Graphologist Claims Tumblety wrote the Lusk Letter

[halomanuk]

Heres a wild shot in the dark....what if the author knew that Lusk had an aversion to raw organs...maybe some story from his past, and the fact that its sent isnt to confirm he killed Kate as much as it is designed to just rattle Lusk?

Closer to home than you think Mike,don't forget that Lusk's wife died from Kidney failure previously,so what better item to send to a man that has lost his wife than a symbol of his wife's death.

Sometimes i think 'why Lusk ?',being chairman of the vigilance committy doesn't wash for me when i think about it occassionally.

[Christine]

The exact date and place of Tumblety's birth is not known; some sources say Ireland, others say Canada. Someone else may know the definitive answer and hopefully he or she will chime in. The date was 1833, or near 1833. The family moved to Rochester, New York some time before 1844. So at least one theory has him living in Ireland until he's ten or eleven years old. This is the theory to which Dresbold subscribes.

If Tumblety had a marked Irish accent, I don't think there are any known surviving comments on it.

[truebluedub]

quick point

Why would a man, who was at least raised in America and who spent the bulk of his life there (taking in both the US and Canada) have an Irish accent? Or reflect one in their writing?

Chris Lowe

[Christine]

Hi all, I've been away, but I did finally manage to get a hold of Dresbold's book. She has 35 pages on the Lusk letter, and I obviously can't reproduce them all here, so I'll try and hit on some of the high points and I'll answer any questions you might have.

The majority of the book is dedicated to interesting-but-unscientific claims, like "you can judge the size of a person's ego by the size of his 'I' relative to his other letters." She uses a lot of techniques like this to claim that the Lusk author was a violent bisexual sex maniac. I pretty much ignored claims like this since she had nothing to back them up other than supposed similar traits in the writing of known violent (or bisexual or oversexed) people. However, this is enough to convince her that the Lusk author was the Ripper.

She had two samples of Tumblety's writing, a letter to Hall Caine from 1875, and a signature on his will from 1903. The signature is barely legible, and she doesn't spend much time on it.

She then goes over certain letters formations in Lusk and tries to match them to formations in Caine. I honestly didn't find this section convincing. For example, she gives examples of lowercase 'r' that look like a 'v' for both hands. But Tumblety's 'r' is spread out, a straight up and down line connected to a 45 degree line going from bottom left to upper right, then sharp turn into a horizontal line across. The Lusk 'r' has a little horizontal shelf on top, then a vertical line going down, then a line going straight up that curves into a high hook to make the top of the 'r'. Other supposed matching letters have similar discrepancies.

The overall appearance of the two samples is completely unlike. Tumblety's writing is full of curvy, loopy letters. It slants more than Lusk. Lusk's lines tilt up, and Tumblety's tilt down. The upper zone and lower zone of Tumblety's letters are large compared to his middle zone. For example, letters like l, h, and t, and all capital letters take up much more space than letters like a, e, n, o, r. Likewise y, g, p, are large. (The model is that your capitals and upper zone letters are exactly twice as high as your aenor.) These are features that she makes much of elsewhere in the book.

She has a similar section on the Jon-Benet Ramsey ransom note, where she compares features like this in the note to Patty Ramsey's writing, and this section is much more convincing. However even that was not considered definitive enough to arrest Patty Ramsey.

She address John Douglas' opinion on the spelling (Irish influenced), but never considers the inconsistencies in misspelling that have led so many to decide this was a hoax. Instead she concludes that the author was a semi-literate Irishman.

She has a suspect's section. She mentions Sickert, but dismisses him. The only reasoning she gives is that someone can paint a picture of a murder without being a murderer. Fair enough, but hardly the only reason to dismiss Sickert.

Kosminski she dismisses because she doesn't think he could have been literate enough in English to write Lusk. I'm not sure this is true, as a man literate in Polish and Yiddish who had lived in England for years could probably have been self-educated enough to write Lusk. I've never seen any data on Kosminski's schooling (in England or in Poland) in any case.

Prince Eddy she dismisses because he was well educated. Again, the possibility that someone might deliberately dumb down their language is not considered.

Klosowski (Chapman) she dismisses because the Lusk letter does not have "poisoner's handwriting." According to her it should be extremely neat and mechanical. Does anyone have an actual sample of his writing?

For Maybrick she repeats the evidence that he could not have written the diary because the handwriting is not Maybrick's. It doesn't match the Lusk letter either.

Finally, Tumblety fits her profile of the Lusk author. I'll repeat it here, even though I don't give it much credence.

1. He spoke with a Cockney or Irish accent.
2. He had a brief or insignificant relationship with his mother.
3. He had a strained relationship with his father.
4. He was an extrovert.
5. He had extreme sexual anger.
6. He was bisexual.
7. He was violent.
8. He had a fear of abandonment.
9. He was semiliterate, with a rudimentary, grade-school education.
10. He had a chronic illness.
11. He was unkempt, and had a nondescript, dirty appearance.

