From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Michael W Richards]

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

The problem with that thinking Caz is that youre assuming that "one woman" inferred to another or others that same night. There is no artifact or physical evidence that leads to a conclusion that 1 man killed both women on DE Night, and on that night there is no evidence that either directs us to, refers to or mentions a victim other than the Mitre Square victim, ...the example being the GSG and apron section.

You mention that he could have denied Stride. Well, since she is not mentioned in the Lusk Letter, she is not referred to in a Goulston Street doorway, and since she didnt get mutilated and therefore had no organs to offer up in the mail later on....it would appear that whomever killed Liz didnt claim her murder. Which is more powerful...the fact that he didnt claim her specifically as a victim, or the fact that she isnt alluded to or mentioned as one anywhere?

Introducing Saucy Jack into this mix isnt really the best way to argue the point, since we know that SJ and DB are almost certainly correspondences that we can assume were hoaxes. The ear bit and the squealed bit dont even pan out....yes, Kate had a piece of ear sliced off, but not her entire ear, and probably by accident,...since he had ample time to do other non-extraction mutilations to her body,.. and the only person who says anyone "squealed" that night is Israel Schwartz, absent from any and all Inquest records and quite possibly linked with both the International Club and William Wess.

Since Fanny was at her door off and on at around the time of Israel's alleged incident and she saw and heard nothing, since Brown saw no-one in front of the club, and since Spooner and his date outside the Beehive saw no-one fleeing, or chased, at around 12:45 while they stood there, Israels stated call by the woman being accosted is unproven and unsubstantiated. Still unproven and unsubstantiated I should say.

In truth the only murder referred to in the Lusk letter is the one that supposedly provided the author with the kidney piece, and that suggests that if the letter is really from Kates killer, that he did not also kill Stride.

Best regards Caz

[caz]

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

[Abby Normal]

If the letter is genuine (that is to say, sent by Jack himself), would the fact that the letter makes no mention of the 'double event' prove that Elizabeth Stride was not a genuine ripper victim? I know some people find it hard to believe that Elizabeth was a genuine victim due to the lack of mutillations to be found (and the podcast I was listening to the other day regarding the double event made some comments on the theory that Jack was interrupted when killing Stride, and how it doesn't make sense to go with that theory).

Rather than saying the letter can't be genuine because the double event was not mentioned, could we go along the lines of, the letter could be genuine and, if it is, it shows that Elizabeth Stride was probably not a Ripper victim?

Hi
Keep in mind the letter writer wrote "....I took from ONE woman.." implying that there were others, maybe even that night.

[Ayailla]

Nope, you're certainly not alone in this interpretation, Colin. The fact that the From hell author made no mention of the supposed double event is also salient to my mind.

If the letter is genuine (that is to say, sent by Jack himself), would the fact that the letter makes no mention of the 'double event' prove that Elizabeth Stride was not a genuine ripper victim? I know some people find it hard to believe that Elizabeth was a genuine victim due to the lack of mutillations to be found (and the podcast I was listening to the other day regarding the double event made some comments on the theory that Jack was interrupted when killing Stride, and how it doesn't make sense to go with that theory).

Rather than saying the letter can't be genuine because the double event was not mentioned, could we go along the lines of, the letter could be genuine and, if it is, it shows that Elizabeth Stride was probably not a Ripper victim?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Michael,

Entirely agree. The fact that there is no 'Jack the Ripper' is almost a clincher for me. The writer, by implication, disassociates from that name. To me (and perhaps just to me, I concede) it suggests "I'm not a faker. I'm the real deal - and here's something to prove it".


I'm much more cautious about the Irish connection. The letter reads too much like someone trying to appear Irish, and I would have thought George Lusk's address was easy enough to find without having to ask a shopkeeper. That visit sounds more like an attempt to reinforce the Irish angle than a genuine enquiry.

Hi Bridewell
I agree and have said before that since the author does not use the "ripper" sig like most of the other hoax letters lends to its authenticity.

I also dont agree that Drs at the time could know precisely how long the kidney could have been preserved. In fact they couldn't-one said seven days another said ten. Plus it wasn't being preserved in the liquid that doctors usually used at the time-that could have thrown them off. Plus, they would have no idea what the person who sent it did with it before they placed it in the "spirits"-as in he may have kept it preserved it another way such as freezing or keeping it cold or some other means.

As for the argument that it may have been relatively easy to get a hold of a kidney-Balderdash. Only someone in the medical field may have access to something like an internal organ and if they could get their hands on a kidney I am sure they could have even more easily gotten a hold of the proper preservative to keep it in and not "spirits".

