From Hell Letter DECODED

[Kattrup]

Given it was addressed to

Dr Openshaw
Pathological curator
London hospital
White chapel

where would the writer have looked him up?

Well, the medical directories were full of abbreviations, so you’re right there, they don’t work as direct reference (if that was your line of thinking). Perhaps the hospital published its own directory and/or yearly report.

However, Openshaw and title did appear in various newspapers so there’s another option.

[erobitha]

I think another option is that the writer looked him up, copied the name, title etc. which is why it’s painstakingly correct.

So you feel the writer would take extra care and attention in ensuring the envelope was perfectly written but took no such care in the spelling, formatting and punctuation in the accompanying letter? The writer is confident the reader will understand everything written in the letter, so why would they suddenly lack confidence on the envelope itself not being read properly? I would wager the writer was "out of character" for a moment and wrote the envelope as they would write any other envelope normally - this was a slip up.

I stand by my belief the writer of the From Hell letter and Dr Openshaw's letter are are from the same writer, and because of the exact nature of the female brights's diseased left kidney sent to Mr Lusk being a hugely strong match for Eddowes, would ergo make the letter writer the killer. Both letters were also sent on a Monday (just an observation) and both Dr Openshaw and Mr Lusk's name appeared in the early news reports surrounding the first couple of murders. The Daily Telegraph was one such publication that mentioned both names. In fact in the letters section of The Telegraph printed on Monday 1st October a Mr Lusk of Whitechapel vigilante committee wrote to the Editor (printed in the paper) in a letter dated 29th Sept - the day before the double event. I believe Jack read this and decided Mr Lusk would be an appropriate person to taunt after the double event; ergo "Catch me if you can". Oh, and his address was printed there in the paper.

As was Dr Openshaw a subject for Jack's interest; who in The Telegraph dated 20th Oct 1888 referenced the Lusk letter came with a human kidney; "It may be mentioned that Dr. Openshaw, of the Pathological Museum attached to the London Hospital, confirms the statement that in his view the article enclosed in the parcel addressed to Mr. Lusk is a portion of a human organ, and not of any animal, as has been suggested by those who regard the whole affair as a hoax". Notice the word "Pathological Museum" and the writer's use of the word "Curator" on the envelope. He is responding directly to these extracts he read.

Which leads to the final question, would an avid reader of The Daily Telegraph (which I believe he was) be so illiterate? Circumstantial evidence I agree, but I find it much more likely than a drunk or someone who can't write or read properly. The writer was trying to throw us off.

[DJA]

The Telegraph dated 20th Oct 1888 referred to Dr Frederick Gordon Brown as Dr Gordon Browne.

Ironically he did not have an MD let alone an MB,hence was a Mr not a Dr.

[Kattrup]

So you feel the writer would take extra care and attention in ensuring the envelope was perfectly written but took no such care in the spelling, formatting and punctuation in the accompanying letter? The writer is confident the reader will understand everything written in the letter, so why would they suddenly lack confidence on the envelope itself not being read properly? I would wager the writer was "out of character" for a moment and wrote the envelope as they would write any other envelope normally - this was a slip up.

I stand by my belief the writer of the From Hell letter and Dr Openshaw's letter are are from the same writer, and because of the exact nature of the female brights's diseased left kidney sent to Mr Lusk being a hugely strong match for Eddowes, would ergo make the letter writer the killer. Both letters were also sent on a Monday (just an observation) and both Dr Openshaw and Mr Lusk's name appeared in the early news reports surrounding the first couple of murders. The Daily Telegraph was one such publication that mentioned both names. In fact in the letters section of The Telegraph printed on Monday 1st October a Mr Lusk of Whitechapel vigilante committee wrote to the Editor (printed in the paper) in a letter dated 29th Sept - the day before the double event. I believe Jack read this and decided Mr Lusk would be an appropriate person to taunt after the double event; ergo "Catch me if you can". Oh, and his address was printed there in the paper.

