From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Abby Normal]

As I mentioned on another thread, there is a plausible case for Bury having written from hell, especially given the almost identical nature of some of the injuries on Ellen Bury compared to Eddowes. Also considering it was testified that Bury could write in several different hands and did forge a document.

very interesting wulf. the evasive y stands out to me, although they all look VERY similar.

[Aethelwulf]

Back on the thread premise, the Lusk letter is I believe an effort to scare Lusk...which evidently worked well. Its not about the killer claiming anything to the police or the public, its about a threat to him personally. The kidney section seems to me too much effort to go through just for a hoax. I think the man who asked earlier in the week at a shop about a mailing address for Lusk, and kept his gloves on, is likely the sender.

Does that mean he killed Kate? Probably....but if not he had access to the kidney the killer took.

As I mentioned on another thread, there is a plausible case for Bury having written from hell, especially given the almost identical nature of some of the injuries on Ellen Bury compared to Eddowes. Also considering it was testified that Bury could write in several different hands and did forge a document.

[Michael W Richards]

Back on the thread premise, the Lusk letter is I believe an effort to scare Lusk...which evidently worked well. Its not about the killer claiming anything to the police or the public, its about a threat to him personally. The kidney section seems to me too much effort to go through just for a hoax. I think the man who asked earlier in the week at a shop about a mailing address for Lusk, and kept his gloves on, is likely the sender.

Does that mean he killed Kate? Probably....but if not he had access to the kidney the killer took.

[Ozzy]

Ogdens’ Nut Gone Flake (Stereo) - YouTube

One of, if not the first, concept albums. Here in the UK I think there's a copyright issue as it's unavailable. Personally I already have the album.

[Michael W Richards]

Any kind of commissioned murder would be highly unlikely to be committed by someone displaying medical training, and thats exactly what Annies killer must have had. The repetitive aspects of Polly and Annies murder...same style, same victimology, same double throat cuts...and the short interval between the acts suggest the same man did both, and was more invasive with Annie due to his new approach to venue, and when to strike.

The mundane motive signs are absent in both. The motive for those kills is outside the norm.

[DJA]

Ogdens’ Nut Gone Flake (Stereo) - YouTube

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I just came across the following story.

A Revolting Story of a Lodging House Keeper in Whitechapel

Rather odd that "she feared to go to the police, but the secret so weighed upon her mind that she could keep it no longer", so she went to Albert Backert and the vigilance committee ... according to Albert.

[Lipsky]

What you have is a narrative Lipsky, not a viable theory. For no other reason that there is evidence that different people killed the 5 Canonical individuals, and that the possible motives for those murders still include simple to comprehend possibilities. Greed, Power, Silence, Jealousy,...when simple possible motives exist, why look for complicated narratives as a more reasonable answer. For example, I believe Liz Strides murder evidence leaves open the possibility that she was there to meet someone and either pissed someone off, or was incorrectly interpreted as a threat to the club. Simple, easy to understand, and that's why her killer just killed her. No mutilator there...a security guard, or drunk meeting attendee is plenty. Some of these are just "horses", why set that aside in favour of a "Unicorn"?

A Unicorn was indeed in the East end at the time, and he killed at least Polly and Annie. That's a very short list to start with. Including anyone else in that list who died because a mad unicorn was on the loose requires proof that, as of this point, doesn't seem to exist.

Proof will never exist. Narratives are all we have. Some of them cohesive, some not.
It is not as complicated as it is deemed, if you may.
A bunch of poor people, ill-advised by their landlord-pimps, discovered evidence of hardcore pornographic acts by a "well and up in the ladder" socialite.
They devise a scheme and send out first warning.
A killer is contracted, the first blood is spilled, there is a first detente, then as it becomes clear that despite first losses (and the fugitive missing street pimp-liaison), the scam goes on, the major offensive is launched. In October Lusk is let in on the scam (second detente), the letter is sent, and MJK is hacked to pieces (the "star witness").
Later on, the killer "Clears house" with Claypipe Alice and Coles. The landlords unite forces by marriage and abandon the scheme.
Everyone lives happily on ever after, except for some murdered women whose only "crime" was trying to get out of their poverty by ill advice.

