Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Tom_Wescott]

Just teasing but I'm actually about to read bank holiday. I can't seem to find any other books that's focus on the street aspect/criminal underworld. Very much looking forward to starting it

Glad to hear it and I hope you like it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[RockySullivan]

Sure! You're welcome to fund my research.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Just teasing but I'm actually about to read bank holiday. I can't seem to find any other books that's focus on the street aspect/criminal underworld. Very much looking forward to starting it

[Tom_Wescott]

Great can I wire the money now for a preorder?

Sure! You're welcome to fund my research.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[RockySullivan]

That will be covered in depth in my third book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Great can I wire the money now for a preorder?

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks Rosella, le grand, batchelor & lusk seem to be important pieces of the puzzle. I wonder how the lusk letter relates to le grand & batchelor

That will be covered in depth in my third book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[RockySullivan]

Charles Le Grand acted conjointly with the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee and, with Batchelor, oversaw their nightly patrols. Lusk was the President and Chairman of the WVC, of course.

Thanks Rosella, le grand, batchelor & lusk seem to be important pieces of the puzzle. I wonder how the lusk letter relates to le grand & batchelor

[Rosella]

Charles Le Grand acted conjointly with the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee and, with Batchelor, oversaw their nightly patrols. Lusk was the President and Chairman of the WVC, of course.

[RockySullivan]

What vigilance committe was LE grand connected to? Is there any connection between LE grand & lusk?

[Tom_Wescott]

Does the fact " The Times ( sept 7th ) mentioned " Letters from Hell" lend weight to the possibility that the Author was a reader of the Times newspaper ?

cheers

moonbegger

I still have a copy of that book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[moonbegger]

Does the fact " The Times ( sept 7th ) mentioned " Letters from Hell" lend weight to the possibility that the Author was a reader of the Times newspaper ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, Pat,

This is another aspect of this case where there seems to be some misconception, in part because of this statement regarding the kidney in a November 6 HO report by Chief Inspector Swanson:

...it is the kidney of a human adult, not charged with fluid, as it would have been in the case of a body handed over for the purposes of dissection to an hospital, but rather as it would be in a case where it was taken from a body not so destined...

What Swanson was referring to was the practice of injecting whole cadavers with formalin to preserve them for anatomical examinations at medical schools and institutions - basically embalming the body to inhibit decomposition.

Formaldehyde ( a gas) was discovered just prior to the American Civil War by the Russian scientist, Alexander Butlerov. He noticed the distinct odor while attempting the synthesis of methylene glycol. Formalin is a mixture of formaldehyde, water and a little methanol (wood alcohol) to keep it from polymerizing. It was cheaper than "spirits of wine" but, as Prosector noted on another thread, had a strong odor. It also had the effect of firming up tissues so they could be more easily sliced for slide samples in laboratories.

"Spirits of wine," as it was called, is nothing more than ethanol, distilled from the fermented juice of fruits or grain. Its been around for centuries. We know it in its more palatable forms, such as brandy, vodka, whisky...etc. This is just the pure distilled product before it is diluted, enhanced with flavors or stored and aged in barrels for eventual consumption. And it didn't necessarily have to be distilled from actual wine. Any fermented juice or 'mash" would do. The end product was still ethyl alcohol, as opposed to methyl alcohol (wood alcohol), which is more volatile and poisonous.

Spirits of wine had been used to preserve organic specimens since at least the 1600's and was still used to preserve individual specimens in the 1880's. Darwin preserved his specimens in this. Hospitals and medical institutions had plenty and it could readily be purchased at pharmacies and liquor establishments - still can, except pharmaceutical grade ethanol has acetone added so it will make you sick if you decide to drink it.

In other words, nothing definitive can be determined as to who sent the kidney piece by the fact that it was immersed in plain old alcohol, except it didn't come out of a cadaver injected with formalin. The statement to the press by Dr. Brown suggesting that it was apparently put in the solution while fresh - before decomposition had started - and that it had been so immersed for about a week, says more than anything - at least to me - if Brown actually was able to determine this.

Thanks hunter!
Appreciate it. I did not know that sprits of wine was used by medical institutions at the time for preserving. I assumed the writer of the letter was implying he preserved it in plain old drinking alcohol of some form.

