From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[GUT]

G'day Harry D

As far as the GSG goes, I'm very sceptical. It wasn't there BEFORE the killing, correct?

Highly debatable when it was or wasn't there.

[GUT]

G'day Abby

exactly. and I doubt someone who was pissed off specifically at someone for a deal gone bad would be cryptic. they would leave no doubt. Like "Cohen is a theif" or "don't buy meat from Jones". and write it big.

who the hell knows whats going through the mind of a serial killer though, and who/why he blames, and what the motivations are. Lots of gray areas there, which is why the graffiti may appear enigmatic.

If it was a grudge against a tradesman you would expect a more direct attack, but what if the writer simply had a grudge against Jews.

The spelling doesn't bother me that much I've recently been reading a lot of 18th and 19th century documents for family research and some of the spelling from educated people is, to say the least, atrocious and inconsistent, correct in one spot and incorrect in another in the same document. Don't get me started on 17th century your own name spelled 3 different ways in one letter.

[moonbegger]

Harry ,

It wasn't there BEFORE the killing, correct?

do you know something no one else does Harry ?

[Abby Normal]

I still find it hard to believe that our killer didn't make any reference to the two murders he had just committed.

Maybe he thought the bloody apron was enough.

[Abby Normal]

If it was a grudge against a tradesman you would expect a more direct attack, but what if the writer simply had a grudge against Jews.

The spelling doesn't bother me that much I've recently been reading a lot of 18th and 19th century documents for family research and some of the spelling from educated people is, to say the least, atrocious and inconsistent, correct in one spot and incorrect in another in the same document. Don't get me started on 17th century your own name spelled 3 different ways in one letter.

Hi gut
I see your point. But again if it was unrelated to the apron piece, and by someone who had something against Jews, you would expect it to at least be written large. I read somewhere that an expert of the period and place language says that it should be read such: the Jews won't take the blame for anything. Given the events of the evening and the number of Jewish men who the ripper knew saw him, I think it has to be more than just a coincidence.

[GUT]

G'day Abby

Hi gut
I see your point. But again if it was unrelated to the apron piece, and by someone who had something against Jews, you would expect it to at least be written large. I read somewhere that an expert of the period and place language says that it should be read such: the Jews won't take the blame for anything. Given the events of the evening and the number of Jewish men who the ripper knew saw him, I think it has to be more than just a coincidence.

IF that is the correct interpretation, your suggestion is completely reasonable.

But is that the correct interpretation?

[Abby Normal]

IF that is the correct interpretation, your suggestion is completely reasonable.

But is that the correct interpretation?

iMHO it is. and all the factors- the number of jewish witnesses, the bloody apron directly below thw graffiti, the negative tone of the writing against the jews, the graffiti located on a predominantly jewish building- are just too much to be all coincidence.

getting back to the lusk letter. as I said, ibeleive there is a good chance it was written by the killer. As I think Blotchy most likely to be the ripper, his description of fair, red hair, blotchy is consistent with the letter being written by an Irishman or someone of recent irish decent.

[Scott Nelson]

But the Ripper wouldn't necessarily know if any of the witnesses were Jewish, except if he was familar with the buildings they came out of or were going into. The tone of the writing on the wall isn't negative towards Jews. Quite the contrary. It is saying the Jews get blamed for everything.

[Harry D]

Harry ,
do you know something no one else does Harry ?

I'm not saying another word without my lawyer.

[Abby Normal]

But the Ripper wouldn't necessarily know if any of the witnesses were Jewish, except if he was familar with the buildings they came out of or were going into. The tone of the writing on the wall isn't negative towards Jews. Quite the contrary. It is saying the Jews get blamed for everything.

Abberline said Schwartz had a heavy Jewish appearance and BS man yelled lipski. IMHO it is negative as I interpret it as saying they won't take the blame for anything. Besides it does not even need to be negative, just mention Jews in conjunction with the bloody apron/murder to cause trouble, confusion etc.

[GUT]

G'day Scott

But the Ripper wouldn't necessarily know if any of the witnesses were Jewish, except if he was familar with the buildings they came out of or were going into. The tone of the writing on the wall isn't negative towards Jews. Quite the contrary. It is saying the Jews get blamed for everything.

A traditional Jew would stand out.

The call of Lipski?

I don't follow your interpretation of GSG as saying that the Jews get blamed for everything, rather t seems to say that they won't take blame for anything.

[Scott Nelson]

Set the idea of the unintentional double negative aside. You'd have to allow for an extremely awkward one, not a standard phrase, like

"I didn't shoot no one."

It means the Jews will not be blamed for nothing, meaning they will be blamed for something.

[GUT]

G'day again Scott

Bit hard to say as we don't know what was actually written, nor the education level, grasp of English and grammar etc, of the writer .

[pinkmoon]

Hi all,the key to the lusk letter is the k in knif and the h in whil there is no way on earth that an uneducated person would get the k or h right so this tells us an educated person wrote this.Something that has always botherd me about this communication is why lusk waited two days before going to the police could he have sent this to himself to put himself into the limelight.

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,the key to the lusk letter is the k in knif and the h in whil there is no way on earth that an uneducated person would get the k or h right so this tells us an educated person wrote this.Something that has always botherd me about this communication is why lusk waited two days before going to the police could he have sent this to himself to put himself into the limelight.

hi
from hell has always struck me as being written by someone who was extremely intoxicated: the sloppiness of it, the large flourishes in the handwriting with the exaggerated loops and tails. perhaps even the misspellings.

heck he even slurring his words-"mishtor Lusk" (just kidding about that part).

also, one of the things that has always struck me as authentic about the letter (along with the kidney and not using the name Jack the ripper like all the other hoaxes after Dear Boss letter) is the fact that the writer says hes sending half and has eaten the other half. would a hoaxer even think like that? I doubt it-IMHO a hoaxer would just send the whole thing for that would be way more in itself shocking enough.