From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[K-453]

The Lusk letter could have been a threat and not a prank.

The activities of the vigilance committee must have annoyed not only a certain serial killer, but also a lot of other gentlemen from that neighbourhood, who preferred to look after their business in the dark and without the participation of a large public.

Said gentlemen surely had their ways to obtain kidneys, even human kidneys. Some of them probably also had spelling issues.

[K-453]

Another thought: The letter was in a box with the kidney. Maybe some liquid from the kidney oozed on it?

I wonder if the stains could be analysed with modern forensic technologies to check if they come from a human kidney?

[Bridewell]

Where Is It?

Another thought: The letter was in a box with the kidney. Maybe some liquid from the kidney oozed on it?

I wonder if the stains could be analysed with modern forensic technologies to check if they come from a human kidney?

Hi K-453

That would be a good idea if someone can locate the original letter. To the best of my knowledge, no-one knows where it is.

Regards, Bridewell.

[K-453]

Oops. Too bad.

The scans of it are clear and in colour, therefore I thought it somehow made it into the 21st century.

[Bridewell]

The Scans

Oops. Too bad.

The scans of it are clear and in colour, therefore I thought it somehow made it into the 21st century.

I believe the copies currently in circulation are reproduced from a photograph taken by the City of London Police and that the original letter went missing quite early in the piece. Someone like Paul Begg can probably write with greater certainty on this.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

I've heard rumour that some private collector now has it.

I believe it went missing around 1988 time.....could be wrong.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Thanks

I've heard rumour that some private collector now has it.

I believe it went missing around 1988 time.....could be wrong.

Monty

Thanks for that, Monty. I wonder if said private collector knows that he/she doesn't have good title to it - and never will have. I suppose there's some small consolation if it still exists, in that it just may one day be returned to rightful ownership.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Beowulf]

I just happened to be looking at this:

"Stewart P. Evans
Regarding the provenance of the original prints of the famous photographs of the murder scene at 13 Miller's Court, 26 Dorset Street, Spitalfields, two relevant references have been written. They are as follows --

From The Complete Jack the Ripper, Donald Rumbelow, 1975, pp. 146-147:--

Several years ago, through the permission of the Commissioner of the City Police, I was able to place in the Eddowes and Kelly file [at New Scotland Yard] copies of the original photographs which were in their possession and to deposit similar sets with the Black Museum and Bow Street Historical Museum. One can only assume that the Kelly photograph was removed from the file at a much earlier date, since Sir Melville Macnaghten refers to it in his notes. Stranger still was the fact that the photograph was the work of the City Police, in spite of the dressing down they had received from Sir Charles Warren for being in Whitechapel. A story which explains this, although it is at variance with the newspaper accounts, is that although the Metropolitan Police didn't dare to disobey Warren's order and break down Kelly's doorway before the bloodhounds arrived, the City Police did so as they ran no such risks. Apparently as the morning dragged on, and nothing happened in Miller's Court, somebody quietly asked the City Police for their help which they gave by breaking into Kelly's room and taking the photograph of her body as their only justification for doing so. Certainly all the surviving photographs of Ripper victims were taken by the City of London Police. Curiously enough, they may have taken others. The photograph of Miller's Court is now a well-known one, but it was only by chance that I found it and published it in Police Journal in 1969. In 1967 the City Police photographic department were clearing out a lot of old negatives, including some glass ones, and by chance I happened to spot them. Two were of immediate interest. One was of some Metropolitan policemen, taken about 1870, and the other - which I instantly recognized - was of Miller's Court, of which no photograph was known to exist. When I tried to trace their source, I was told that they had come from a large album of photographs which disappeared when the force museum was broken up in 1959 and lost at the same time as the 'From Hell' letter, which vanished with it. I don't believe that they have been lost forever. But their present whereabouts is still a mystery."

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-kelly.html

[Monty]

Hi Beowulf,

A side note, Robert McLaughlin in his excellent book about the photographs of the victims, challenges Dons claim the City police took the Kelly photo and provides evidence why.

Also, in Rob and my article in the next Ripperologist, We lists the victims photos, the history of them and where they lay now.

We also include new images not seen before.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

You include Tabram in that bunch?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Beowulf]

Hi Beowulf,

A side note, Robert McLaughlin in his excellent book about the photographs of the victims, challenges Dons claim the City police took the Kelly photo and provides evidence why.

Also, in Rob and my article in the next Ripperologist, We lists the victims photos, the history of them and where they lay now.

We also include new images not seen before.

Monty

'challenges Dons claim the City police took the Kelly photo and provides evidence why'

well THAT certainly is intriguing. Be interested to read that one!

So, is that glass slide still around? Who owns it?

[mariab]

A side note, Robert McLaughlin in his excellent book about the photographs of the victims, challenges Dons claim the City police took the Kelly photo and provides evidence why.

I assume that would be Don Rumbelow?

Also, in Rob and my article in the next Ripperologist, We lists the victims photos, the history of them and where they lay now.

Cool! Esp. about where they lay now.
Monty, do you happen to recall that last summer I've discovered that American criminologist Arthur McDonald was the one who somehow got MJK's scene photo from the London HO and brought it over to France, sold it to Alexandre Lacassagne with the request that Lacassagne publishes McDonald's book? http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5930&page=3
As far as I know, the MJK photos available today are just a copy of the original glass slide, right? I should perhaps add that I've looked everywhere in Lyon (in the entire city's archives) and the photo is not there, but I was having thoughts of looking at Cesare Lombroso's archives in Torino (Turin), North Italy. (Lombroso was one of McDonald's employers and a good friend of Lacassagne's.)

We also include new images not seen before.

Pertaining to the victims' scene photos? (No any graffito, I assume?)

[Monty]

Tom,

Wait and see.

Beowulf,

The plate isn't around.

Maria,

Yes, Rumbelow. You should have read Rob McLaughlins 2005 book, as he states McDonalds involvement then. Would have saved some research time.

Yes, MJK are copies.

Again, like Tom, you will have to wait and see re the new images.

Monty

[mariab]

Monty,
I'll wait.

You should have read Rob McLaughlins 2005 book, as he states McDonalds involvement then. Would have saved some research time.

Not exactly, cuz Rob contacted Mc Laughlin, sent him the Mac Donald letter I've located in Lyon, and Mc Laughlin's preparing a second edition of his book, plus researching Mac Donald's papers in DC.

Yes, MJK are copies.

I assume new copies made in the 1950s, while the original ones are not available anymore?

[John Bennett]

Hi K-453

That would be a good idea if someone can locate the original letter. To the best of my knowledge, no-one knows where it is.

Regards, Bridewell.

As far as I am aware, the original went missing after it was photographed in October 1888. All we have are copies.

One story has it that a Canadian collector claimed to have possession of the original in the 1960s, but this has not been substantiated.