And again what hoaxer is going to have the nuance to just send half a kidney and say he ate the other half? Nope-a hoaxer would be so happy that he's actually going to pull this off, he'd just send the whole thing. Knowing what we know about serial killers today and specifically, post mortem mutilaters and cannibalism is linked, then again points to the letter/kidney coming from the killer.

[Garry Wroe]

The fact that there is no 'Jack the Ripper' is almost a clincher for me. The writer, by implication, disassociates from that name. To me (and perhaps just to me, I concede) it suggests "I'm not a faker. I'm the real deal - and here's something to prove it".

Nope, you're certainly not alone in this interpretation, Colin. The fact that the From hell author made no mention of the supposed double event is also salient to my mind.

[Bridewell]

Apologies. Duplicate post.

[Bridewell]

Hi Michael,

The main issues for me in terms of probable authenticity are these: too elaborate for a simple hoax, not sent to the Press, not signed with some comical moniker, not claiming to be a blood lusting monster who needs to kill, ...

Entirely agree. The fact that there is no 'Jack the Ripper' is almost a clincher for me. The writer, by implication, disassociates from that name. To me (and perhaps just to me, I concede) it suggests "I'm not a faker. I'm the real deal - and here's something to prove it".

and I believe that its likely written by an Irishman, which ties in with the gloved Irish gentleman asking for Lusk's address from the shop owner that week.

I'm much more cautious about the Irish connection. The letter reads too much like someone trying to appear Irish, and I would have thought George Lusk's address was easy enough to find without having to ask a shopkeeper. That visit sounds more like an attempt to reinforce the Irish angle than a genuine enquiry.

[Michael W Richards]

Did they give an opinion as to how long it might have been around before it was placed in a preservative or are we to make an assumption that this was done immediately? The fact that Openshaw said one thing and Brown another surely indicates that this is not an exact science? If not, it indicates that one or other of them was wrong, doesn't it? For it to have been part of the Eddowes kidney it would need to have been out of preservatives for a day or two while it was en route to Lusk. Add 2 days to Openshaw's 10 and you have 12 of the total of 16 to be accounted for. I think Openshaw's remarks make it unlikely that the kidney was the one taken from Eddowes, but not impossible because - much as they don't like to admit it - doctors are sometimes wrong.

Your point is a good one Bridewell, discounting it based upon someones guess how long it was in spirits...(when organ samples of the period taken under normal circumstances were kept in glycerin, something medical student pranksters could easily access)...or how long it was out of the body and without any kind of preservatives, is a dice roll, not an argument.

The doctors of that period could not distinguish those lengths of time empirically, they estimated them. They did not know exactly how long the organ was in spirits, therefore, it may have been placed in some after Kates murder.

One other point. The organ had been taken from the storage to be cut, a small piece of it claimed fried and eaten by the sender. How long before he sent the remainder in did that happen? 1 day? 2? 6?

We dont know.

The main issues for me in terms of probable authenticity are these: too elaborate for a simple hoax, not sent to the Press, not signed with some comical moniker, not claiming to be a blood lusting monster who needs to kill, ...and I believe that its likely written by an Irishman, which ties in with the gloved Irish gentleman asking for Lusk's address from the shop owner that week.

Cheers BW, all.

[Bridewell]

You seem to have misunderstood the medical evidence. The opinions offered after examining the kidney were that it had not been in preservative for more than 10 days (Openshaw) or 7 days (Brown) based on the state of the kidney. There are changes to the specimen depending on the length of time it has been placed in a preservative. In other words, they could tell the difference between something that had been in a preservative for a month, a month and a half, 2 months or merely a matter of days based on their experience. That’s precisely why they offered their opinions about the length of time it had been in preservative.

Did they give an opinion as to how long it might have been around before it was placed in a preservative or are we to make an assumption that this was done immediately? The fact that Openshaw said one thing and Brown another surely indicates that this is not an exact science? If not, it indicates that one or other of them was wrong, doesn't it? For it to have been part of the Eddowes kidney it would need to have been out of preservatives for a day or two while it was en route to Lusk. Add 2 days to Openshaw's 10 and you have 12 of the total of 16 to be accounted for. I think Openshaw's remarks make it unlikely that the kidney was the one taken from Eddowes, but not impossible because - much as they don't like to admit it - doctors are sometimes wrong.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Wolf Vanderlinden;251910]You seem to have misunderstood the medical evidence. The opinions offered after examining the kidney were that it had not been in preservative for more than 10 days (Openshaw) or 7 days (Brown) based on the state of the kidney. There are changes to the specimen depending on the length of time it has been placed in a preservative. In other words, they could tell the difference between something that had been in a preservative for a month, a month and a half, 2 months or merely a matter of days based on their experience. That’s precisely why they offered their opinions about the length of time it had been in preservative.

