Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Doctor X]

We know its human, we can at least credit the examiners with that much professionalism.

Can we? The problem is we do not know the condition of the kidney. "Microscopic examination" means . . . what? Did they section it? Stain it? Or did he just look at it under a low power microscope and say, "yup! Human!"?

Now, to be fair, I think one should speculate it was human unless someone can show that an improperly preserved kidney could appear as a human kidney with glomerulonephritis.

And . . . whilst we speculate . . . since it is described as half of a kidney with a trimmed renal artery, could it be a stolen specimen stuck in spirits for a bit?

Who knows?

This reminds me of any mythic reconstruction--you have to start with some assumptions, and the argument is about as solid as the assumptions.

Of course if we could come up with some case for it being Eddowes kidney, given he above topics we can then deduce the letters from a poor immigrant, probably a Russian Jew, about 5'6 who keeps a parrot as a pet

Raven!!

RAVEN!!!

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Vigilantee]

I do agree its all probalistic speculation though, everything is, so theres no such thing as proof to contrast it with Anything goes, probably....

[Vigilantee]

So it was badly preserved in spirits, surely no medical guy would do that, even a porter. We know its human, we can at least credit the examiners with that much professionalism. To me that makes it more likely genuine. Where else did it come from? Unless the torso murderer fancied a laugh?

Of course if we could come up with some case for it being Eddowes kidney, given he above topics we can then deduce the letters from a poor immigrant, probably a Russian Jew, about 5'6 who keeps a parrot as a pet

PtV

[Doctor X]

Quick thing: the Lusk letter is different from the "From Hell." It does not mention Hell at all. This is what I get when I pontificate without the sources in front of me. . . .

What's the evidence for bad preservation?

It was preserved in spirits. Which did not preserve it!

It would be interesting to chart exactly who handled it from the time Lusk recieved it. So we can see if anyone could have trimmed part of the artery off.

To my knowledge [Stolen from Sugden, whose name he cannot ever bother to spell correctly.--Ed.], Lusk with Aarons and Harris took it to Dr. Fredrick Wiles, who was not in, so it was examined by his assistant, Mr F. S Reed. Reed then brought it over to Dr. Thomas Openshaw for examination under a microscope, (Sugden, 263-64).

Of course Jack could have before he sent it (if he did) but then the account of the remaining artery would be bogus.

The trimming rather points against it being Jack. "Points" but does not prove, of course.

Yes, my intuition here is based on 'kidney = great hoax job (maybe)', 'letter = rubbish hoax (maybe)' therefore somethings odd here, why waste ones effort if your not going to follow through a do a complete hoax...

I do not know . . . again, it is "fooling" people to this day if it is a hoax. We are certainly discussing it.

It makes me suspicious in opposite direction.

Yeah . . . one can make arguments in both directions.

No he worked for the Mob, they werent around )

Ah . . . but they were . . . if you believe the Mafia exists . . . and Oswald caught a ride from some loser of a janitor, his anal-retentive holographic nemesis, a cat, and a robot with issues.

It all . . . comes together. . . .

Anyways, the problem with the evidence is we can read it in too many directions, and it is difficult to provide a definitive response.

I doubt he wrote the graffiti, sounds like typical racist slurs (though maybe with a grain of truth this time). The idea it was 'fresh', whatever that means, was pure speculation. But I do think he stopped by it for some reason, and find the idea that it was 'blurred' and the apron was dropped beneath it a bit suggestive. Did he try to erase it, but get interupted? Thats another post tho...

Yet, a lot of other [Straw--Ed.] Ripperologists feel he did. Of course, thanks to a failure to photograph it or comment on it--fresh or not--means their is no way to analyze it. Imagine if you could compare the handwriting on the Lusk and graffito? Of course we cannot do that.

Could be taken either way. Apparently there was a Russian Nihilist group called Hell, . . .

As above, that is a different letter. I do not think many feel it is legitimate.

Waits for 27 posters to descend. . . .

Well even it was from him probably doesnt take us anywhere....

