access to dead bodies...but if it came from someone who accessed dead bodies then why was it kept in "spirits" rather than glycerin, as was the case with medical students and practitioners? You might say it could have been from a mortuary student...then how did he manage to get one that seemed to have been removed from a human at almost the exact length of time since Kate had been murdered?

From CMD's article, to which I referred you --

". . . the Eastern Post and City Chronicle of 20 October [gave] a much more lavish account. There, Dr Openshaw was reported to have pronounced the kidney a 'ginny kidney' - that is, one coming from someone who was a heavy drinker - as well as being from a woman approximately 45 years old. Furthermore, it was said, the kidney had been extracted within the past three weeks, which, it was inferred, placed its removal within the timeframe of Eddowes' murder.

"So far as we can determine, however, Dr Openshaw never expressed himself so freely on the subject of the Lusk Kidney. In the Star and the Daily Telegraph of 20 October, he merely held to the opinion that the kidney was human and that it may have been a left kidney, which was the opinion assigned to him as well by Inspector Swanson. Certainly he was never again quoted so elaborately. . . .

"The solution to this quandary may lie in the Daily Telegraph of 19 October. Within a story headlined "MITRE-SQUARE MURDER. AN EXTRAORDINARY PARCEL," Vigilance Committee member Joseph Aarons was quoted relating his version of the events surrounding the kidney's identification. Whereas the Star implied that the entire party went to see Dr Openshaw, Aaron's Daily Telegraph interview is revealing:

"Mr Reed. . .gave an opinion that it was a portion of a human kidney, which had been preserved in spirits of wine; but to make sure, he would go over to the London Hospital. . .[o]n his return, Mr Reed said that Dr Openshaw said that the kidney belonged to a female, that it was part of the left kidney, and that the woman had been in the habit of drinking. He should think that the person had died about the same time that the Mitre-square murder was committed. [italics added]

"An extraordinary identification, to be sure; but is there any truth in it? Unfortunately, the answer must be 'No.' N. P. Warren, editor of the magazine Ripperana and himself a practising surgeon, has pointed out the inherent absurdities of the above report. Even were Dr Openshaw's supposed comments actually uttered by him (which they almost certainly were not), he could not have been absolutely sure of the sex of the Lusk Kidney, nor when its owner had died. He definitely could not have determined Eddowes' drinking habits from the flesh presented to him, as alcohol does not damage the human kidney."

So it depends what you believe, whether that report that the kidney showed Bright's disease was so, or whether that, along with the other things attributed to Openshaw were true, or something he never said. My hunch is that the information was false.

Best regards

Chris

[Darryl Kenyon]

How could he know that the kidney was from someone who was approx 45 ? Was that possible back in Victorian times.
It is well documented that senior police thought the Dear Boss letter was fake. But as far as i am aware nobody voiced an opinion on the kidney [apart from Smith] . Maybe the police kept an open mind on it and maybe [as noticed elsewhere] they tried suppressing the knowledge that MJK's heart was taken to see if a similar package arrived, and when it didn't [ if it was taken away] decided the kidney was a likely fake but couldn't be 100% sure as we can't today.

[Mr Lucky]

Yes but there's no evidence whatsoever that the half a kidney was from Catherine Eddowes.

The claim that there is “no evidence whatsoever” is incorrect. The letter writer, the man who possessed the kidney before Lusk received it, the only person who knows anything about its origins at all , states quite clearly “I send you half the kidne I took from one woman” - considering the lack of other women missing a kidney this can only be a reference to Eddowes.

The reality is actually the total reverse of that presented above;- there is no evidence that the kidney is anyone else's other than Eddowes'

[Michael W Richards]

The claim that there is “no evidence whatsoever” is incorrect. The letter writer, the man who possessed the kidney before Lusk received it, the only person who knows anything about its origins at all , states quite clearly “I send you half the kidne I took from one woman” - considering the lack of other women missing a kidney this can only be a reference to Eddowes.

The reality is actually the total reverse of that presented above;- there is no evidence that the kidney is anyone else's other than Eddowes'

Actually there is no definite evidence that it was even human, so that statement is inaccurate.

[Mr Lucky]

Actually there is no definite evidence that it was even human, so that statement is inaccurate.

No, it's not “inaccurate” at all. I suggest you read the actual Lusk letter again, the writer was very definite about where the kidney came from - “I send you half the kidne I took from one woman”. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is very clearly definite.

[ChrisGeorge]

The claim that there is “no evidence whatsoever” is incorrect. The letter writer, the man who possessed the kidney before Lusk received it, the only person who knows anything about its origins at all , states quite clearly “I send you half the kidne I took from one woman” - considering the lack of other women missing a kidney this can only be a reference to Eddowes.

The reality is actually the total reverse of that presented above;- there is no evidence that the kidney is anyone else's other than Eddowes'

No, it's not “inaccurate” at all. I suggest you read the actual Lusk letter again, the writer was very definite about where the kidney came from - “I send you half the kidne I took from one woman”. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is very clearly definite.

Are you serious? You mean you are going to take the word of an anonymous letter writer, a person who could well be a prankster? That's not "evidence."

[Mr Lucky]

Are you serious? You mean you are going to take the work of an anonymous letter writer, a person who could well be a prankster? That's not "evidence."

Yes, it is evidence.

[ChrisGeorge]

No the Lusk letter and piece of kidney are not "evidence" because they have not been proven to be linked in any way to the killer.

Catherine Eddowes' body in the corner of Mitre Square is evidence. The sketches and photographs of her are evidence, and the doctor's reports and inquest testimony are evidence.

It appears you do not know what constitutes evidence, Mr. Lucky. If you think the Lusk letter and piece of kidney are evidence, that is merely your opinion.

[Mr Lucky]

No the Lusk letter and piece of kidney are not "evidence" because they have not been proven to be linked in any way to the killer.

Firstly, until the trial jury finds someone guilty we don't know who her killer was and secondly the notion that evidence doesn't exist until after it's being "proven to be linked" to the killer is tautological claptrap of the highest order

Catherine Eddowes' body in the corner of Mitre Square is evidence. The sketches and photographs of her are evidence, and the doctor's reports and inquest testimony are evidence.

And so is her missing kidney.

It appears you do not know what constitutes evidence, Mr. Lucky. If you think the Lusk letter and piece of kidney are evidence, that is merely your opinion.

I will continue to use the actual legal system they used and their definitions of evidence rather than the stream of nonsense the ripper industry's manufactured and relies on to keep afloat 650 ripper suspects.

[Rainbow]

I will continue to use the actual legal system they used and their definitions of evidence rather than the stream of nonsense the ripper industry's manufactured and relies on to keep afloat 650 ripper suspects.

Spot on!

Add to that all the nonsense of a copycat murders, such that of Mckenzie...


Rainbow°

[The Good Michael]

No the Lusk letter and piece of kidney are not "evidence" because they have not been proven to be linked in any way to the killer.

Catherine Eddowes' body in the corner of Mitre Square is evidence. The sketches and photographs of her are evidence, and the doctor's reports and inquest testimony are evidence.

It appears you do not know what constitutes evidence, Mr. Lucky. If you think the Lusk letter and piece of kidney are evidence, that is merely your opinion.

It isn't evidence, but it's information linked through a rational process. Refutation of such things is based on lack of hard evidence, but there is a link and it isn't just a lark. It's a possibility and that is more than almost all "evidence" in these murders can suggest.

Nike