[Michael W Richards]

What you have is a narrative Lipsky, not a viable theory. For no other reason that there is evidence that different people killed the 5 Canonical individuals, and that the possible motives for those murders still include simple to comprehend possibilities. Greed, Power, Silence, Jealousy,...when simple possible motives exist, why look for complicated narratives as a more reasonable answer. For example, I believe Liz Strides murder evidence leaves open the possibility that she was there to meet someone and either pissed someone off, or was incorrectly interpreted as a threat to the club. Simple, easy to understand, and that's why her killer just killed her. No mutilator there...a security guard, or drunk meeting attendee is plenty. Some of these are just "horses", why set that aside in favour of a "Unicorn"?

A Unicorn was indeed in the East end at the time, and he killed at least Polly and Annie. That's a very short list to start with. Including anyone else in that list who died because a mad unicorn was on the loose requires proof that, as of this point, doesn't seem to exist.

[Lipsky]

If you meant your first point, then the Canonical Group isn't a finite group, but still presumed to be by the same person. I don't think the evidence suggests one man killed even those Five, so extending beyond its borders is for me, like the Torso extension. Pure supposition based on a foundation of sand. Not sure what you are driving at with #2, (I assume there were other phases in your theory), but for number 3 I most heartily disagree. A working prostitute on the roads by herself, in the dark, is far more vulnerable target than in any other situation, so evidence who was in fact working the streets at the time can tell us not only who is most probably killed by the same man, but also that the killer of the working prostitutes like posed as a client, which of course means, they didn't know the killer.

1. By extension of the C5 I do not suggest the Torso killers, I am suggesting the pre-canonical spring attacks and the two post-canonical murders. Yes, committed by the same hand.
2. Phase I: first offensive (February-April 1888) --- 1st group linked with important missing street pimp/"street muscle" -- link to 1st landlord's property (spring attacks produced a s*itload of lies in the narratives of victims and witnesses).
Phase II: major terrorist offensive (August - November 1888) -- elimination of core group of scammers -- linked to 2nd landlord's properties
Phase III: clearing house with surviving periphery of victims (McKenzie, Coles) --- landlords unite forces by marriage of interest.
3. Of all the prostitutes in East End, our killer picked on a group of highly correlated victims.

[Michael W Richards]

If you meant your first point, then the Canonical Group isn't a finite group, but still presumed to be by the same person. I don't think the evidence suggests one man killed even those Five, so extending beyond its borders is for me, like the Torso extension. Pure supposition based on a foundation of sand. Not sure what you are driving at with #2, (I assume there were other phases in your theory), but for number 3 I most heartily disagree. A working prostitute on the roads by herself, in the dark, is far more vulnerable target than in any other situation, so evidence who was in fact working the streets at the time can tell us not only who is most probably killed by the same man, but also that the killer of the working prostitutes like posed as a client, which of course means, they didn't know the killer.

[Lipsky]

1. That's an explanation for the formation of a Canonical Group. Including a woman who in no way was "ripped" with women that were is just that kind of logic use, as is stringing together an extended group.

2. The fact that throats were cut isn't remarkable, the ones that were cut twice followed immediately by abdominal mutilations are.

3. You mention Victim selection which is a critical point in the post you responded to. ONLY 2 Canonicals leave evidence behind that they were actively working the streets when they are killed, that reveals the killers "angle" as you put it. He is a stranger to the women, and he is seeking their compliance in his act. He poses as someone harmless, that reveals he is not the mad drooling Leather Apron, or someone who is afraid to face the women he intends to kill. There is much to be learned from the virtual twin style murders of Polly and Annie, the 2 murders that we know were stranger-stranger, opportunity kills.

Hello Michael! Here's my two cents...

1. The Canonical Group is erroneous in my opinion. total toll includes pre-canonical victims and post-canonical (McKenzie, Coles).
2. The significance of the mutilations is in context with the terrorism of Phase II of the Operation (August-November 1888).
3. Victims were prostitutes, whether they were soliticiting or not, is irrelevant. The killer was introduced to them as an "ally" to the ongoing scam.

[Michael W Richards]

I do not quite follow the logic of these arguments.