Sadly it does not. Unless you could recover DNA . . . use a database . . . find a relative in the multitudes of people . . . this will all happen after we get our ponies.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Vigilantee]

>Probably a lot from simply being an a-hole to being able to think you got one on somebody. Some find such things funny. I just read a review of a few decades long controversy in scholarship--lots of papers written back and forth--which seems to show that, yes, a scholar committed a hoax and left "jokes" in the work. Why? The scholar was that type of guy--thought he was smarter and cleverer than his critics. The guy responsible for the Nessie photo everyone sees apparently felt similarly.

Exactly, he wants to prove he's clever. And I still think the letter isn't, it just rides on the kidney, so to speak.

>One thing that struck me when I first got into this was how many letters there are. Granted nearly all of them are obvious hoaxes; however, that simply means a lot of people wrote them.

Undoubtedly, but I think even the rubbish ones mostly went along with the Jack name. Which proves them as fakes.


>I guess it would depend on my interest and intent. Actually, the Lusk letter is not a bad job. You read the news papers--get the reports--send the letter. This is the problem with the Lusk letter--a great hoax would be a piece of kidney! One can wonder why Jack did not send something else--like one of the suppose rings he took from a previous victim? But that is speculation on motivations . . . and we all know where that leads us!

Rings have value, he's obviously poor

>Nowadays it is much harder to get away with such things.

What faking evidence? OMG modern science will collapse lol.

[Vigilantee]

>Which assumes he could tell the difference. Sure . . . if he finds a bottle marked "Abbey Normal" [Stop that!--Ed.] "Female Kidney"--but the problem is it was not properly preserved. So he did not get it from a post-mortem room.


Hmmmmmm, thats an interesting point. And from my limited experience in working in a hospital lab connected to post mortems the organs and their owners are very strictly cross referenced and the porters never really got their hands on something like this. Of course it could be different then.

What's the evidence for bad preservation? If its not from a post mortem where the hell he get it from!? Murder for a hoax seems a bit extreme!


>Right . . . anyways, the point to all of my blather is that the dudes back then could not tell as much about the kidney. How could they know if the "ginny kidney" with "Bright's Disease" was the same set for Eddowes? Answer: they could not.

>Now, again, that does not mean it was NOT her kidney; one just cannot conclude it is based on the information extant.

Its certainly doesnt identify it as her kidney. It would be interesting to chart exactly who handled it from the time Lusk recieved it. So we can see if anyone could have trimmed part of the artery off. Of course Jack could have before he sent it (if he did) but then the account of the remaining artery would be bogus.



>Yes. I would not be surprised if people looked at the fatty to cirrhotic livers and concluded the two were connected. You are correct about her state of health.

Given the views of the period yes.


>No problem! I got excited too, because certainly what is described fits the expectations. However--to my recollection of Sudgen because my sources are not handy--there were reports early enough that a hoaxer could figure it out. Does not mean he did, but it leaves an "out."

Yes, my intuition here is based on 'kidney = great hoax job (maybe)', 'letter = rubbish hoax (maybe)' therefore somethings odd here, why waste ones effort if your not going to follow through a do a complete hoax...



>Then he should have gotten it correct. However, the kidney was stored in the wrong medium for hospital post mortem. Regarding spelling, it could be a case of someone trying to fake uneducated spelling without realizing the more common mistakes. Not saying it is, just that I am suspicious.

Yes it could, but then why write it in such an obviously formal and clerkish style, 'Sur' and 'signed', and that 'sur' is an absurd deliberate typo for a hoaxer, though I've seen similar phonetic spellings in non English speakers.
It makes me suspicious in opposite direction.



>To which . . . someone could claim he intentionally stored it in the wrong medium . . . and we are rushing down trails of assumptions that can only lead to the Masons and Lee Harvey Oswald!

No he worked for the Mob, they werent around )


>I do not know . . . we are still questioning it. Sudgen regards it as "possibly" genuine--he notes the arguments for and against. To my Newbie Knowledge, it is considered the most "probable"--which means 27 posters are going to descend upon me to denounce that!!

