Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lusk Letter - Swanson's Transcription

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    It was interesting that the Daily Telegraph of Saturday, 20 October,1888 carried a report from a Miss Emily Marsh concerning a visit to her shop at 218 Jubilee street, Mile-end -road, about a tall thin darkly dressed man of clerical appearance and "what was taken to be an Irish accent ". He was enquiring for the correct address of Mr Lusk of the Vigilance Committee.
    interestingly, the Lusk letter's cover had no street number on the address. Miss Marsh thought that significant because she read it out of the newspaper for the visitor, who wrote it down. There was no street number quoted in that article. (The visitor was attracted by the reward poster in the window).
    I am quoting this from Evans & Skinners " The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook " pages 210-211.

    Comment


    • #32
      If he really was obsessed with his knife, it is interesting that he could not spell it. And if he was misspelling intentionally, you would think he would take too much pride in this appendage of himself to misspell it.

      Comment


      • #33
        gov

        Hello. After looking again at the Lusk letter (for the millionth time?) I wonder if anyone is struck by the possibility that "Sor" could be "Gov"? The uppercase G would look like an S--if the second upper point/curve were not high. The "r" looks (as formed) not terribly unlike a "v."

        Any thoughts?

        LC

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
          Hello. After looking again at the Lusk letter (for the millionth time?) I wonder if anyone is struck by the possibility that "Sor" could be "Gov"? The uppercase G would look like an S--if the second upper point/curve were not high. The "r" looks (as formed) not terribly unlike a "v."

          Any thoughts?

          LC
          I think it could indeed be transcribed as "Gov" or even "Gaff". And how about the word "Kidne" - to me it looks like "KIDDER".

          From "Jack the Ripper Scousebook!"

          Comment


          • #35
            Hi folks. The letter doesn't actually say 'Sor'. It says 'Sir', but there's a flourish to the i and r. I too used to think it read 'Sor'.

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott

            Comment


            • #36
              Agreed. Though I always read it as 'sir' (mostly 'cause my own joint handwriting is scruffy ).

              Although I've heard numerous people say that the letter reads as though an Irish man (or woman) wrote it, but I just don't see it, or even how anyone could tell. It just seems a bit illiterate to me and nothing else.

              Comment


              • #37
                dots

                Hello Tom. Thanks. I went back and checked again, and I see what you are about. One can certainly read it as "Sir." Of course, I checked to see if the "i' was dotted--it was not. Then I checked that against the rest of the letter and the writer seemed rather fastidious about dotting "i's."

                Do you think it possible that the ligature there in "Sir" was intended to subsume a dot?

                The best.
                LC

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                  Hello Tom. Thanks. I went back and checked again, and I see what you are about. One can certainly read it as "Sir." Of course, I checked to see if the "i' was dotted--it was not. Then I checked that against the rest of the letter and the writer seemed rather fastidious about dotting "i's."

                  Do you think it possible that the ligature there in "Sir" was intended to subsume a dot?

                  The best.
                  LC
                  Hello Lynn

                  Good observation about the writer's fastidiousness about dotting his "i's" -- here's the original Lusk letter and you'll note the only "i" that is not dotted is the supposed "i" in "Sir." For me, the letter says, "Sor".



                  The other observation I will make, if I haven't noted it earlier in the thread, is how faithfully Donald Swanson's transcription of the letter duplicates the layout and even the letter formations of the original letter.

                  Best regards

                  Chris
                  Christopher T. George
                  Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
                  just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
                  For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
                  RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Thanks for posting that, Chris. You could be right now that I see it's the only supposed 'i' that's not dotted. If that's the case, then Thegaff's suggestion of it being 'Gov' isn't so strange and might hold currency. The capital 'S' is a bit different and just might be a 'G'.

                    Mascara,

                    I don't believe anyone has suggested it was written by a woman.

                    Regarding 'Prasarved', there's actually no identifiable 'v' that I can see and the 'r' differs from the others. Just an observation.

                    Yours truly,

                    Tom Wescott

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Gov

                      Hello Tom and Chris. Thanks. It was a thought. If it's "Gov" and not "Sor" that's one fewer Irishism.

                      The best.
                      LC

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Hi Lynn. My apologies for attributing 'Gov' to thegaff. I had misread the posts above. Good thinking, girl!

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                          Thanks for posting that, Chris. You could be right now that I see it's the only supposed 'i' that's not dotted. If that's the case, then Thegaff's suggestion of it being 'Gov' isn't so strange and might hold currency. The capital 'S' is a bit different and just might be a 'G'.

                          Mascara,

                          I don't believe anyone has suggested it was written by a woman.

                          Regarding 'Prasarved', there's actually no identifiable 'v' that I can see and the 'r' differs from the others. Just an observation.

                          Yours truly,

                          Tom Wescott
                          Hello Tom

                          Nice to hear from you.

                          As for the prasarved, I would note again my observation of ten years ago in my talk at the April 2000 US convention that Roslyn D'Onston in his letter to the City of London Police of 16 October 1888 ended the body of the letter by saying, "May I request an acknowledgement that this letter has safely reached you, & that it be preserved until I am well enough to do myself the honour to call upon you personally." Since both letters were written on the same day, is it coincidence that the same word was used? (See also my "Letter from the Sickbed: Roslyn D'Onston writes to the Police" at http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...tonwrites.html)

                          I would say, as I thought then, that there is a good chance that it was D'Onston who wrote the Lusk and Openshaw letters and that he was jerking the police around. He was after all a drunk, a known meddler in the case, and, I think conceivably, a prankster. And moreover D'Onston was right there, a patient in the London Hospital, where the Openshaw letter was sent to! As a quasi-medical man, credentials still to be proven, he possibly had access to a piece of kidney too, even if he was not the Ripper.

                          Chris
                          Christopher T. George
                          Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
                          just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
                          For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
                          RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            XY

                            Hello Tom. Thanks. No big deal

                            Incidentally, my chromosomal structure is XY; but, again, no big deal.

                            The best.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              handwriting

                              Hello Chris. Fascinating! I was looking at the last letter in "Sor" (or "Gov") and thinking how very like D'Onston's "nu" it looked. (Recall the little caper with his Greek spelling of a Latin word in his marriage register.)

                              Do we have any chaps about who are good at graphology and can compare the two?

                              Cheers.
                              LC

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ChrisGeorge
                                I would say, as I thought then, that there is a good chance that it was D'Onston who wrote the Lusk and Openshaw letters and that he was jerking the police around. He was after all a drunk, a known meddler in the case, and, I think conceivably, a prankster. And moreover D'Onston was right there, a patient in the London Hospital, where the Openshaw letter was sent to! As a quasi-medical man, credentials still to be proven, he possibly had access to a piece of kidney too, even if he was not the Ripper.
                                Hi Chris. Has it been 10 years already? Geesh. I remember being very struck by your D'Onston 'preserved' observation. That kinda set me off on researching D'Onston in conjunction with the Ripper letters. You might remember my essay on the matter was published in Ripperologist (I believe issue 50?). I should have that essay put here on the Casebook. While my suspicion of D'Onston has wained quite a bit over the years, I think it might still make for interesting reading.

                                Yours truly,

                                Tom Wescott

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X