From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Lipsky]

Have you heard about the gloved man who asked the shopkeeper for Lusks address that week...before the package arrived?

Yup. Been trying for years to follow up on that info.
I think this is our man.
Improbable he would have a laison, probably went out on his own.
Gloves leave no trails of evidence, our man was "20th century"

[Abby Normal]

the lusk letter is more than likely genuine. ive never bought the old medical student prank idea. nor that it would be easy to obtain a human kidney.

i doubt medical students would send to local vigilante group nor know of its leader. they would send it to a newspaper for max exposure. but doubt they would do it at all. it would probably be difficult for even medical students to obtain and a highly risky thing to do, they would assuredly be expelled if caught.

and the cannibalism thing has a ring of truth to it..its usually only found in post mortem type serial killers, which the ripper surely was.

[Michael W Richards]

My two cents are that it was truly the kidney of Eddowes. The "cannibal" reference was written in-character, our man sought no gratification of any sort, so I doubt he ate it. But terrorism was his method, both in the mutilations and the letter, and he sought to drive the point home. He refers directly to Lusk, because our man is a local, and this is "tete-a-tete", and Mishter Lusk -- as our man probably knew already -- wasn't exactly, the patron saint of Whitechapel. But then again, who was?

Have you heard about the gloved man who asked the shopkeeper for Lusks address that week...before the package arrived?

[The Baron]

Genuine.


He/they wanted to plant fears amongst Prostitutes and the community in Whitechapel, he/they risked his/their own life for this purpose.


I still believe, the Lipsky crime and conviction 1887 had to do something with all what had followed.

It was some sort of revenge, hence the GSG and the From Hell letter.



The Baron

[Lipsky]

I also believe that the Lusk letter is probably genuinely from a Whitechapel killer, though the fact that is is sent to Lusk, and that Lusk waits 48 hours before even mentioning it to his closest friends, indicates to me that Lusk was being personally threatened by this package and letter. Not all the Unfortunates, not anyone, but Lusk,.... perhaps due to his role in the vigilance committee. I believe that the kidney section is real, as in human, but that it isn't from Kate. I think its used symbolically to add threat and menace to the letter...like the person who sent it wants Lusk to believe the author is the mad killer at large. I think if anyone intended to eat Kates kidney they would have consumed it all anyway.

My two cents are that it was truly the kidney of Eddowes. The "cannibal" reference was written in-character, our man sought no gratification of any sort, so I doubt he ate it. But terrorism was his method, both in the mutilations and the letter, and he sought to drive the point home. He refers directly to Lusk, because our man is a local, and this is "tete-a-tete", and Mishter Lusk -- as our man probably knew already -- wasn't exactly, the patron saint of Whitechapel. But then again, who was?

[Michael W Richards]

I also believe that the Lusk letter is probably genuinely from a Whitechapel killer, though the fact that is is sent to Lusk, and that Lusk waits 48 hours before even mentioning it to his closest friends, indicates to me that Lusk was being personally threatened by this package and letter. Not all the Unfortunates, not anyone, but Lusk,.... perhaps due to his role in the vigilance committee. I believe that the kidney section is real, as in human, but that it isn't from Kate. I think its used symbolically to add threat and menace to the letter...like the person who sent it wants Lusk to believe the author is the mad killer at large. I think if anyone intended to eat Kates kidney they would have consumed it all anyway.

[DJA]

The kidney finished up in front of Henry Gawen Sutton who pledged his reputation on it being put in ethanol within a couple of hours of it's removal,according to Major Henry Smith.
Those two were characters in RL Stevenson's 1885 novella.Smith was a cousin.

[Lipsky]

I am of the strong opinion that the Lusk letter is the only genuine letter. Everything about it is genuine. Timing, circumstances, addressee, package, stylistics, knowledge, but most of all the way it seemed to be writtn in a style with nothing to prove unlike every other letter. This is why it is different. At the same time it was playful. Read very deeply into the line "I will send you the knife" and you will realise that this is a man that knows he can get away with it because it is someone who is very much "on the ball". He is not someone wandering the streets zombie-like looking for the next victim but rather somone who knows exactly what he is doing. I am starting to come to the conclusion that perhaps that it is a man who is so calculated that he is able to orchestrate two murders in the same night only 45 minutes apart.

Agree with everything except the term 'playful' -- better word would be "taunting"/"mocking" with a scathing tone.
And precisely because this is someone "very much on the ball" and "knows exactly what he is doing" we should finally do away with the "lunatic polish barber" caricature and see him for what he was : an executioner very much in "character" of course totally deranged in his sociopath/lack of empathy and unremorsefully so.
HE allows himself some pride in his stunning act (The Double Event -- glad the poster mentions that, too). But mind you, there is no gratification here.
This is the blame-free self-righteousness of a Raskolnikov.
To the above aforementioned elements we should add the "Stream of consciousness" syntax-free 'breathless' tone.