Its easier to criticize than to build a case, lesser minds trying to be clever will always take that route


>It reminds me, a bit, of a few Trolls I have encountered on OTHER BOARDS who try to pretend to be ethnic and write in an "accent" which people do not actually do when they write in a foreign language. I will not recreate it since examples tend to be racist Trolls, but I think you get the drift.

Sure.

>Which . . . goes back to the whole graffito argument--was it legitimate--a lot of people feel it was--and was Jack trying to distract or make a statement.

I doubt he wrote the graffiti, sounds like typical racist slurs (though maybe with a grain of truth this time). The idea it was 'fresh', whatever that means, was pure speculation. But I do think he stopped by it for some reason, and find the idea that it was 'blurred' and the apron was dropped beneath it a bit suggestive. Did he try to erase it, but get interupted? Thats another post tho...



>With both--Lusk letter and graffito--the thing that gets me is that he did not write again. I would think that a serial killer like Jack, who is willing to taunt authorities and a head of a "vigilance committee" would want to keep writing. That is an assumption, of course! He may have had a bunch of packages with bits of Mary Kelly ready to deliver when the Loch Ness Monster got him!

Maybe he was just amused by the hoaxes, and wanted to have a go himself, to stop the imposters getting the limelight, and prove his letter the 'real one' .
It was a novel idea at the time. By the kelly job I think he was pretty paranoid and wouldnt risk it.



>I rather read that as he is from "Hell' because he is a devil/daemon who resides there and does evil like poke people with pointy sticks and make them listen to country-western music, and who has taken a sabbatical. In other words, I think it is just a boast. If legitimate, the letter is a cocky boast, not a emo "I am ALONE . . . in HELL" sort of letter.

Could be taken either way. Apparently there was a Russian Nihilist group called Hell, its suicide bombers used to disfigure themselves and taunt victims before blowing themselves to bits, made 'al qaeda' look like wussies...


>I am sort of there too. I tend to remain skeptical since it is sooo tempting to believe something from Jack remains. That always leaves the promise that somehow, someway, it can lead to him.


Well even it was from him probably doesnt take us anywhere....

Prowler, the Vigilantee

[Doctor X]

1) Whats the motive of the hoaxer?

Probably a lot from simply being an a-hole to being able to think you got one on somebody. Some find such things funny. I just read a review of a few decades long controversy in scholarship--lots of papers written back and forth--which seems to show that, yes, a scholar committed a hoax and left "jokes" in the work. Why? The scholar was that type of guy--thought he was smarter and cleverer than his critics. The guy responsible for the Nessie photo everyone sees apparently felt similarly.

One thing that struck me when I first got into this was how many letters there are. Granted nearly all of them are obvious hoaxes; however, that simply means a lot of people wrote them.

2) If you were going to create a convincing hoax, given the available templates and assumptions of the period in question, how would you do it? And would you do it like the hoaxer did?

I guess it would depend on my interest and intent. Actually, the Lusk letter is not a bad job. You read the news papers--get the reports--send the letter. This is the problem with the Lusk letter--a great hoax would be a piece of kidney! One can wonder why Jack did not send something else--like one of the suppose rings he took from a previous victim? But that is speculation on motivations . . . and we all know where that leads us!

Nowadays it is much harder to get away with such things.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Of course, but I doubt the hoaxer is a kidney expert, why take a male kidney and risk exposure when there's plenty of women in the post mortem room?

Which assumes he could tell the difference. Sure . . . if he finds a bottle marked "Abbey Normal" [Stop that!--Ed.] "Female Kidney"--but the problem is it was not properly preserved. So he did not get it from a post-mortem room.

Yes sorry its late here, that should have read 'necrotic'. But I was using a term from another post. Lets stay safe and say it was a 'ginny kidney'.

No problem! The reason for the precision is that IF the artery were necrotic, that would mean it was not . . . well . . . "fresh!" Necrotic artery means necrotic kidney . . . which means dead kidney . . . which tends to mean dead person. Not trying to be pedantic [Just pompous.--Ed.], but I wanted to make sure I did not miss that!