1. It seems that "theories" are developed "as it goes" to fit the very strange and fragmented historical data. But this way you do not build a theory but a straightjacket that suffocates the historical evidence. I hope this doesnt sound rude, i am simply trying to comment on the reasoning of such arguments.

2. The M.O. is the throat. Focus on that. The mutilations are gradual, and the only explanation , the only reasonable explanation that presents a theory and not some deformed straightjacket, is that.. 3. motive, mutilations, and victim selection must converge in one direction which is only visible from the killer's angle:

these were hand-picked executions by a man who knew them all and could locate himself as close as they did, for the wholesale period of the murders, shortly prior, and possible shortly afterwards.

This is the only theory that holds water no matter how you choose to approach it, and this theory is more important than the actual name of the killer.

1. That's an explanation for the formation of a Canonical Group. Including a woman who in no way was "ripped" with women that were is just that kind of logic use, as is stringing together an extended group.

2. The fact that throats were cut isn't remarkable, the ones that were cut twice followed immediately by abdominal mutilations are.

3. You mention Victim selection which is a critical point in the post you responded to. ONLY 2 Canonicals leave evidence behind that they were actively working the streets when they are killed, that reveals the killers "angle" as you put it. He is a stranger to the women, and he is seeking their compliance in his act. He poses as someone harmless, that reveals he is not the mad drooling Leather Apron, or someone who is afraid to face the women he intends to kill. There is much to be learned from the virtual twin style murders of Polly and Annie, the 2 murders that we know were stranger-stranger, opportunity kills.

Its a shame that people want to see a long string of murders instead of what is right in front of them. Which is....2 murders by one crazed man, capable of playing a part with his victims first, one woman who is killed in a momentary lapse of judgement, another who is left with evidence that suggests the killer wanted to leave symbolic cuts on her face..at least the nose cutting, the chevrons may or may not be collateral damage...and one who is decimated in what appears to be a fit of anger that then leads to meaningless, superfluous deconstruction of the victim.

These are so different in some aspects that Im always surprised when they are just presumed linked by so many.

[Lipsky]

There is already sufficient evidence that Polly and Annie met this killers while they were soliciting, the only Canonical women known to have been doing so at the moment they met their killer. Does this mean that for certain these were then random pick-ups? Nothing is guaranteed. But its far more probable that we have 2 cases of stranger attacks than is apparent in the murder of Mary Kelly, for example. That to me is the only murder where the evidence points to someone she knew well.

In any case of murder, its far easier to solve where the victim and killer knew each other prior to that act. Killing strangers, in many ways, are very hard to solve murders, and very often they are serial in nature. We have that in victims 1 and 2. After that, a month and some very different apparent objectives make a continuing series by the same person less likely, particularly when you have victims killed by people they knew.

I do not quite follow the logic of these arguments.

It seems that "theories" are developed "as it goes" to fit the very strange and fragmented historical data. But this way you do not build a theory but a straightjacket that suffocates the historical evidence. I hope this doesnt sound rude, i am simply trying to comment on the reasoning of such arguments.

The M.O. is the throat. Focus on that. The mutilations are gradual, and the only explanation , the only reasonable explanation that presents a theory and not some deformed straightjacket, is that motive, mutilations, and victim selection must converge in one direction which is only visible from the killer's angle:

these were hand-picked executions by a man who knew them all and could locate himself as close as they did, for the wholesale period of the murders, shortly prior, and possible shortly afterwards.

This is the only theory that holds water no matter how you choose to approach it, and this theory is more important than the actual name of the killer.

[Michael W Richards]

There is already sufficient evidence that Polly and Annie met this killers while they were soliciting, the only Canonical women known to have been doing so at the moment they met their killer. Does this mean that for certain these were then random pick-ups? Nothing is guaranteed. But its far more probable that we have 2 cases of stranger attacks than is apparent in the murder of Mary Kelly, for example. That to me is the only murder where the evidence points to someone she knew well.

In any case of murder, its far easier to solve where the victim and killer knew each other prior to that act. Killing strangers, in many ways, are very hard to solve murders, and very often they are serial in nature. We have that in victims 1 and 2. After that, a month and some very different apparent objectives make a continuing series by the same person less likely, particularly when you have victims killed by people they knew.