'it was nice' Observation

[mariab]

Trust me, whatever pic you have that you think is me, isn’t me.

Without blaspheming, not just pics, but also the sound of your voice, Tom. (Slight Midwestern intonation.) You might have occasionally noticed a black truck with the Death Star sprayed on and 3 nerds inside parked around your neighborhood. As for the little dwarf in your garden with a camera installed, don't step on it, it's a bit sharp.

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Actually, I was thinking of the Princess Alice piece. Your Druitt piece was very, very detailed. Perhaps I should have said ‘of only peripheral interest’ and not fluff.

Oh good, I feel so much better about it now.
To be perfectly honest, I think it's about time some of the more 'peripheral' topics, or "grey areas" were tackled in the Ripper case, we've heard enough about the mainstream topics time and time again.

Besides, part of the ultimate aim of Cousin Lionel was to put another nail in the coffin of the case against Montague Druitt, who is about as likely to have been Jack the Ripper as Diddles is.

Of course he’s talking about us, Adam. He likes his barbs, and apparently isn’t aware of the manner in which you and I like to egg each other on. I just hope our exchanges are somewhat entertaining to those reading them, including the incomparably modest John Bennett.

True enough, and it wasn't even a particularly constructive barb, was it?
Anyway....onwards and upwards, Tom....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Bridewell]

Wolf Vanderlinden: Really the only reason that the ‘From Hell’ letter is even considered to be authentic is the inclusion of the kidney. However, given the medical evidence, supplied by the doctors who actually examined it, the kidney was not likely to have come from the body of Catharine Eddowes and was most likely a hoax. No one, besides Major Henry Smith, seems to have taken it seriously. If you are trying to figure out who hoaxed the letter then that’s one thing but if you are suggesting that it can be used as evidence to prove some suspect (presumably Tumblety) was the Ripper then you’re barking up the wrong tree since it can’t be proved to be genuine and there is evidence to prove that it was a fake.

What is the evidence which proves the Lusk letter to be a fake, please?

Regards, Bridewell.