"Nephrotic" is not quite the right term either. She is described as having "Bright's Disease" in Sudgen--who loves his old terms without defining them--which is an old eponym for glomerulonephritis--inflammation of the wee constituents of the kidney . . . cause by many things . . . which would put everyone to sleep! At that stage, they would not know, but as you note and others, people commonly misattributed it to alcohol.

Nephrosis is the leakage of protein into the urine--something the kidneys are not suppose to do.

Right . . . anyways, the point to all of my blather is that the dudes back then could not tell as much about the kidney. How could they know if the "ginny kidney" with "Bright's Disease" was the same set for Eddowes? Answer: they could not.

Now, again, that does not mean it was NOT her kidney; one just cannot conclude it is based on the information extant.

I'm of the understanding the idea that kidneys are damaged by alchohol is a bit of a myth?

Yes. I would not be surprised if people looked at the fatty to cirrhotic livers and concluded the two were connected. You are correct about her state of health.

I'm just saying here the Lusk kidney was the kind of Kidney one would expect Eddowes to have. Her post mortem was rather badly reported by today standards so we can't be certain. My arguement is based on probabilities not certainties. I think certainties are going to be impossible 100 years on.

No problem! I got excited too, because certainly what is described fits the expectations. However--to my recollection of Sudgen because my sources are not handy--there were reports early enough that a hoaxer could figure it out. Does not mean he did, but it leaves an "out."

Well, someone working in a hospital whose post mortems include women like Eddowes would be exposed to the slang surely?.

Then he should have gotten it correct. However, the kidney was stored in the wrong medium for hospital post mortem. Regarding spelling, it could be a case of someone trying to fake uneducated spelling without realizing the more common mistakes. Not saying it is, just that I am suspicious.

It may be contrived, but if it is and from a 'medical student' its apallingly badly done (hope he didnt qualify!).

Why I do not buy it unless he is faking it. Then, again, he stored the kidney in the wrong medium.

To which . . . someone could claim he intentionally stored it in the wrong medium . . . and we are rushing down trails of assumptions that can only lead to the Masons and Lee Harvey Oswald!

For someone who may be trying to create a convincing hoax (by including a kidney) they did a terrible job with the letter.

I do not know . . . we are still questioning it. Sudgen regards it as "possibly" genuine--he notes the arguments for and against. To my Newbie Knowledge, it is considered the most "probable"--which means 27 posters are going to descend upon me to denounce that!!

Of course this argument doesn't discount an attention seeking porter who thinks Jack is a mad surgeon or something (maybe the loopy guy he has to work for).

Yeah, exactly!

It reminds me, a bit, of a few Trolls I have encountered on OTHER BOARDS who try to pretend to be ethnic and write in an "accent" which people do not actually do when they write in a foreign language. I will not recreate it since examples tend to be racist Trolls, but I think you get the drift.

Which . . . goes back to the whole graffito argument--was it legitimate--a lot of people feel it was--and was Jack trying to distract or make a statement.

With both--Lusk letter and graffito--the thing that gets me is that he did not write again. I would think that a serial killer like Jack, who is willing to taunt authorities and a head of a "vigilance committee" would want to keep writing. That is an assumption, of course! He may have had a bunch of packages with bits of Mary Kelly ready to deliver when the Loch Ness Monster got him!

They only write disorganised if they have schizophrenia, and theres no sign of that I agree.

I do not know . . . have you read anything by Sean Hannity or Hillary Clinton [No politics!--Ed.]? Right, sorry.

Why should the murderer be 'from Hell' unless he was suffering some torment, . . .

I rather read that as he is from "Hell' because he is a devil/daemon who resides there and does evil like poke people with pointy sticks and make them listen to country-western music, and who has taken a sabbatical. In other words, I think it is just a boast. If legitimate, the letter is a cocky boast, not a emo "I am ALONE . . . in HELL" sort of letter.

I think the scales of probabilty are tipped in favour of it being genuine, but only slightly.

