From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Bridewell]

Hi Colin. Le Grand isn't too rare though, and there are even a few Charles Le Grand's knocking about.
Legend has it 'our' LG was in prison in 81 as Christian Nelson and wasn't released until 1884.
The Charles Le Grand who married Elizabeth Skinner was the son of Charles and Jane Le Grand and grew up to be a respectable law abiding citizen with a long and happy marriage and went on to become a bank managing clerk by 1901-whereas, our Charles le Grand was in Parkhurst for managing a bank defrauding by 1901!

From recent research I believe our LG did eventually marry in 1907 while on a short break from prison, to Elizabeth Clark, only to be sent down again the year after!

Hi Debs,

Thanks for that. I learn something new every day!

[caz]

The way the Lusk letter is written is a put-on. It's written in the accent of a "stage Irishman." Such comic characters were common on the British stage, or as depicted in cartoons in Punch and other satirical magazines. Not politically correct in our age, but common in that era. The writer most probably could spell perfectly well. There's a lot of commonality between the Lusk letter and the Openshaw letter, which is equally badly spelled but in the envelope for which the writer could spell "London Hospital" correctly but wrote "ospitle" in the body of the letter -- the accent apparently being emulated resembling more Cockney than Irish, in comparison with the Irishisms in the Lusk letter.

Best regards

Chris

I agree with this entirely, Chris.

The whole thing reeks (let's not forget the enclosed kidney) of someone's idea of a hilarious practical joke at Lusk's expense. I think the author crafted every word and image for comic effect and was very unlikely to have been Irish himself.

The semi-private nature of such a joke (with the rather unconvincing misspellings) is similar to the 'Juwes' message in Goulston Street, in that only the author in each case knew what lay behind the words and motivated the gesture. Whoever was responsible for the Lusk letter appears to have found inspiration in the graffito. Both messages were supposedly accompanied by something taken from the one victim (Eddowes): half her apron, followed some days later by half her kidney. No other victim suffered these additional indignities, so I can't help feeling there was at least some indirect connection there.

The GSG author most probably could spell 'Jews' too - when it suited him.

If the killer was not Jewish, Irish or Cockney, he could only have gained from messages like these which muddied the waters.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ayailla]

Hi caz,

Do you think the messages WERE written by the ripper, as an attempt to throw the police off the scent? "The ripper wouldn't do that, so it can't be really him." Almost like a double bluff?

- Ayailla

[Abby Normal]

what hoaxer would have the nuance to only send half a kidney? Sending a kidney would be hoax enough in itself. The hoaxer would be so dam excited about being able to pull this off that he would just send the whole thing. Can you really imagine a hoaxer after getting a hold of a kidney, thinking "I know, now I'll only send him half and send a letter saying I ate the other half"? I dont see it.

Re the ease of getting hold of a kidney. I have never bought the notion that a human kidney would be easy to get a hold of. I imagine it would be the same as today. Pretty much impossible unless you were in a medical profession. And if it was a hoaxer in the medical profession i doubt the kidney would be one that was crudely presrved in "spirits."

[lynn cates]

access

Hello Abby.

"what hoaxer would have the nuance to only send half a kidney?"

What about one who had access to only that?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Hello Abby.

"what hoaxer would have the nuance to only send half a kidney?"

What about one who had access to only that?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Okay. I'll bite - again. What sort of person has access to half a kidney, but not to a whole one?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn,

Okay. I'll bite - again. What sort of person has access to half a kidney, but not to a whole one?

The guy who leaves smaller portions of it in the body and has claimed to have fried and eaten some, thats who BW.

Its possible this was not a hoax letter. Thats the bottom line. Doubt it, believe it, it really doesnt matter, neither can be proven now.

But the fact that it was not sent to the press or the police, as almost every other hoax correspondence was, makes it an intriguing issue.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

dissection

Hello Colin. Thanks.

I suppose one who had witnessed a dissection and the parts required disposal.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi caz,

Do you think the messages WERE written by the ripper, as an attempt to throw the police off the scent? "The ripper wouldn't do that, so it can't be really him." Almost like a double bluff?

- Ayailla

Hi Ayailla,

I think it's quite likely that the ripper got a kick out of all the wild speculation concerning what sort of man he was, so he might have got an even bigger kick out of adding to it. I don't really understand how he - exclusively - can be ruled out as one of the huge number of message writers who found it so amusing to add to the workload the police already had to bear.

Regarding the kidney, it's a pity the police didn't tell the press that it was the right one taken from Eddowes, then it would have been obvious if a hoaxer had sent Lusk a right kidney - ie the wrong one. As it is, he received a portion of left kidney, so the sender got that much right, suggesting attention to detail and a desire to be taken seriously - and perhaps an awareness that anyone examining it would be able to tell half a left kidney from half a right one.

Naturally the killer himself would not have needed to think along those lines. He knew he had the real thing, no matter what the papers may have said.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

considering that it was never disproved that the kidney came from Eddowes at the time; in fact everything about it is consistant with it being taken from Eddowes-the left kidney, the timing etc. makes me believe that out of all the letters sent from the apparent killer, the Lusk letter is most likely to be from the killer.

