Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ozzy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Ogdens’ Nut Gone Flake (Stereo) - YouTube

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lipsky
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lipsky
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lipsky
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Lipsky View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lipsky
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 09-25-2019, 01:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lipsky
    replied
    "No, intercity movement was uncommon to the poor and he needed to operate within his safe zone.
    Because he wasn't in control of his behavior, he was a psychopath.
    This man was terrorizing his neighborhood, his neighbors, the people he knew and walked with. That was the trill.
    He wasn't that cunning, just a disorganized opportunist who got lucky and would have been eventually collared.
    They were in fact random, as part of a particular sub group, which were easy targets.
    You are arguing that he is a professional by pointing out that he failed to act in a logical and most beneficial manner. That's paradoxical; he did all those things wrong, that you mention, because he was a frenzied, impulsive psychopath. Him doing it all wrong makes the argument."

    I think this is just a summed up version of arguments heard for decades, from those contemporary times, and still going nowhere.
    Some of them are contradicting each other.

    I would have to say that two reasons make serial killers stop: arrest or death. Zodiac being the most notable example of the latter category. John Douglas inserted a third option: laying low from fear of arrest --- but that can only last so long. Serial killers are not known to just "withdraw".

    A man "not in control of his behavior" , i.e. a "disorganized" murderer, would have been caught.

    A man who specifically chooses a limited number of victims, for a short period of time, is someone who "executes" and then stops, because the motive is not a killing spree on sex-driven impulse. This is proven de facto.

    I cannot accept that our man could pull off the Double Event yet he could not have moved beyond the limited geolocation of the murders to throw the police off-tracks.

    No explanation, rationale or proof can be provided for the tired argument of "random victims", when sheer common sense and circumstantial evidence point to the fact that most, if not all of them, knew each other, and that there is definetely "bizarre" behavior prior to murder with hinting at "sudden profit".

    He didn't do anything "wrong" --- immoral, vicious, ruthless, but how was anything he did "wrong" from his angle? He left no physical hard evidence, he could intimidate his victims, the witnesses of deliberate sightings and all the public with the exposure of the bodies. He intimidated Mishter Lusk and he was never caught, nor killed in action. From his inhuman angle, he was 100% successful.

    And he led subsequent researchers completely off-track, with ridiculous "royalist" theories or "random victims" narratives.

    Leave a comment:


  • APerno
    replied
    Originally posted by Lipsky View Post

    Just some random challenges for discourse sake.

    The Whitechapel murders cannot be viewed, in my opinion, as a progenitor for serial killing as we know it. I am sure this was not the killer's motive anyway, to leave some sort of legacy. This was a man on a mission. So the first thing to do is to identify that reason, and "reason" with it. If we simply label it as some random killing spree, then we cannot, by any means, answer why this was a set of attacks performed indeed, as you yourself correctly state, in an overcrowded slum.

    If the killings were random, the victims could have been picked up anywhere around London - god knows, the place was infested with prostitutes.

    No, intercity movement was uncommon to the poor and he needed to operate within his safe zone.

    And this could have easily been a missing persons case, why would our man limit himself to such a narrow space and time window?

    Because he wasn't in control of his behavior, he was a psychopath.

    As long as we persist to that old and tired notion of "random" killing, we cannot answer that recurring question: why so close? why form such a narrow corridor in space-time?

    This man was terrorizing his neighborhood, his neighbors, the people he knew and walked with. That was the trill.

    The man , proven to be ruthless and cunning, could not go to the effort of moving a bit around to take his time and complete the killings anywhere in London?

    He wasn't that cunning, just a disorganized opportunist who got lucky and would have been eventually collared.

    The recurring question actually dismantles both arguments of "random" killings and "gratification".

    Noone who seeks gratification bothers to put himself in a public spot, albeit "secluded", just for a few minutes of pleasure. Why not create a "safe place" and take his time, as Bundy did (outdoors) or Dahmer did (indoors)? They were indeed sex-driven killers. Our man was not. And the victims were not random, hence the necessity to strike in such close proximity, in a very short window of time (2 and a half yeas between early spring 88 attacks and the murder of Coles), with increased unnecessary risk that leaves little to no room for extended pleasure (IF that was the motive??? - i believe it wasnt).

    They were in fact random, as part of a particular sub group, which were easy targets.

    Special-ops is the only term that can describe a series of horrible crimes with NO HARD EVIDENCE from the killer, NO eyewitness except for the double event where both sightings (by jews and with antisemite references) were (in my opinion) deliberate. Clean-slate operations that a "lunatic" could n e v e r perform.

    You are arguing that he is a professional by pointing out that he failed to act in a logical and most beneficial manner. That's paradoxical; he did all those things wrong, that you mention, because he was a frenzied, impulsive psychopath. Him doing it all wrong makes the argument.

    Terrorism is used by me to explain why he left the bodies in convenient public exposure - including MJK.
    It seems this won't post unless I write something here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lipsky
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Why does there have to be a "terrorist" or "special-ops" angle to this? Why aren't the Whitechapel murders simply a progenitor for serial killing as we know it?



    Difference being that our killer operated in an overcrowded slum. He didn't have the luxury of storing bodies or transporting them to discreet locations like more modern serial killers. He did what he could with the time that he had.
    The Whitechapel murders cannot be viewed, in my opinion, as a progenitor for serial killing as we know it. I am sure this was not the killer's motive anyway, to leave some sort of legacy. This was a man on a mission. So the first thing to do is to identify that reason, and "reason" with it. If we simply label it as some random killing spree, then we cannot, by any means, answer why this was a set of attacks performed indeed, as you yourself correctly state, in an overcrowded slum.

    If the killings were random, the victims could have been picked up anywhere around London - god knows, the place was infested with prostitutes.

    And this could have easily been a missing persons case, why would our man limit himself to such a narrow space and time window?

    As long as we persist to that old and tired notion of "random" killing, we cannot answer that recurring question: why so close? why form such a narrow corridor in space-time?

    The man , proven to be ruthless and cunning, could not go to the effort of moving a bit around to take his time and complete the killings anywhere in London?

    The recurring question actually dismantles both arguments of "random" killings and "gratification".

    Noone who seeks gratification bothers to put himself in a public spot, albeit "secluded", just for a few minutes of pleasure. Why not create a "safe place" and take his time, as Bundy did (outdoors) or Dahmer did (indoors)? They were indeed sex-driven killers. Our man was not. And the victims were not random, hence the necessity to strike in such close proximity, in a very short window of time (2 and a half yeas between early spring 88 attacks and the murder of Coles), with increased unnecessary risk that leaves little to no room for extended pleasure (IF that was the motive??? - i believe it wasnt).

    Special-ops is the only term that can describe a series of horrible crimes with NO HARD EVIDENCE from the killer, NO eyewitness except for the double event where both sightings (by jews and with antisemite references) were (in my opinion) deliberate. Clean-slate operations that a "lunatic" could n e v e r perform.

    Terrorism is used by me to explain why he left the bodies in convenient public exposure - including MJK.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X