From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Ayailla]

Aah... thank you for the clarification, Garry. I wasn't sure if you meant that it stuck out for you as proof of it being authentic or not.

[niko]

Fake or not ? it's there !!

Hello everyone, I would like to express a theory or hypothesis (what ever you want to call it) about the from hell letter. This are what I believe are genuine fact's - The parcel and letter were postmarked on the 15th of October and was recieved by Lusk on the 16th of October. On the 30th of September was the double event also that Eddowes left kidney was removed, not forgetting that a twelve inch knife covered in blood was found along the Whitechapel Road on the 1st of October.

We know a letter was sent to the police before, apprently from the ripper, where the the ripper tell's the police to keep the letter back untill he doe's his dreadful deed, ooops !! nearly forgot, in the from hell letter he also mention's handing over the knife he used to remove the kidney. We know he did this before in the letter to the police where he writes about the cutting off the victim's ear.

Here comes the theory, who say's that the ripper did not write the from hell letter BEFORE the double event on the 30th of September but some day's earlier and then executed the thing's he mentioned in the letter to Lusk includeing the handing over of the knife. Basiclly what I'm trying to say is that the Lusk letter could of been written before the double event and the ripper played out the letter, even to the point of handing over the knife. All the best.

Niko

[Ayailla]

Hi Niko.

Is it generally accepted that the knife (which is, I assume, the knife you talk about in another thread) was the one used by the killer, or that the knife was a fake?

It is possible that the letter was written before the killings, however, the knife was found before the letter was sent. The letter specifically says, "I may send you the bloody knif that took it out if you only wate a whil longer."

To me, it doesn't make much sense that the killer would write that he may send the knife, only to drop it on the night of the killings before sending the letter.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I agree with you that the reference to 'one woman' - namely Eddowes - could indicate a distinction being made from the other woman killed that night, as opposed to earlier victims. In fact I think it reads better that way.

Interestingly, the author of the Saucy Jacky postcard, who introduced us to the term 'double event', had written: 'Number one squealed a bit' - namely Stride - making the distinction from number two.

So I don't think it can be read into the Lusk letter that its author was not claiming the two in one night. He may just have taken it for granted that the double event was being taken for granted and there was no need to make special reference to it. He could have denied Stride and left no question mark hanging if he really wanted to distance himself from what "Jack the Ripper" had claimed.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Thanks and I entirely agree and well said as usual. I had forgotten the Dear Boss also had reference to numbering victims with the "number one" line-very interesting.

I had a thought. Was the lusk letter coming as it did after the double event a result of for the first time the killer being seen(well) and interupted several times that night and perhaps in his mind its the pesky vigilance committe members fault? Thus the letter and kidney and the taunting "catch me when you can" to the head of a vigilance committee??

[Abby Normal]

I agree with you completely in all of that, Michael.

If I was to go out with some girl friends and tell them all that I had 3 sexual encounters last week and that, "I took some underwear from one guy," that doesn't mean that 2 of the encounters were in the same night. I think, with that statement, whoever wrote the letter was acknowledging that there was more than one victim in total, and not necessarily that there was more than one victim that night.

I would be more likely to lean towards the theory that, as I stated in my earlier post, if this letter is genuine, it proves that Elizabeth Stride was not a JtR victim. However... that is a big IF to consider.

why acknowledge (in the killers mind) of a failed attempt-as in the killer was thwarted with Stride and no mutilations.

[Ayailla]

why acknowledge (in the killers mind) of a failed attempt-as in the killer was thwarted with Stride and no mutilations.

Have you listened to the podcast episode on this? "Anything But Your Prayers: The Murder of Elizabeth Stride." It was very convincing. Ally Ryder in particular was very convincing with regards to the interruption theory not making much sense.

I can't remember her whole argument, but I remember her saying that if the Ripper's full intention was to mutillate in some way, he would have been able to fit in one or two stabs in the time that he had.

I am sorry if that has been discussed before, but it just stuck in my mind. Mind you, it was a very old podcast (2008) so Ally's arguments could be out of date by now.

[Abby Normal]

Hello everyone, I would like to express a theory or hypothesis (what ever you want to call it) about the from hell letter. This are what I believe are genuine fact's - The parcel and letter were postmarked on the 15th of October and was recieved by Lusk on the 16th of October. On the 30th of September was the double event also that Eddowes left kidney was removed, not forgetting that a twelve inch knife covered in blood was found along the Whitechapel Road on the 1st of October.

We know a letter was sent to the police before, apprently from the ripper, where the the ripper tell's the police to keep the letter back untill he doe's his dreadful deed, ooops !! nearly forgot, in the from hell letter he also mention's handing over the knife he used to remove the kidney. We know he did this before in the letter to the police where he writes about the cutting off the victim's ear.

Here comes the theory, who say's that the ripper did not write the from hell letter BEFORE the double event on the 30th of September but some day's earlier and then executed the thing's he mentioned in the letter to Lusk includeing the handing over of the knife. Basiclly what I'm trying to say is that the Lusk letter could of been written before the double event and the ripper played out the letter, even to the point of handing over the knife. All the best.

Niko

I thought you were going to say that the From Hell author said he would send Lusk his knife because he knows he lost it (and someone found it)and wants to throw off the police that they have found the killers actual knife(a valuable clue) by saying he still has his knife and may send it to Lusk.

[Abby Normal]

Have you listened to the podcast episode on this? "Anything But Your Prayers: The Murder of Elizabeth Stride." It was very convincing. Ally Ryder in particular was very convincing with regards to the interruption theory not making much sense.

I can't remember her whole argument, but I remember her saying that if the Ripper's full intention was to mutillate in some way, he would have been able to fit in one or two stabs in the time that he had.

I am sorry if that has been discussed before, but it just stuck in my mind. Mind you, it was a very old podcast (2008) so Ally's arguments could be out of date by now.

Hi
Have not heard the podcast. I think Stride was a ripper victim and he was interupted. As for not getting at least one or two cuts in-who knows? Perhaps Scwartz actually witnessed Stride getting her throat cut in the street and the ripper took off immediately because of Scwartz-leaving Stride to try and reach safety in the club where she expired in the alley. or maybe after cutting her throat in the street as he pulled her in the Alley, heard someone from the club and took off. Or perhaps he pulled her in the alley, cut her throat and was about to start the mutilations and was immediately scared off by Diemshitz, in which he was so suddenly surprised that he had only an instant to jump into the shadows of the alley-with no time to start any mutilations.

There could be any number of reasons the ripper had no time to get one or two cuts in.

[Monty]

In the same Podcast Gareth Williams points out that the interruption occures just at the exact moment the throat had been cut.


No prior, not during, and no other wounds.

How's that for timing? Or had he done?

Of course, none of this excludes Eddowes killer.

Monty

[Ayailla]

I had forgotten that part, Monty. Thank you for reminding me.

Ally was just so passionate about it, it was her argument that stuck in my mind.

Thanks.

[Monty]

Ally? Passionate? ;-)

Monty

[Ayailla]

Haha, she comes across as having extremely strong opinions so far on the podcast, but I am not too far through it.

[Monty]

Ally is a cute ickle puddy tat.

Me on the other hand, oh I'm ruthless on the Podcast.

Monty

[Robert]

http://static.flickr.com/44/163709655_9bc246b900_o.jpg

[lynn cates]

mutilatus interruptus

Hello Ayailla. Ally's argument is, of course, sane and intelligent.

But my biggest objection to the interruption theory is that it is ad hoc. It begins by assuming that "Jack" did Liz, then trying to fit the facts to suit the hypothesis.

Cheers.
LC