From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Abby Normal]

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?

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Harry D]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Lipsky]

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

[Lipsky]

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).

[c.d.]

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.

[APerno]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Lipsky]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[DJA]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Both of which were within a 4 minute stroll of Batty Street, where Lipski was found to have killed Miriam Angel.

Odd that they both would refer to the same incident involving someone actually named Lipski eh Sam?

[Michael W Richards]

1. If the Lusk letter was genuine the killer must have had it in his head that he would seek some form of gratification that way.
2. So why chuck a piece of Kate's apron away in Goulston St?
3. Why not wrap the kidney in that before posting, then there would be no doubt that the package was genuine.
4. And why not send a piece of one of Mary's organs as well?


5. He had plenty of time to cut one away and the Lusk letter received publicity. Why not add to that publicity if publicity is what he wanted.

Regards Darryl

6. Ps Bright's disease was a term used for a few kidney ailments in Victorian times specifically alcoholism but high blood pressure and heart disease seems to be used as well

1. Why would the killer have to have a plan? Why not just come up with an idea?
2. The apron section was a utilitarian artifact until Kates killer thought of something he could do with it.
3. I don't see why the killer had to prove anything, he obviously scared the beejesus out of Lusk anyway.
4. For one reason, Mary wasnt dead yet...I know what you meant. Maybe Marys killer was someone different...her killer obviously knew her well.
5. I think he wanted to scare Lusk, not get public views.

and 6....Brights Disease is acute or chronic Nephritis, a condition which can be used to describe kidney diseases. "

The triad of dropsy, albumin in the urine and kidney disease came to be regarded as characteristic of Bright's disease", but in autopsies the overall appearance of the kidney was usually enough for the diagnosis pm.