Add to that that cannibalism is a trait we now know is consistant with post mortem mutilators, the writer did not mimic the Jack the ripper sig like most of the other hoaxers and that, as Caz pointed out, it seems to be similar to the GSG (Which I think out of all the writings-most probably came from the killer) lends to it authenticity IMHO.

On another note. The Lusk letter has always struck me as written by someone who was drunk when they wrote it-the sloppiness, the exagerated flourishes of the lettering and the redundant adding of "mister Lusk" again at the bottom of the signature "Catch me when you can"

[Bridewell]

Considering that it was never disproved that the kidney came from Eddowes at the time; in fact everything about it is consistant with it being taken from Eddowes-the left kidney, the timing etc. makes me believe that out of all the letters sent from the apparent killer, the Lusk letter is most likely to be from the killer.

Completely agree.

[Ayailla]

Hi Ayailla,

I think it's quite likely that the ripper got a kick out of all the wild speculation concerning what sort of man he was, so he might have got an even bigger kick out of adding to it. I don't really understand how he - exclusively - can be ruled out as one of the huge number of message writers who found it so amusing to add to the workload the police already had to bear.

Regarding the kidney, it's a pity the police didn't tell the press that it was the right one taken from Eddowes, then it would have been obvious if a hoaxer had sent Lusk a right kidney - ie the wrong one. As it is, he received a portion of left kidney, so the sender got that much right, suggesting attention to detail and a desire to be taken seriously - and perhaps an awareness that anyone examining it would be able to tell half a left kidney from half a right one.

Naturally the killer himself would not have needed to think along those lines. He knew he had the real thing, no matter what the papers may have said.

Love,

Caz
X

I can't remember if this was a myth I was taught in school or if it was actually true, but did Eddowes have some kind of disease in her kidneys that was present in the one sent with the Lusk letter?

[caz]

There were clear indications of Bright's disease in Eddowes's remaining kidney, but I can't find clear evidence either way regarding the one sent to Lusk. Sources appear to differ on the subject, but if there had been any significant differences in appearance or condition I would have expected this to be recorded and the obvious conclusion reached (although I assume Eddowes's remaining kidney would have been destroyed before a direct physical comparison could have been made - another clever move by a hoaxer, if it was deliberately sent too late?)

I hope someone can add to this because it's not an area I know too much about.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

considering that it was never disproved that the kidney came from Eddowes at the time; in fact everything about it is consistant with it being taken from Eddowes-the left kidney, the timing etc. makes me believe that out of all the letters sent from the apparent killer, the Lusk letter is most likely to be from the killer.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, who examined the kidney sometime after the 18th of October, stated that the kidney showed absolutely no signs of decomposition and that it must have been placed in the preservative very soon after extraction. Dr. Sutton, according to Sir Henry Smith’s later account, stated the same thing saying that he would “pledge his reputation” that the kidney had been placed in preservative within a few hours of its removal from the body.
Considering Dr. Brown’s opinion that the kidney had not been in the preservative for more than a week and add to this Dr. Thomas Openshaw’s opinion, after he had examined the kidney on the 18th of October, that the kidney had not been in spirits for more than ten days it seems fairly obvious, therefore, that it is impossible for the Lusk kidney to have belonged to Catharine Eddowes.

Wolf.

[Abby Normal]

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, who examined the kidney sometime after the 18th of October, stated that the kidney showed absolutely no signs of decomposition and that it must have been placed in the preservative very soon after extraction. Dr. Sutton, according to Sir Henry Smith’s later account, stated the same thing saying that he would “pledge his reputation” that the kidney had been placed in preservative within a few hours of its removal from the body.
Considering Dr. Brown’s opinion that the kidney had not been in the preservative for more than a week and add to this Dr. Thomas Openshaw’s opinion, after he had examined the kidney on the 18th of October, that the kidney had not been in spirits for more than ten days it seems fairly obvious, therefore, that it is impossible for the Lusk kidney to have belonged to Catharine Eddowes.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf
Thanks for the reply. Sept 30 (Eddowes murder) and Oct 16 (date kidney received by Lusk). is approx 16 days. One Dr. said 7 days the other said 10 days. 16 days is is not so much difference I would think than 10 days for something like this and I would also add that being in a preservative would make it pretty difficult to determine exactly how long it was in the preservative since the whole purpose of using a preservative is, well.... to preserve the item.

Do you think they could tell the difference between something that had been in a preservative for a month, a month and a half, 2 months? I doubt it.

Plus, from what I understand it was not in a liquid that Drs usually used at the time, but "spirits" possibly wine? That may have thrown them off also.

"Obviously impossible"? Hardly.

The only thing that is "obviously impossible" is to say that it is obviously impossible that the kidney was from Eddowes.

Drs are human and can make mistakes, especially being off a few days on how long something has been in an unknown preservative. (not to mention the killer may have done something else to it, like freeze it, or keep it cold perhaps)?