Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

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

  • So Jack takes off with the bloody apron piece and deposits it at Goulston Street.

    Guess who delivered the 1848 Goulstonian Lecture?

    Given Mary Kelly's demise and the missing heart, the 1888 lecture was "Insanity in Relation to Aortic and Cardiac Disease".

    The lectures were given over some dead body to be dissected.
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      Odd that they both would refer to the same incident involving someone actually named Lipski eh Sam?
      Not odd at all. The Lipski case caused quite a stir as a whole, so how much more its impact would have been in the immediate area isn't hard to guess. Abberline himself tells us that the name "Lipsky" had become a common antisemitic insult in that part of the world.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

        Not odd at all. The Lipski case caused quite a stir as a whole, so how much more its impact would have been in the immediate area isn't hard to guess. Abberline himself tells us that the name "Lipsky" had become a common antisemitic insult in that part of the world.
        I meant that the references obviously referred to the infamous reputation of the actual person named Lipski, and not as just some general slur..as you say, which was common in the area after the crime. The alleged Schwartz incident includes Lipski used as a general slur.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          Interested in the fact that the gloved man was Irish, as was the tone of "Dear Sor"? Interested to note that the gloved stranger was well dressed...hardly looked the illiterate as indicated by the poor phonetic English in Dear Sor. Get the sense that the note was intended to reference the mad killer at large, the one that killed Kate anyway, rather than anything more likely associated with the well dressed Irishman? Interested to note at that same time well dressed Irishmen were all over the place, in conjunction with hearings that parliament condoned and perhaps authorized Irish self rule terrorism? Interested to note that the following year a senior investigator included his suspicions in a memo that Irish self rule factions were responsible for the so-called Ripper murders?
          Indeed, Michael.

          The "persona" that our man created for/in the Lusk letter has three decoys: illiteracy, cannibalism and the "Irish" leanings.

          McCarthy was also alleged to have Fenian connections.

          The only true notion that shines through is that , even without the kidney, this is a highly disturbing letter, both in content and visually.

          This is an attempt at scathing intimidation, highly skilled and highly successful.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lipsky View Post

            Indeed, Michael.

            The "persona" that our man created for/in the Lusk letter has three decoys: illiteracy, cannibalism and the "Irish" leanings.

            McCarthy was also alleged to have Fenian connections.

            The only true notion that shines through is that , even without the kidney, this is a highly disturbing letter, both in content and visually.

            This is an attempt at scathing intimidation, highly skilled and highly successful.
            hi Lipsky
            agree with your last sentence, and that it was probably by the killer, but not your first re decoys.

            cannibalism is most commonly found with post mortem type serial killers, as the ripper surely was. and re illiteracy and irish-i saw something once where it was suggested the letter may have been written by someone who was intoxicated at the time. The sloppiness of it, not caring about misspellings or lazily/drunkenly resorting to "slang"/native accent, the extreme flourishes of some of the letters. and I tend to agree. I think the writer had been drinking, playing with his trophies and stewing on the night of the double event and all the pesky interuptions (and possibly some unknown event involving a vigilance committee or general annoyance at people trying to catch him)and decided on a little nasty pay back.
            Last edited by Abby Normal; 09-06-2019, 03:24 PM.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • I do not understand the 'phonetic error' argument -- why would anyone assume that an illiterate person should know what sound is associated with a particular letter?

              The writer could easily have seen the word knife written several times and had enough memory to know it started with a "K" and then proceeded to spell it incorrectly, with a "K".

