Graphologist Claims Tumblety wrote the Lusk Letter

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Michael.

The time frame I quoted was obviously Openshaws, and the retractions or denials made immediately following the alleged comments after his examination of the sample to me are modifications to protect his reputation, not evidence that he felt those kinds of remarks were not sound.

The time frame you quoted comes from a newspaper article that Dr. Openshaw quickly distanced himself from because of the obvious medical errors it contained. In 1888 no doctor could tell the sex, the age of the donor or find signs of alcoholism by examining a human kidney. These claims were medically impossible to prove and, unless Openshaw was deluded, this is the logical reason for his denial that he ever stated such a thing. In other words he repudiated the newspaper article because the remarks were not sound.

Interestingly, however, he didn’t have to amend his supposed statement that the kidney had been taken from the body in the last three weeks if that indeed was his opinion yet that’s exactly what he did. Add to this Dr. Brown’s opinion and it seems clear that the kidney was not from Eddowes.

I think if this wasnt a real Ripper communication, it was a hoax that required specific access to recent cadavers...which would be morticians or students, and therefore somewhat educated people......so, for smart pranksters, what insurance did they have that their hoax would be played on more than just 1 man? Could they be assured he would take it to the police? As it is, we know it was in his desk for 2 days before anyone else is allowed to see it.

There was no assurance that the hoax would be played on more than one person or that the letter would be taken to the police. This presupposes that whoever pulled the prank did so in order that the letter would make it to a wider audience rather than they were just punking Lusk. 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.

Hi Michael.
Actually, this is incorrect. Although original news reports (see The Morning Advertiser, 19 October, 1888) stated that Dr. Openshaw had said that the kidney had been taken from the body at least three weeks before he had examined it, i.e. at the time of the Eddowes murder, Openshaw quickly denied having said this. He told the press that he thought the kidney had been in spirits of wine for only about ten days (i.e. from around the 9th of October).

Dr. Gordon Brown stated, on the 20th of October, that the kidney showed no signs of decomposition and believed that the kidney had not been in preservative for more than a week. Together the opinion of the two doctors would tend to prove that the kidney was not from Catharine Eddowes.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf,

The time frame I quoted was obviously Openshaws, and the retractions or denials made immediately following the alleged comments after his examination of the sample to me are modifications to protect his reputation, not evidence that he felt those kinds of remarks were not sound.

I think if this wasnt a real Ripper communication, it was a hoax that required specific access to recent cadavers...which would be morticians or students, and therefore somewhat educated people......so, for smart pranksters, what insurance did they have that their hoax would be played on more than just 1 man? Could they be assured he would take it to the police? As it is, we know it was in his desk for 2 days before anyone else is allowed to see it.

The addressee in this case is more compelling than the section anyway...as youve indicated, its likely not compatible with Kates loss....but not assuredly so.

Best regards Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Michael.

This was a human kidney piece estimated to have spent as much time in spirits....not glycerin which med students used, as the amount of time that had elapsed since Kates murder.

Actually, this is incorrect. Although original news reports (see The Morning Advertiser, 19 October, 1888) stated that Dr. Openshaw had said that the kidney had been taken from the body at least three weeks before he had examined it, i.e. at the time of the Eddowes murder, Openshaw quickly denied having said this. He told the press that he thought the kidney had been in spirits of wine for only about ten days (i.e. from around the 9th of October).

Dr. Gordon Brown stated, on the 20th of October, that the kidney showed no signs of decomposition and believed that the kidney had not been in preservative for more than a week. Together the opinion of the two doctors would tend to prove that the kidney was not from Catharine Eddowes.

Wolf.

The premise here is that supposedly someone suggested that the handwriting in From Hell is a close match for Tumblety's based on a graphologists analysis...right?

So, what did this graphologist use for Tumblety's handwriting as a compare?

This is by far the best bet for a real communication if there are any that were sent that Fall,.. because if a hoax, and sent to a nobody Vigilence Committee leader among the many Committees that were formed at this time, you have to wonder what the hoaxer expected to happen other than scare a single mail recipient. This was a human kidney piece estimated to have spent as much time in spirits....not glycerin which med students used, as the amount of time that had elapsed since Kates murder.

It would appear that a bit of effort went into a package and letter sent not to Police, not to any Press or Central News Agency...but to a local man who was part of a Ripper posse.

Why I mention all this is because if the Lusk Letter handwriting did match anyones relatively closely,...he may well be Jack.

And I agree with effort being made to sound less literate than he likely was.

Best regards all.

[Ben]

I trust you can provide several examples of semi-literate writers being able to spell words like half, piece, fried, ate, bloody, signed

I don't need to, since it should be the most obvious thing in the entire world.