But I suppose you know better after your extensive medical education and after examining the kidney itself…..oh, wait.

Wolf.[


Nah just a bit of common sense and an open mind. Now I'm off to the Kidney store to pick up a kidney.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Thanks for the reply. Sept 30 (Eddowes murder) and Oct 16 (date kidney received by Lusk). is approx 16 days. One Dr. said 7 days the other said 10 days. 16 days is is not so much difference I would think than 10 days for something like this and I would also add that being in a preservative would make it pretty difficult to determine exactly how long it was in the preservative since the whole purpose of using a preservative is, well.... to preserve the item.

Do you think they could tell the difference between something that had been in a preservative for a month, a month and a half, 2 months? I doubt it.

Plus, from what I understand it was not in a liquid that Drs usually used at the time, but "spirits" possibly wine? That may have thrown them off also.

You seem to have misunderstood the medical evidence. The opinions offered after examining the kidney were that it had not been in preservative for more than 10 days (Openshaw) or 7 days (Brown) based on the state of the kidney. There are changes to the specimen depending on the length of time it has been placed in a preservative. In other words, they could tell the difference between something that had been in a preservative for a month, a month and a half, 2 months or merely a matter of days based on their experience. That’s precisely why they offered their opinions about the length of time it had been in preservative.

But I suppose you know better after your extensive medical education and after examining the kidney itself…..oh, wait.

Wolf.

[Cogidubnus]

Think you're stretching/pushing it a little Abby...

So whilst the Lusk letter just has to be voted the more likely of all of them to be genuine, when it comes down to it I still think, on balance, they're ALL fakes...

Sorry

Dave

[Abby Normal]

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, who examined the kidney sometime after the 18th of October, stated that the kidney showed absolutely no signs of decomposition and that it must have been placed in the preservative very soon after extraction. Dr. Sutton, according to Sir Henry Smith’s later account, stated the same thing saying that he would “pledge his reputation” that the kidney had been placed in preservative within a few hours of its removal from the body.
Considering Dr. Brown’s opinion that the kidney had not been in the preservative for more than a week and add to this Dr. Thomas Openshaw’s opinion, after he had examined the kidney on the 18th of October, that the kidney had not been in spirits for more than ten days it seems fairly obvious, therefore, that it is impossible for the Lusk kidney to have belonged to Catharine Eddowes.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf
Thanks for the reply. Sept 30 (Eddowes murder) and Oct 16 (date kidney received by Lusk). is approx 16 days. One Dr. said 7 days the other said 10 days. 16 days is is not so much difference I would think than 10 days for something like this and I would also add that being in a preservative would make it pretty difficult to determine exactly how long it was in the preservative since the whole purpose of using a preservative is, well.... to preserve the item.

Do you think they could tell the difference between something that had been in a preservative for a month, a month and a half, 2 months? I doubt it.

Plus, from what I understand it was not in a liquid that Drs usually used at the time, but "spirits" possibly wine? That may have thrown them off also.

"Obviously impossible"? Hardly.

The only thing that is "obviously impossible" is to say that it is obviously impossible that the kidney was from Eddowes.

Drs are human and can make mistakes, especially being off a few days on how long something has been in an unknown preservative. (not to mention the killer may have done something else to it, like freeze it, or keep it cold perhaps)?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

considering that it was never disproved that the kidney came from Eddowes at the time; in fact everything about it is consistant with it being taken from Eddowes-the left kidney, the timing etc. makes me believe that out of all the letters sent from the apparent killer, the Lusk letter is most likely to be from the killer.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, who examined the kidney sometime after the 18th of October, stated that the kidney showed absolutely no signs of decomposition and that it must have been placed in the preservative very soon after extraction. Dr. Sutton, according to Sir Henry Smith’s later account, stated the same thing saying that he would “pledge his reputation” that the kidney had been placed in preservative within a few hours of its removal from the body.
Considering Dr. Brown’s opinion that the kidney had not been in the preservative for more than a week and add to this Dr. Thomas Openshaw’s opinion, after he had examined the kidney on the 18th of October, that the kidney had not been in spirits for more than ten days it seems fairly obvious, therefore, that it is impossible for the Lusk kidney to have belonged to Catharine Eddowes.

Wolf.