As was Dr Openshaw a subject for Jack's interest; who in The Telegraph dated 20th Oct 1888 referenced the Lusk letter came with a human kidney; "It may be mentioned that Dr. Openshaw, of the Pathological Museum attached to the London Hospital, confirms the statement that in his view the article enclosed in the parcel addressed to Mr. Lusk is a portion of a human organ, and not of any animal, as has been suggested by those who regard the whole affair as a hoax". Notice the word "Pathological Museum" and the writer's use of the word "Curator" on the envelope. He is responding directly to these extracts he read.

Which leads to the final question, would an avid reader of The Daily Telegraph (which I believe he was) be so illiterate? Circumstantial evidence I agree, but I find it much more likely than a drunk or someone who can't write or read properly. The writer was trying to throw us off.

Not sure why you think the writer read the telegraph, other papers carried similar stories, e.g. the Pall Mall gazette: “This was taken to Dr Openshaw, who is pathological curator of the London Hospital Museum, and he pronounced it to be a portion of human kidney”

As for the envelope being more carefully written than the letter, I think it common since one wants it delivered correctly, no?

[erobitha]

Not sure why you think the writer read the telegraph, other papers carried similar stories, e.g. the Pall Mall gazette: “This was taken to Dr Openshaw, who is pathological curator of the London Hospital Museum, and he pronounced it to be a portion of human kidney”

As for the envelope being more carefully written than the letter, I think it common since one wants it delivered correctly, no?

I believe George Lusk's letter to The Telegraph with his address was too good an opportunity to turn down a follow-up. The fact he opens the Lusk letter with "Sor" as Lusk opened his letter to The Telegraph as "SIR", I find very intriquing.

In regards to the envelope, why would he take such care with the address and not the letter? "To ensure it gets there" makes no sense. It would mean he would have to acknowledge his own shortcomings with regards to literacy, and by such logic he would be equally careful in ensuring his message was conveyed in the letter properly as the address was on the envelope. Pathological is spelt perfectly as is curator on the envelope. To take such care of one and not the other makes very little sense. It screams to me a deliberate attempt at deception on the letter and simply forgetting to keep the ruse up on the envelope.

[Robert St Devil]

there is only one postmark on the package, which suggests that it was despatched from the district in which it was received, which would be the Eastern district... On the other hand the package was too large to have been dropped into the ordinary post-box, and would seem likely to have been despatched from Lombard-street or Gracechurch-street Post-office, where the receptacles are of unusually wide dimensions.
[The Daily Telegraph, October 20, 1888]

Did "Catch Me When You Can" send the Lusk parcel from the Lombard-street post office?
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...hoto/464474697

* I would post the photo on this thread, but I shirked when I saw licensing requirements. Still, the link will provide you with an idea of "the receptacles of unusually wide dimensions". As the DT article points out: Had [the Lusk parcel] been sent by parcel post the place of dispatch would have been traceable, while it is possible that some of the officials might have remembered the sender.

*************

Does a coincidence exist between the "Lusk parcel" parcel being mailed Monday October 15th AND... Monday October 15th being the first date that the press begins to report that George Lusk is receiving "Jack the Ripper" communications? For instance, The Pall Mall Gazette of 15 October 1888 reports:

Last Friday Mr Lusk, who is a member of the Whitechapel Vigilence Committee, received the following letter:- I write you a letter in black ink, as I have no more of the right stuff. I think you are all asleep in Scotland-yard with your bloodhounds, as I will show you tomorrow
night (Saturday) I am going to do a double event, but not in Whitechapel. Got rather too warm there. Had to shift. No more till you hear me again.
JACK THE RIPPER

For me, it's not of any immediate importance who wrote the cited message. What stands out to me is that the day after it is reported in city newspapers that "Jack the Ripper" is writing correspondences with George Lusk *BLIP* a kidney arrives at his home. Now, let's say CMWYC decided to jump on the hoaxing bandwagon and ship a kidney to Mr. Lusk after reading the reports in the press on Oct 15th; well then, that person would have to be stupendously resourceful and incredibly lucky to acquire within the course of exactly one afternoon not only a human kidney but also (1) a left human kidney (2) suffering from disease (3) with the possibility of the renal artery lengths corresponding (4) that the pathological curator of London Hospital could believe may have come from a person around the timeframe of the Mitre Square murder -> conditions similar to those of Catherine Eddowes and her murder. However if CMWYC happened to be the murderer...