              Why assume an illiterate person can spell phonetically? I would be suspicious of any letter with all misspelled words spelled phonetically correct. That would make no sense.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                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?
                But what if a member or members of the vigilance committee got a little too big for their britches and started pushing someone around? That person decides he wants to get even. He has no way of knowing the name of the actual person or persons he has a beef with but could find out Lusk's name. Sends the letter and kidney as a bit of pay back.

                c.d.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                  But what if a member or members of the vigilance committee got a little too big for their britches and started pushing someone around? That person decides he wants to get even. He has no way of knowing the name of the actual person or persons he has a beef with but could find out Lusk's name. Sends the letter and kidney as a bit of pay back.

                  c.d.
                  Agree. My notion is that our man roamed the streets after the murders, and the pubs, and has his ear "to the ground" so to speak.
                  Probably the "October detente" was pre-planned, to lay low after the double event and orchestrate the final, wagnerian, brutal blow.
                  During that time, it is most certain that something triggered the letter. Could be someone inquiring about him, some rumour.
                  Could also be that our man was informed that Mishter Lusk was let in on the scam, by McCarthy and co, in order to have a more "solid" motive for speeding up his "vigilance" (maybe he was promised a cut on the blackmail profits).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                    hi Lipsky
                    agree with your last sentence, and that it was probably by the killer, but not your first re decoys.

                    cannibalism is most commonly found with post mortem type serial killers, as the ripper surely was. and re illiteracy and irish-i saw something once where it was suggested the letter may have been written by someone who was intoxicated at the time. The sloppiness of it, not caring about misspellings or lazily/drunkenly resorting to "slang"/native accent, the extreme flourishes of some of the letters. and I tend to agree. I think the writer had been drinking, playing with his trophies and stewing on the night of the double event and all the pesky interuptions (and possibly some unknown event involving a vigilance committee or general annoyance at people trying to catch him)and decided on a little nasty pay back.
                    Thank you, Abby. Our agreements and our disagreements are equally valuable. Your thoughts made me think myself some more. We should be open to re-evaluating our concepts of the case, and sometimes re-evaluating does not weaken our notions anyway, but strengthens them, by the wisdom of remarks made by the people we discuss the case with, as in here. Dialogue is always wise, and valuable.

                    I am more inclined to find genuine elements in the Irish persona. I had previously expressed the opinion that the killer used personal elements to create his persona. So maybe the Irish elements of the letter were true. I still tend to reject the cannibalist angle, for one and single reason: I maintain that this killer was never into "Gratifications". His victims were cold, operational hits, and he didn't desire -- or indeed, perform -- contact of any sort. He was the man for the job, and he performed "clean slate" and without indulging. Cannibalism is on par with gratification/sadist murderers. This was not so much a trophy, as an artifact to prove his identification as the perpetrator, if needed. And needed it was, indeed, as the letter proved.

                    I also think that, at least during the murders/operational hits, he abstained from all sorts of indulgements, including alcohol.
                    I am convinced he had a history though, of "seeing the world through the bottle" -- and the knife.

                    My sponsored suspect, James Kelly, former alcoholic, sobered up in Broadmoor, and had a clear mind to devise his escape. And who knows what else, next

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by APerno View Post
                      I do not understand the 'phonetic error' argument -- why would anyone assume that an illiterate person should know what sound is associated with a particular letter?

                      The writer could easily have seen the word knife written several times and had enough memory to know it started with a "K" and then proceeded to spell it incorrectly, with a "K".

                      Why assume an illiterate person can spell phonetically? I would be suspicious of any letter with all misspelled words spelled phonetically correct. That would make no sense.
                      The use of phoentics, in this case, suggests someone without much formal training. Assuming he saw a knife and the spelling of it together on the table in front of him and put 2 and 2 together isnt problematic at all, but in this case, as I said, I believe the misspellings are intentional and intended to mislead as to the authors real ethnicity, training and language preferences.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lipsky View Post

                        Thank you, Abby. Our agreements and our disagreements are equally valuable. Your thoughts made me think myself some more. We should be open to re-evaluating our concepts of the case, and sometimes re-evaluating does not weaken our notions anyway, but strengthens them, by the wisdom of remarks made by the people we discuss the case with, as in here. Dialogue is always wise, and valuable.

