Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's only evidence if it was scientifically proven to be the victim's kidney, otherwise that means all the Ripper letters sent to the press and whatnot must be taken at face value.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
      It's only evidence if it was scientifically proven to be the victim's kidney, otherwise that means all the Ripper letters sent to the press and whatnot must be taken at face value.
      And we can never know that, so it's a valid possibility still. And the other letters are all separate issues.

      Mike
      huh?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
        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.
        Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
        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
        Hi Mike

        I agree that the letters and the graffito are all part of the case but would argue that they are not evidence. In fact, as I wrote in the editorial to Ripperologist 152, they may be red herrings that have been misleading us for all these years:

        "The problem with the Whitechapel murders is that because we have no real idea who the killer was—top of society, bottom of society, Englishman, foreigner, woman, professional man, working man, you take your pick!—we have far too much information to be helpful. The 'Ripper' letters and the Goulston Street graffito, for example, continue to attract inordinate attention. And yet we simply lack any evidence that the killer of those women in the East End was responsible for either. Thus, it might well be that both are actually red herrings that have been helping to mask the truth for all these years."

        Thus it behooves us to be aware of what is clearly evidence and what is not.

        Best regards

        Chris
        Christopher T. George
        Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
        just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
        For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
        RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
          Hi Mike

          I agree that the letters and the graffito are all part of the case but would argue that they are not evidence. In fact, as I wrote in the editorial to Ripperologist 152, they may be red herrings that have been misleading us for all these years:
          I absolutely understand what you are saying. It seems to me, however that this idea of red herrings is a way for you to push these things away from the table for yourself; for perhaps your own attempts to discard what may be seen (not by me) as misleading bits of data. If that's the case, it is something we all do to some extent with this case/ these cases. I don't know if that's the right tack and I was thinking of a more sort of snapshot approach wherein everything is looked at simultaneously...a cubist approach, if you will. Anyway, I have no idea how to proceed with this 'all angles at once' attack...haha.

          Cheers,

          Mike
          huh?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
            I absolutely understand what you are saying. It seems to me, however that this idea of red herrings is a way for you to push these things away from the table for yourself; for perhaps your own attempts to discard what may be seen (not by me) as misleading bits of data. If that's the case, it is something we all do to some extent with this case/ these cases. I don't know if that's the right tack and I was thinking of a more sort of snapshot approach wherein everything is looked at simultaneously...a cubist approach, if you will. Anyway, I have no idea how to proceed with this 'all angles at once' attack...haha.

            Cheers,

            Mike
            Hi Mike

            I don't have a suspect and I am not as interested in knowing who "Jack" may have been as I am in the general topic, and the side alleys of research that the case offers. In fact I would say that at this point we probably will never know who Jack was, despite modern attempts at profiling or bringing in science such as DNA or ink testing to try to show that bogus objects can finally prove who the Ripper was. So in my prior post I was speaking from the point of view of a general observer of the field and of where we are.

            Best regards

            Chris
            Last edited by ChrisGeorge; 11-23-2016, 11:12 AM.
            Christopher T. George
            Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
            just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
            For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
            RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

            Comment

            Working...
            X