**************

As far as I have read, the package arrived at Lusk's home on Alderney Street without a given house number. But, most of the newspapers were reporting his address as 1 Alderney or 1,2, and 3 Alderney. [The lack of a house number is a compelling aspect of the Miss Emily Marsh statement]. Regardless... the two newspapers that I have found within days of the post date of the Lusk parcel that didn't report his house number were The Globe and the Penny Illustrated [13 October]. So maybe CMWYC was reading more than just the DT, erobitha... if that is how the address was required, of course

*************

Top o' the year to you, Mishters DJA and George

[erobitha]

Robert St Devil Very good post. I still have a tendency to believe the Telepgraph (also for other reasons I have not mentioned) was his preferred newspaper, but it does interestingly shine a light on the fact that the writer did not need to be familiar with Mr Lusk directly, and could have got his information without visiting the area, and simply from press reports. Which means, he may not have been any of the suspicious charatcers mentioned by Lusk or other witnesses as loitering around.

Both post offices mentioned is interesting as it was also located closeby to Bank Station and London Fenchurch Street station. Could have been sent en route to catching a train.

[Ven]

so it may not be related to the "Irish guy" !! so the Sor might be Gov??!!

[Michael W Richards]

Given it was addressed to

Dr Openshaw
Pathological curator
London hospital
White chapel

where would the writer have looked him up?

The Openshaw Letter is sent Oct 29th, addressed to Openshaw, and its contents referenced the letter sent to Lusk which was From Hell. You are clear on that right? So why would you mention that Openshaw letter when we are discussing From Hell?

Your posts have admirable brevity and yet they lack any semblance of understandability. Maybe you need references in them.

[erobitha]

The Openshaw Letter is sent Oct 29th, addressed to Openshaw, and its contents referenced the letter sent to Lusk which was From Hell. You are clear on that right? So why would you mention that Openshaw letter when we are discussing From Hell?

Your posts have admirable brevity and yet they lack any semblance of understandability. Maybe you need references in them.

Maybe if you took a moment to read through the previous posts, I was making the point I believe both letters were by the same hand - you are clear on that right?

Thanks for your ever useful insight as ever.

[Robert St Devil]

Re: Dr. Openshaw: I would be inclined to agree with you, erobitha, in that his professional information was gathered by the writer/sender from a London newspaper. Considering, all of the information addressed on the accompanying envelope (Dr. Openshaw, Pathological Curator, London Hospital, White Chapel) did not stray from the information provided in several news publications. Had the letter arrived at his home (for instance) or a location beyond the scope of those details provided by the Press, we might be able to base a case that the sender of the letter knew Dr. Openshaw through other associations; however, it doesn't, so the probability rests on the side that favours the sender reading about Dr. Openshaw in a newspaper. Hell, I'd argue that the only reason why the sender refers to him as "Dr. Openshaw" (rather than "Dr. Thomas Openshaw" or "Dr. TH Openshaw") is for the reason that "Dr. Openshaw" is how he is generally referred in the press reports; iow the sender probably didn't even know his first name.

Re: "mikerscope": I found it peculiar (after researching the Press Reports) that the sender of the Openshaw letter included the word "mikerscope". But only peculiar in the sense that "microscopical" was a word that was commonly used in the press reports regarding the doctors evaluation of the Lusk kidney; the word "microscopical" is tied to different doctors depending on the newspaper - Dr. F. Gordon Brown, Dr. Openshaw, Mr. Reed. For instance:

Daily Telegraph, 20 Oct 1888
The portion of kidney which it contained has been submitted to Dr. Gordon Browne, the surgeon to the City Police, for microscopical examination, and upon his report will in large measure depend the further steps that may be taken.

Evening News, 19 Oct 1888
I advised that, instead of throwing it away, we should see Dr. Wills, of 56, Mile End-road. We did not, however, find him in, but Mr. Reed, his assistant, was. He gave an opinion that it was a portion of a human kidney which had been preserved in spirits of wine; but to make sure, he would go over to the London Hospital, where it could be microscopically examined.