Look, we cannot have a flame war if we agree!

I am sort of there too. I tend to remain skeptical since it is sooo tempting to believe something from Jack remains. That always leaves the promise that somehow, someway, it can lead to him.

. . . and we all get ice cream and ponies!

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Vigilantee]

Some factors I think are important in assessing hoax letters

1) Whats the motive of the hoaxer?

2) If you were going to create a convincing hoax, given the available templates and assumptions of the period in question, how would you do it? And would you do it like the hoaxer did?

[Vigilantee]

>There is no way to assume it was female. It was only part of a kidney and >male and female kidneys overlap in range.

Of course, but I doubt the hoaxer is a kidney expert, why take a male kidney and risk exposure when there's plenty of women in the post mortem room?


>Arteries do not become "nephrotic." Technically, neither do kidneys--that is >a condition of loss of protein in the urine. Do you mean "necrotic?" If the >artery was necrotic the kidney would have been necrotic as well . . . and >the original owner would not have been wandering about.

Yes sorry its late here, that should have read 'necrotic'. But I was using a term from another post. Lets stay safe and say it was a 'ginny kidney'.


>I may misunderstand you; do you mean alcohol causing the nephrosis?

I'm of the understanding the idea that kidneys are damaged by alchohol is a bit of a myth? It was merely thought so at time. However it does seem to be the case that people of Eddowes class were in appalling health, which would have included kidney degeneration. It would be surprising if her kidneys were normal, I bet her liver was in a state too.


>Not really. Currently, there is no way to determine how close in pathology >the Lusk kidney and Eddowes' remaining kidney were. Does not mean they >were not related/the same. One simply cannot make this conclusion, >however.

I'm just saying here the Lusk kidney was the kind of Kidney one would expect Eddowes to have. Her post mortem was rather badly reported by today standards so we can't be certain. My arguement is based on probabilities not certainties. I think certainties are going to be impossible 100 years on.



>How so? Those could be intentional errors. I am not claiming they [b]are[>/b]. It seems a very phoney style to me, but that is my opinion, of >course. Incidentally, educated men make the greater mistakes when trying >to ape a style--they do not know the slang or the mistakes.

Well, someone working in a hospital whose post mortems include women like Eddowes would be exposed to the slang surely?. This just doesnt sound like a letter written by a 'commoner', the language is wrong, on the other hand the spelling is too bad for someone more educated. I'd expect a much better simulcra from an observant person, and if they are not pretending to be from a lower class why the bad spelling? It may be contrived, but if it is and from a 'medical student' its apallingly badly done (hope he didnt qualify!). For someone who may be trying to create a convincing hoax (by including a kidney) they did a terrible job with the letter. I find it impossible to believe that level of incompetence. To be it reads like an uneducated writer trying to sound 'posh', as such a writer undoubtedly would. Someone like Jack is going to have a huge ego. Of course this argument doesn't discount an attention seeking porter who thinks Jack is a mad surgeon or something (maybe the loopy guy he has to work for).




>Not at all. "Genuine psychos" write more disorganized. Hoaxers use similar >terms. "Hell" was a big thing back then. You can interpret this in a number >of ways that support and rebut your assumptions.

They only write disorganised if they have schizophrenia, and theres no sign of that I agree. But I dont think Jack's a schizo I think he's a sociopath with some degenerating mental condition which includes extreme aggression.

Why should the murderer be 'from Hell' unless he was suffering some torment,
none of the other hoaxers assume that he's portrayed as a devious and successful killer.

I think the scales of probabilty are tipped in favour of it being genuine, but only slightly.

[Doctor X]

A few things, Vigilantee:

1) The kidney was nephrotic, and probably female (age indeterminate).

There is no way to assume it was female. It was only part of a kidney and male and female kidneys overlap in range.

The nephrotic artery account may or may not be true, . . .

Arteries do not become "nephrotic." Technically, neither do kidneys--that is a condition of loss of protein in the urine. Do you mean "necrotic?" If the artery was necrotic the kidney would have been necrotic as well . . . and the original owner would not have been wandering about.