Semi-literacy does not mean an inability to spell any word correctly. Sometimes they'd get a tricky word right by simply being familiar with it, whilst getting the simpler words wrong. Clearly Thomas Mann was well aware of this, which is why he arrived at the opinion he did - an opinion you're challenging with obvious futility.

It was apparent to me that it read "Sor" (and this, combined with the "Mishter" revealed a crude Victorian imitation of uneducated Irish)...

Exactly, a description which naturally encompasses uneducated Englishmen. You can be an uneducated Englishman attempting to pass yourself off as an uneducated Irishman, unless you're seriously arguing that only the educated classes are capable of fakery in their penmanship. Indeed, if the imitation was a "crude" one, as Martin sensibly suggests, then the faker could easily have been of inferior education.

[DVV]

My second choice, Caz.
He could have written it with his moustache.
Hence this curious "handwriting".

Amitiés,
David

[caz]

Hi David,

Not Tumblety then?

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Now how about your own view on the Lusk Letter writer?
Caz
X

Hi Caz,
John Barrymore, from Baskerville Hall.

Amitiés,
David

[caz]

...I'm equally sure it would be sensible to agree on what I said - that the course of studying for a bachelor degree is a training ground on which subsequent expertise is built.

Hi Crystal,

I agree with what you say above, but if you read the post in question again, you will find that there was never any suggestion that I was trying to pass off the observations offered by my daughter as anything more than the musings of a third year linguistics student at what I have been given to understand is still a reasonably reputable university, for what they were worth. I assumed the average reader here would not need any further clarification.

And no, I wouldn't dream of telling you that my daughter is 'a bright and rising star in her field'. I would not know whether she is or she isn't (with my seven O levels ), which is why I posted her own words and let them do the talking. A couple of posters assumed I was automatically endorsing what she said and, for reasons best known to themselves, even tried to make out that I was claiming she had all the necessary expertise for the job. Maybe she's like one of your students and 'no great shakes'.

I am very hard to offend on a personal level, Crystal, or I might not have shoved my daughter into the lion's den. But I will defend to the bitter end the right of anyone, whether it's my daughter, your students, fellow posters to these message boards or the cat, not to have their own words misrepresented, misinterpreted, or generally tinkered about with by others.

Now how about your own view on the Lusk Letter writer?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, I'm sure your daughter knows what she's talking about, but I'm equally sure it would be sensible to agree on what I said - that the course of studying for a bachelor degree is a training ground on which subsequent expertise is built. If you tell me your daughter is a bright and rising star in her field, fair enough - you would know. And I fully accept that some undergraduates are very bright. However, you must excuse my reserve in this respect, as having taught so many of them in my time, I can tell you that quite a lot of them really aren't any great shakes.

I'm sorry if I offended you Caz, and I understand you leaping to your daughter's defence - but I really don't think anybody was attacking her.

[caz]

Cheers, Mike. Nicely on topic.

Please people, let's focus on the issue at hand, which is examining the views people have actually expressed on the Lusk Letter authorship. Take your personal issues with me to Pub Talk and I'll be glad to join you there when I need a break from reading about the ripper case.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

I would like to pick up on that. I think the letter writer was just playing around and there was no intention to attempt to implicate anyone. I think he was a guy who knew how to write a little and was just trying on a few words for size, playing the fool for posterity.

But, I do agree with what your daughter says. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, eh?

Cheers,

Mike

[Malcolm X]

I love Ben, I'm only here because I'm an obsessed chick fan...

..........nice one

[caz]

So what brought you here, Crystal? The view?

Or to add your own view to the debate on the type of person who could have authored the Lusk Letter?

Pot kettle?

With respect, Caz, I'm not sure anyone was slinging mud at your daughter. I certainly wasn't - please don't accuse me of such.

Ok, sorry Crystal. I bit when you wrote:

'I didn't realise a bachelors degree was the equivalent of professional expertise these days - I thought it was intended to provide the training ground for the acquisition of further knowledge and experience. I fully expect you to tell me that I'm wrong.'

It seemed to imply that my daughter should have known she didn't know what she was talking about and therefore ought not to have responded to my request for her observations.

Clearly, what she observed was not a million miles away from what Martin Fido wrote just days later. So with respect, Crystal, I don't think either mother or daughter were so terribly out of order for our comments.

Any comments of your own, at all at all, regarding Martin's view that the Lusk Letter was a crude imitation of uneducated "Oirish", to be sure to be sure?

Love,

Caz
X

Dear Sir,

I'd like to complain about the constant attempts to take the topic to an off-topic realm. This constant changing of topics makes a thread difficult to follow, and creates consternation amongst the posters who try to stay on topic. Furthermore... er, what's that? This isn't the complaint thread, and I am going seriously off-topic you say?

Apologies,

An Errant Poster

Mike, you know perfectly well who to blame for all this....The Salmon sends his regards...