Evening News, 20 Oct 1888
A Press representative had an interview, yesterday afternoon, with the Curator of the Pathological Museum at the London Hospital. In the course of the conversation that gentleman stated that the microscopical examination of the article proved it to be the anterior of the left human kidney

My point being, there was probably a good chance that he lifted the word "microscope" from the newspaper when he was reading about Dr. Openshaw (it really is a rather random word to hambone into the letter), so there should have been no reason for the writer to butcher the spelling of the word... unless the writer was conducting a ruse as you suggested, erobitha. And as DJA pointed out, he managed his way around the words "pathological" and curator" without ripping them into the dunce-speech of "pattylodgykul" or "kyooratur".

Re. the Lusk kidney: I believe that I may have backslid regarding the Lusk kidney being the genuine article signed, sealed and delivered by the Whitechapel perpetrator himself. It comes by way of reading through the Press Reports and landing on the Evening News, 20 October 1888. A Press representative has an interview with Dr. Openshaw who lays claim that,

[the left human kidney] has been preserved, in his opinion, in spirit for about 10 days

So, doing some simple mathematics....

October 15th, 1888 <--- date the Lusk kidney was mailed
- 10 days <--- days the kidney was prasarved
October 5th, 1888 <--- potential date the Lusk kidney was first preserved in spirits (at the very least!)

So, great, right? At face value, it would seem rather odd to make the effort to scheme such an elaborate hoax on Mishter Lusk from 10 days prior... as in, "I'm going to get that Lusk... uh, a week and a half from now". Not improbable, but still rather odd. So, I start thinking, "great. if the public doesn't know that the left kidney (specifically) is missing by October 5th, then there is a good chance this could increase the probability of the kidney being Catherine Eddowes." Of course, that thought bubble gets deflated (rather quickly) because... newspapers from October 5th are detailing the inquest of the Catherine Eddowes murder conducted on October 4th, and none other was before the coroner that day than Dr, F. Gordon Brown laying claim that,

The left kidney was completely cut out and taken away. The renal artery was cut through about three quarters of an inch. [Evening News, 5 Oct]

So here we have the opening for a hoax. The doctor specifies which kidney and how the renal artery was cut, and now that information has been made public round-about a date when the Lusk kidney could first be preserved in spirits.

So, like all things Jack the Ripper, all paths lead back to the starting point

*all emphasis my own

[DJA]

G'day Robert St Devil,

Reckon Cate's left kidney and adrenal gland was placed in ethanol immediately after being extracted.
Certainly not left lying about for days.

The uncanny timing and what Henry ...... oops,Jack was able to do in little over 10 minutes is extraordinary.
Really points to him living behind that wall,knowing the police beat interval and using GSG and apron as a decoy away from Mitre Square.

Even more importantly ...... Los Super Seven and Canto arrived on Wednesday

[Robert St Devil]

G'day Robert St Devil,

Reckon Cate's left kidney and adrenal gland was placed in ethanol immediately after being extracted.
Certainly not left lying about for days.

The uncanny timing and what Henry ...... oops,Jack was able to do in little over 10 minutes is extraordinary.
Really points to him living behind that wall,knowing the police beat interval and using GSG and apron as a decoy away from Mitre Square.

Even more importantly ...... Los Super Seven and Canto arrived on Wednesday

DJA, seriously! You should know better than bringing up Los Super 7 with a tejano like myself without it leading to a whole lotta drinking... after all {pops the tab on a cerveza}... some of us gotta work tomorrow {bites the cork off the bottle}... we got no business waking the neighbors with that infernal music at this hour {begins dialing an ex girlfriend}... disappointed in you, hermanó...

oh yeah, btw, enjoy the show drunkenly

[DJA]

Still have three bottles of Espolon Reposado purchased December 9

George says "Hi".

[Michael W Richards]

Unless you and DJA are one and the same erobitha, I wasn't quoting your post..."if you had taken a moment to read it properly"....