[Hunter]

It would have been normal for a kidney already used for examination purposes to be split longitudinally as well as having been placed in spirits (ethanol.)

Hi hunter
Thanks! But wasn't it preserved in spirits of wine? And not the usual medical preservative?

Was it ever discovered what spirit the kidney was preserved in?
Thanks
Pat

Hi Abby, Pat,

This is another aspect of this case where there seems to be some misconception, in part because of this statement regarding the kidney in a November 6 HO report by Chief Inspector Swanson:

...it is the kidney of a human adult, not charged with fluid, as it would have been in the case of a body handed over for the purposes of dissection to an hospital, but rather as it would be in a case where it was taken from a body not so destined...

What Swanson was referring to was the practice of injecting whole cadavers with formalin to preserve them for anatomical examinations at medical schools and institutions - basically embalming the body to inhibit decomposition.

Formaldehyde ( a gas) was discovered just prior to the American Civil War by the Russian scientist, Alexander Butlerov. He noticed the distinct odor while attempting the synthesis of methylene glycol. Formalin is a mixture of formaldehyde, water and a little methanol (wood alcohol) to keep it from polymerizing. It was cheaper than "spirits of wine" but, as Prosector noted on another thread, had a strong odor. It also had the effect of firming up tissues so they could be more easily sliced for slide samples in laboratories.

"Spirits of wine," as it was called, is nothing more than ethanol, distilled from the fermented juice of fruits or grain. Its been around for centuries. We know it in its more palatable forms, such as brandy, vodka, whisky...etc. This is just the pure distilled product before it is diluted, enhanced with flavors or stored and aged in barrels for eventual consumption. And it didn't necessarily have to be distilled from actual wine. Any fermented juice or 'mash" would do. The end product was still ethyl alcohol, as opposed to methyl alcohol (wood alcohol), which is more volatile and poisonous.

Spirits of wine had been used to preserve organic specimens since at least the 1600's and was still used to preserve individual specimens in the 1880's. Darwin preserved his specimens in this. Hospitals and medical institutions had plenty and it could readily be purchased at pharmacies and liquor establishments - still can, except pharmaceutical grade ethanol has acetone added so it will make you sick if you decide to drink it.

In other words, nothing definitive can be determined as to who sent the kidney piece by the fact that it was immersed in plain old alcohol, except it didn't come out of a cadaver injected with formalin. The statement to the press by Dr. Brown suggesting that it was apparently put in the solution while fresh - before decomposition had started - and that it had been so immersed for about a week, says more than anything - at least to me - if Brown actually was able to determine this.

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha
I doubt it. Everything we know suggest he killed the as quickly and silently as possible. He was a post mortem mutilator not a sadist/torturer.
Also, if he was torturing them, keeping them alive etc., it greatly increased the liklihood of them fighting back, screaming out etc., and as far as we know, no one ever heard a struggle. Schwartz did with stride and a man but I Beleive that was an out of the ordinary attack by the ripper who lost his cool with stride because she would not go with him into an alley, not an attempt to torture.

Hi Abby

I only mentioned it coz Nicols was believed to have been still breathing and of course Eddowes eyelids being cut

Time would have been something the ripper would have been mindful of, but having said that he does seem like a brazen risk taker

[Paddy]

Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.

Has anybody got a list of the names of the Vigilance Comittee?
I was just wondering what proportion were Jewish?
Was it ever discovered what spirit the kidney was preserved in?

Thanks
Pat

[Abby Normal]

I agree with Abby that the ripper ate the kidney like he claimed. I assume it would be not well known at all that post-mortem mutilators are more likely to be cannibals than other serial killers....but the writer of the lusk letter if it was a hoax would be a lucky guess. Was there any talk of cannibalism in the press reports before the letter? Was the rumor on the street that the ripper was taking organs to eat them? Or did the letter spark this idea? I still think it's the most likely scenario for why the ripper took the organs...I do think he ate them.

Hi rocky
Thanks. And those are great questions that I don't know.

Does any of our intrepid researchers know if there was anything in the press that the ripper was a cannibal prior to the from hell letter?