2) Eddowes more than likely had a nephrotic kidney, although not alcohol related, many of her background did.

I may misunderstand you; do you mean alcohol causing the nephrosis?

3) The hoaxer would have had to have access to recent post mortems of bodies of the Eddowes type, or be Jack.

Not really. Currently, there is no way to determine how close in pathology the Lusk kidney and Eddowes' remaining kidney were. Does not mean they were not related/the same. One simply cannot make this conclusion, however.

1) Its not written in the obviously phoney style of the Dear Boss letters, but merely contains spelling errors. I dont think the writer is trying to fake a stereotyped character like the other hoaxers do.

How so? Those could be intentional errors. I am not claiming they are. It seems a very phoney style to me, but that is my opinion, of course. Incidentally, educated men make the greater mistakes when trying to ape a style--they do not know the slang or the mistakes.

2) Its not signed Jack!

Really does not indicate anything.

3) The wording, particularly 'from hell' is unique, and fits the language of a genuine psycho...

Not at all. "Genuine psychos" write more disorganized. Hoaxers use similar terms. "Hell" was a big thing back then. You can interpret this in a number of ways that support and rebut your assumptions.

Conclusion - Its Jack..

Sorry, you cannot conclude that.

You may very well think that.

--J. "I Couldn't Possibly Comment" D.

[Vigilantee]

Why the From Hell letter is genuine

The main indication is the kidney of course.

1) The kidney was nephrotic, and probably female (age indeterminate). I doubt a hoaxer looked for the 'right kind of kidney', so its probably from someone similar if not identical to Eddowes. The nephrotic artery account may or may not be true, Brown may have claimed it was trimmed but was not the first to examine it.

2) Eddowes more than likely had a nephrotic kidney, although not alcohol related, many of her background did. The Renal artery tale remains suggestive and not unlikely.

3) The hoaxer would have had to have access to recent post mortems of bodies of the Eddowes type, or be Jack. Possibly a doctor, medical student or porter.

As for the letter

1) Its not written in the obviously phoney style of the Dear Boss letters, but merely contains spelling errors. I dont think the writer is trying to fake a stereotyped character like the other hoaxers do. It reads like an uneducated man trying to sound lower middle class, or a lower middle class person whose English is bad. I don't think its the disguised hand of a doctor or medical student therefore. Possibly a porter?

2) Its not signed Jack! The hoaxer has gone out of their way to get a kidney then makes the stupid mistake of making the letter different to all the others, that were thought genuine at the time. I doubt it!

3) The wording, particularly 'from hell' is unique, and fits the language of a genuine psycho...

Conclusion - Its Jack..

[Doctor X]

Part of the fun of all of this--writing as a "Newbie" to responsible study of the case--is all of the speculation.

I think he screwed up the uterus extraction. However, from Jack's perspective, that may not have been an issue--taking a uterus without damaging anything else.

With the kidney, he would have had to at least made an effort to locate it. Okay . . . he could be sweeping his hand in the cavity after he removed the guts and thought "cool! What's this?!"

--J.D.

Hi JD,

The section had been immersed in spirits to act as a preservative, but not in glycerin, which would have been used to preserve organs used for teaching or studying.

I think its relevant to discussions that Dr Frederick Gordon Brown used this specific order of words in this line, when asked by Crawford what was taken away....

"The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out."

I personally find it revealing that he would phrase it that way...indicating to me anyway, that he may have believed the uterus to be the primary objective, and the kidney, although the only complete organ of the two, an additional target.

Perhaps he just did that because that was the order of extraction, but I do think its odd to list what he takes away intact second, after the partial uterus.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

As for identifying human versus animal kidney there are morphological differences I think that were recognizable at that time.

I mentioned pig kidney specifically because it is morphologically very similar to the human kidney, albeit with smaller pyramids (source: Racusen, Solez, Burdick, "Kidney Transplant Rejection" (1998) - found on Google books). I daresay that Openshaw may well have been able to tell the difference, but it is no means impossible that even he may have been - ahem! - "gulled".