Comparison with the James Kelly convoluted syntax/expression should be performed by a: (1) linguistic expert (2) sociologist/psychologist (3) psychiatrist with criminal psychology credentials. Actually, it is amazing that this hasnt been done so far (if otherwise, I'd appreciate the references due). Also, comparison of handwritting (even from photocopies).

EDIT: Of course it is neither to the police nor the press. Our man never injected in police process. And he addresses Lusk, who was less saint than he painted himself, and our man knows it. Probably Mishter Lusk was let in on the scam and wanted his share for his failing business.

[ChrisGeorge]

I absolutely understand what you are saying. It seems to me, however that this idea of red herrings is a way for you to push these things away from the table for yourself; for perhaps your own attempts to discard what may be seen (not by me) as misleading bits of data. If that's the case, it is something we all do to some extent with this case/ these cases. I don't know if that's the right tack and I was thinking of a more sort of snapshot approach wherein everything is looked at simultaneously...a cubist approach, if you will. Anyway, I have no idea how to proceed with this 'all angles at once' attack...haha.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike

I don't have a suspect and I am not as interested in knowing who "Jack" may have been as I am in the general topic, and the side alleys of research that the case offers. In fact I would say that at this point we probably will never know who Jack was, despite modern attempts at profiling or bringing in science such as DNA or ink testing to try to show that bogus objects can finally prove who the Ripper was. So in my prior post I was speaking from the point of view of a general observer of the field and of where we are.

Best regards

Chris

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike

I agree that the letters and the graffito are all part of the case but would argue that they are not evidence. In fact, as I wrote in the editorial to Ripperologist 152, they may be red herrings that have been misleading us for all these years:

I absolutely understand what you are saying. It seems to me, however that this idea of red herrings is a way for you to push these things away from the table for yourself; for perhaps your own attempts to discard what may be seen (not by me) as misleading bits of data. If that's the case, it is something we all do to some extent with this case/ these cases. I don't know if that's the right tack and I was thinking of a more sort of snapshot approach wherein everything is looked at simultaneously...a cubist approach, if you will. Anyway, I have no idea how to proceed with this 'all angles at once' attack...haha.

Cheers,

Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

No the Lusk letter and piece of kidney are not "evidence" because they have not been proven to be linked in any way to the killer.

Catherine Eddowes' body in the corner of Mitre Square is evidence. The sketches and photographs of her are evidence, and the doctor's reports and inquest testimony are evidence.

It appears you do not know what constitutes evidence, Mr. Lucky. If you think the Lusk letter and piece of kidney are evidence, that is merely your opinion.

It isn't evidence, but it's information linked through a rational process. Refutation of such things is based on lack of hard evidence, but there is a link and it isn't just a lark. It's a possibility and that is more than almost all "evidence" in these murders can suggest.

Nike

Hi Mike

I agree that the letters and the graffito are all part of the case but would argue that they are not evidence. In fact, as I wrote in the editorial to Ripperologist 152, they may be red herrings that have been misleading us for all these years:

"The problem with the Whitechapel murders is that because we have no real idea who the killer was—top of society, bottom of society, Englishman, foreigner, woman, professional man, working man, you take your pick!—we have far too much information to be helpful. The 'Ripper' letters and the Goulston Street graffito, for example, continue to attract inordinate attention. And yet we simply lack any evidence that the killer of those women in the East End was responsible for either. Thus, it might well be that both are actually red herrings that have been helping to mask the truth for all these years."

Thus it behooves us to be aware of what is clearly evidence and what is not.

Best regards

Chris

[The Good Michael]

It's only evidence if it was scientifically proven to be the victim's kidney, otherwise that means all the Ripper letters sent to the press and whatnot must be taken at face value.

And we can never know that, so it's a valid possibility still. And the other letters are all separate issues.

Mike

[Harry D]

It's only evidence if it was scientifically proven to be the victim's kidney, otherwise that means all the Ripper letters sent to the press and whatnot must be taken at face value.

[The Good Michael]

No the Lusk letter and piece of kidney are not "evidence" because they have not been proven to be linked in any way to the killer.

Catherine Eddowes' body in the corner of Mitre Square is evidence. The sketches and photographs of her are evidence, and the doctor's reports and inquest testimony are evidence.

It appears you do not know what constitutes evidence, Mr. Lucky. If you think the Lusk letter and piece of kidney are evidence, that is merely your opinion.

It isn't evidence, but it's information linked through a rational process. Refutation of such things is based on lack of hard evidence, but there is a link and it isn't just a lark. It's a possibility and that is more than almost all "evidence" in these murders can suggest.

Nike

[Rainbow]

I will continue to use the actual legal system they used and their definitions of evidence rather than the stream of nonsense the ripper industry's manufactured and relies on to keep afloat 650 ripper suspects.

Spot on!

Add to that all the nonsense of a copycat murders, such that of Mckenzie...


Rainbow°