                        I am more inclined to find genuine elements in the Irish persona. I had previously expressed the opinion that the killer used personal elements to create his persona. So maybe the Irish elements of the letter were true. I still tend to reject the cannibalist angle, for one and single reason: I maintain that this killer was never into "Gratifications". His victims were cold, operational hits, and he didn't desire -- or indeed, perform -- contact of any sort. He was the man for the job, and he performed "clean slate" and without indulging. Cannibalism is on par with gratification/sadist murderers. This was not so much a trophy, as an artifact to prove his identification as the perpetrator, if needed. And needed it was, indeed, as the letter proved.

                        I also think that, at least during the murders/operational hits, he abstained from all sorts of indulgements, including alcohol.
                        I am convinced he had a history though, of "seeing the world through the bottle" -- and the knife.

                        My sponsored suspect, James Kelly, former alcoholic, sobered up in Broadmoor, and had a clear mind to devise his escape. And who knows what else, next
                        I've always been averse to attributing the murders to the Freemasons, Royal Family or any other kind of conspiracy. I think it's the invention of fantasists who have been spellbound by the political intrigue and class struggles of Victorian London. If the killer had been caught in the act, he would've hung. There was no need for the murderer to risk his life with mutilation when a swift slice to the throat did the job. All this talk of the mutilations being used as red herrings is ludicrous. The police were no closer to solving the 'non-canonicals' than they were to catching the Ripper. The mutilations were an end in and of themselves. He did so because it satisfied a psycho-sexual need.

                        Comment


                        • When you group dissimilar acts under one umbrella you are bound to have misleading data..gigo. When assessing what storylines can be considered credible when trying tpo solve these crimes, its really important that you are looking at crimes with real connections evident. Then, any conspiracy, small or large, can be viewed objectively.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Lipsky View Post

                            Thank you, Abby. Our agreements and our disagreements are equally valuable. Your thoughts made me think myself some more. We should be open to re-evaluating our concepts of the case, and sometimes re-evaluating does not weaken our notions anyway, but strengthens them, by the wisdom of remarks made by the people we discuss the case with, as in here. Dialogue is always wise, and valuable.

                            I am more inclined to find genuine elements in the Irish persona. I had previously expressed the opinion that the killer used personal elements to create his persona. So maybe the Irish elements of the letter were true. I still tend to reject the cannibalist angle, for one and single reason: I maintain that this killer was never into "Gratifications". His victims were cold, operational hits, and he didn't desire -- or indeed, perform -- contact of any sort. He was the man for the job, and he performed "clean slate" and without indulging. Cannibalism is on par with gratification/sadist murderers. This was not so much a trophy, as an artifact to prove his identification as the perpetrator, if needed. And needed it was, indeed, as the letter proved.

                            I also think that, at least during the murders/operational hits, he abstained from all sorts of indulgements, including alcohol.
                            I am convinced he had a history though, of "seeing the world through the bottle" -- and the knife.

                            My sponsored suspect, James Kelly, former alcoholic, sobered up in Broadmoor, and had a clear mind to devise his escape. And who knows what else, next
                            hi lipsky
                            thanks! so you favor Kelly as the ripper? working alone because of the usual serial killer motives (ie-basically because they like it) or with others and or under some kind of order/employment by someone else or a group?
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                              I've always been averse to attributing the murders to the Freemasons, Royal Family or any other kind of conspiracy. I think it's the invention of fantasists who have been spellbound by the political intrigue and class struggles of Victorian London. If the killer had been caught in the act, he would've hung. There was no need for the murderer to risk his life with mutilation when a swift slice to the throat did the job. All this talk of the mutilations being used as red herrings is ludicrous. The police were no closer to solving the 'non-canonicals' than they were to catching the Ripper. The mutilations were an end in and of themselves. He did so because it satisfied a psycho-sexual need.
                              Spellbound...like the hypnotic attraction many have to imagining a mad serial killer doing all the killings within the Unsolved files? Hanging was banned at this time by the way. I agree the mutilation murders, the ones in public, are special and deserve to be looked at separately as such, but that's very few of the Unsolved Murders of Unfortunates as a whole. What, 4 of 13 victims? Why would anyone want to add a single throat cut to that list is beyond me, always has been.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X