She doesn't even consider any of the other suspects, many of whom are obviously much more likely than Maybrick, Sickert, and Eddy.

Hopefully this helps.

I think this communique is either the most elaborate hoax of the bunch, and we perhaps dont know the context...maybe Lusk did,....or it was from Jack.

The 2 things that I think are most promising in that regard are the addressee, and the signature...or lack of one. I think a hoaxer would have used "Jack the Ripper",...it had been public knowledge since just after the Double Event....and I believe Lusk rather than Police or press shows us that it being publicly known was probably not assumed by the hoaxer,..he could have read it, saw the section, and tossed them both in the bin.

The author hints when hes finished he might give himself up to Lusk....at least he mentions his knife. I think thats an indication that Jack may be the local man everyone thinks he was, if by the real Ripper. He may even know Lusk.

Heres a wild shot in the dark....what if the author knew that Lusk had an aversion to raw organs...maybe some story from his past, and the fact that its sent isnt to confirm he killed Kate as much as it is designed to just rattle Lusk?

Oh yeah....and one third reason why I like this as a possible real letter, there is no mention or reference to 2 killings that night. I dont think Jack killed Stride, but I do think a hoaxer would claim both, so its a good fit for me.

What if, thats all.

Best regards

[DVV]

Hi Halomanuk,
my own thoughts about this bloody kidney are that...
hmmmm...
IMO, it's a myth, and I don't understand how it comes that it has not yet been ascertained as such.
And so, I keep a little room for doubt - a very little one, just like that of Mary.

Amitiés,
David

[halomanuk]

Hi David,
that's what i meant,what she confirms is what i thought,it wasn't conclusive by a long shot.

Thanks for your explanation Mike....frustrating but what i thought again !!

[DVV]

Hi Halomanuk,
I may have to buy glasses, but Iris' post hardly confirms anything.

Amitiés,
David

[halomanuk]

I think, but I can't remember for definite, that it was. But I don't think this was conclusive enough to confirm it was Kate's kidney.

Thats EXACTLY what i thought Iris,glad to confirm that..

I believe Barry that the kidney that remained in Kate showed signs of Brights Disease, a form of Nephritis, but as Wolf pointed out, there was no evidence that the section Lusk received did. It could only be determined as human, not gender specific due to the small variance in the size of a male and female kidney, and again as Wolf shows, the consensus of 2 very competent medical authorities suggests the kidney section wasnt old enough to have been from Kate.

As I mentioned before, and kind of liked the idea more after posting it, Jack the Ripper could have written the letter and sent the piece of kidney, even if not Kates. In the same way he uses a piece of cloth perhaps...if he wrote the graffito....like his Zorro "Z". A piece of crime scene material....in the kidneys case, perhaps symbolically.

Best regards.

[iris84]

Was it ever confirmed that Catherine's kidney and the Lusk letter kidney were both suffering from Bright's disease ?

I think, but I can't remember for definite, that it was. But I don't think this was conclusive enough to confirm it was Kate's kidney.

Hi Michael.

Semantics, I’m afraid. The opinions of two medical men who actually examined the Lusk kidney far out weigh your semantics and your semantics can’t disprove the opinions of the two medical men.

The only possible proof that the letter actually came from the Ripper is the kidney itself. If the kidney was not from the body of Eddowes then the proof obviously disappears regardless of whether the letter was not signed “Jack the Ripper” or whether it seems an unlikely joke, prank, hoax, trick, fake, etc., etc.

Wolf.

What if it was a real Ripper letter and not Kates kidney section? Less likely, granted. But not out of the question. Jack was by some folks assumed to have formal medically trained skills...if that was the case, perhaps accessing a sample to send wouldnt be a huge issue. In fact a dissection would yield partial organs, "trimmed up", whether for study or during an autopsy.

It may have been just to confirm the author....like the apron section near the GSG may have been.

I personally do not believe that if the letter was real that the killer likely actually ate any parts either. I do not see cannibalism as a motivating factor or suggested character trait here.

Best regards Wolf

[halomanuk]

Was it ever confirmed that Catherine's kidney and the Lusk letter kidney were both suffering from Bright's disease ?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Michael.

Semantics, I’m afraid. The opinions of two medical men who actually examined the Lusk kidney far out weigh your semantics and your semantics can’t disprove the opinions of the two medical men.

The only possible proof that the letter actually came from the Ripper is the kidney itself. If the kidney was not from the body of Eddowes then the proof obviously disappears regardless of whether the letter was not signed “Jack the Ripper” or whether it seems an unlikely joke, prank, hoax, trick, fake, etc., etc.

Wolf.

...Had they wanted to insure a wider audience then why not send the package directly to the police or to one of the newspapers?

Wolf.

Precisely Wolf, what kind of hoax is it when its only one person potentially involved in the punch line? Thats a practical joke, not a hoax.

A hoax would be sent in with the scads of letters and cards that were sent to the Police and Central Press, to fool or excite the largest audience possible.

And for my money a key point, a Hoaxer would have called himself Jack the Ripper by that point in time.

Best regards Wolf.