From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Tom_Wescott]

His wife died in 1887 and he filed bankruptcy in (I believe) 1889, so his primary concerns would have been running his business, making money, and taking care of his family. He had no illegal dealings that we know of. Lusk is not a suspicious character. But some of the people he associated himself with are.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Regarding Lusks bankruptcy, it would seem as if The Official Receiver wasnt happy with Lusks book keeping. Theres an indication of a public examination with possible book fiddling being the reason.

Doesnt make him a serial killer though.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Monty. That's interesting. What are these indications on fiddling and where might I read more about them?

This might explain why the press was so curious with Albert Backert and the resurrected Vigilance Committee as to what would happen to the donations if no killer was caught.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Tom,

Im on my phone rather than PC so cannot put up a link. However its under 'George Lusk bankruptcy' in General Discussions.

Chris Scott found Lusks bankruptcy in the London Gazzette, where all bankruptcies where (and still are) reported here in UK.

My apologies, it wasnt a PE. Lusk was refused discharge from bankruptcy on the grounds his books were ill kept and invoices werent accounted for. These are indicators that he kinda cooked the books.

One interesting point is that he declared hinself bankrupt rather that his creditors.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Monty. I remember that thread, I just didn't remember that there was evidence of cooking the books. Now we know where all those donations went!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Not unheard of Tom.

Monty

[perrymason]

Just wanted to thank Tom for the posts following mine, some good information for all there.

Cheers Tom

[perrymason]

I think the problems with this question stem from the reported comments made early on from ol 'Horrock...and others. Things like the renal artery used as a comparison feature....since Kate was buried when the Lusk letter arrived, difficult to make that call with the portion left in her now buried.....and the section itself was "trimmed up", removing any trace of the renal artery portion that was attached to the missing kidney. Theres also the case of spirits....apparently that was commonly used by students and medical practitioners, not just the glycerin that is also mentioned.

The case of the Brights Disease though is interesting. It can be reasonably suggested based on the described condition of the kidney remaining in Kate when they did the autopsy, that Kate had a form of Nephritis such as Brights Disease. When the term "ginny" kidney was supposedly used then denied later, it can be fairly said that a characteristic of many of those who had been diagnosed with that disease had alcohol as an issue in their life. Based on what we know of Kate, our little fire engine, she would likely be categorized as having booze issues.....so would most of the poor in the area, and all of the Canonicals.

What happened early with the reported comments by Openshaw and others was that they set up a shaky case with their suspect commentary for this to have been Kates kidney. But the estimated age based on the immersion in spirits, the probable Brights Disease noted on the kidney left inside Kate and suggested as being seen on the section as well,.... the recipient, someone innocuous and not police or press....the lack of a signature, the analysis that suggests perhaps an Irish overtone is being faked, the Irish gentleman that got the address for Lusk a few days earlier from the paper in the shop...and the package being addressed just like it appeared in that paper, incomplete....the fact that the only physical evidence moved or taken from a Ripper murder scene that is recovered later was also from the Mitre Square murder.....and the definite communion-like tone of the text itself, not intending to scare him by using words like "cut" and "kill" "Ill get you", instead....."....the kidney I took from a woman", "..that took it out"...."prasarved it for you"......

To me this smacks of a desire to share the experience with someone....and I would imagine that there was no-one lonelier in that area than Jack at that time. It seems a little friendly too...."I might send you the bloody knif".....this to me sounds like a local man writing another local man attempting to share the feelings he has about what he is doing...thinking that Lusk might understand what the killer felt like if he ate the organ section like the author says he did.

Many hunters traditions and warrior traditions include eating an organ or drinking the blood of the victim or prey that has been conquered, the belief being they would absorb the strengths, knowledge and wisdom from the prey.

And Jack is a hunter of sorts....so was Lusk.... at that time

Best regards all.

[Limehouse]

Has anyone ever suggested that the kidney could have been sent to Lusk by a policeman on the beat, peeved at Lusk and his band of vigillantes for their enroachment into police work??

I would imagine that some beat policeman had connections to mortuary attendents through their role as conveyors of people found dead in the street to mortuaries. They might also have had connections to hospital receivers, so access to a human kidney or part of a human kidney might not have been so difficult.

I would see this act as a mixture of prank and an intention to teach Lusk a bit of a lesson.

[JTRSickert]

Concerning the kidney that was sent to Lusk, does the way it was cut indicate someone involved to some degree with medicene or not? Was it cut in a way that would be the work of a professional or just a rather quick chop without regard to the way the organ would be preserved?

[RealTyche]

I agree with Zero. I have always had difficulty in accepting that any of the communications purportedly to be from the killer were genuine.

In the first place, if the killer wished to draw attention to his actions why would he write about only two of the murders, rather than all of them? Also, those serial killers throughout history whom have communicated with the authorities have consistently corrected errors in the media reports, revealed detailed information about the crimes that only the killer could have known, and denounced other suspects the police mentioned publicly. None of the Whitechapel letters conform.

Secondly, the crime scenes themselves. Any killer wishing to taunt the police leaves a readily identifiable 'calling card'; the Whitechapel murderer certainly did that. However, he was also extremely careful to leave no trace of himself to be found which is hardly the act of a man craving attention.

The written statement that 'number one had squealed a bit' is blatantly false on it's face, as the windows and a doorway overlooking Dutfield's yard were open and the inhabitants inside all reported they had heard nothing.

The written statement that the killer would clip ears off was also false. None of the victims showed any signs of attempts made to remove their ears.

Taking all these facts into account, the veracity of the communications must all be called into question.

[Hunter]

I believe you're getting some of the letters mixed up. The Lusk letter is the only one that is seriously considered to be possibly written by the killer. It was direct and personal and not sent to the police or a news agency.

[fireskin]

Being a new ripper-phile, I'm curious as to why the idea that any of the letters could be real is dismissed so commonly when serial killers throughout history have sent them.

Not all of the serial killer letters in history conform to one set group of patterns from what I've researched so far. Albert Fish's letters were very different and much more personal than the Zodiac's letters or the BTK letters, for instance.

While I'm certainly not educated in the Ripper letters as much as I will be over time, it seems to me odd that they are so easily disregarded.

Personally, I think if any are real, the Lusk letter is. It makes me think a little bit of the Albert Fish letter honestly.

[caz]

Welcome fireskin.

I tend to agree with you. Another serial killer who contacted the police was Colin Ireland, who was frustrated by their failure to link any of his victims. He phoned them with clues that led to the right connections being made.

But I think you'll find that many people today will argue that it was all the fault of the ripper hoaxers, who inspired a handful of subsequent serial killers (and hoaxers, eg in the Yorkshire Ripper case) to follow suit with letters, tapes, phone calls and so on.

What we could use is a serial offender from before 1888 who is known to have communicated about his crimes.

Love,

Caz
X

[fireskin]

What we could use is a serial offender from before 1888 who is known to have communicated about his crimes.

Love,

Caz
X

Heh.. yeah.. Well, Nero left behind an entire book of his letters.