The Lusk Letter - Swanson's Transcription

[JTRSickert]

I personally think that the letter-writer was not only feigning an Irish dialect, but I believe also he was intentionally disguising his handwriting (example, he might have written the letter using the hand he normally does NOT write with, therby producing a script that he can't be traced back to). Remember, by this time, the "Dear Boss" letter and "Saucy Jacky" postcard were widely written about in the press, not to mention the tons of other letters that were arriving daily at the police and press offices. By this time, the letter-writer probaly wanted to alter his writing style since the letters were getting more scrutiny and people might have been called in to look at handwriting samples. So, I think it may be possible that Openshaw letter and the "From Hell" letter were done by the same hand, but he might switched the pen in different hands to produce both letters.

Other killers have been known to do this (example, most researchers of the "Zodiac" case believe the Zodiac ltters were written by am an who intentionally disguised his writing).

[John Bennett]

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

Cheers.
LC

I'm not qualified re:graphology, but here are portions of the Lusk letter, D'Onston's 'Juives' letter and the Openshaw letter. Any use?

[Sam Flynn]

Just a "what if"...what if the man that killed Kate wasnt Jack but he was someone who knew who was responsible for the first 2 murders, and that he was Irish. Maybe also a tall American quack. But he doesnt even have to be the man with a knife...just a man sponsoring a killer or killers that act with a knife.

There you go again, Mike, bringing your hobby-horse "Uterus Magazine" theory into a totally unrelated thread.

Please stop it. You're making me ill.

[Sam Flynn]

If the overall tone of the letter suggests an Irish background as it does to some people, and that was intentionally conveyed, why?

From the point of view of an average Victorian:

1. Jack is a murderer of slumland low-life, so it's a fair bet that he's a slumland low-life himself;

2. Most low-life in the slums is either Irish, or descended from immigrant Irish stock;

3. If I'm to write a letter pretending to be from "Jack", then it makes sense for me to put on an Irish persona.

[lynn cates]

convolution

Hello Mike. I don't think the phrase "too convoluted" could ever apply to the Ripper case.

Interesting theorising.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Mike. That's an excellent question. The 2 names that seem to crop up with respect to this probable hoax are Tumblety and Stephenson.

If the first, it could be a bitter irony--Tumblety making a statement to the effect that, "Go ahead and blame the Irish, you will anyway." (something of that sort)

If the second, it would likely be part of his haughty outlook towards others. Recall, he considered himself an intellectual primadonna.

I think either of these 2 chaps more than capable of such a shenanigan.

The best.
LC

I was wondering Lynn if someone might be intentionally inserting the suggestion that the Ripper was Irish. And that the kidney is part of the one taken from Kate....but not by an Irishman.

Just a "what if"...what if the man that killed Kate wasnt Jack but he was someone who knew who was responsible for the first 2 murders, and that he was Irish. Maybe also a tall American quack. But he doesnt even have to be the man with a knife...just a man sponsoring a killer or killers that act with a knife. The killer(s) he sponsored then kills on his own, doing much the same kinds of things, maybe getting a taste for it after doing it twice....but he/they send the package and the kidney as a way of suggesting that the Irish sponsor of the first 2 murders was responsible for Kates murder also.

Too convoluted?

Best regards Lynn

[lynn cates]

pair o' docs

Hello Mike. That's an excellent question. The 2 names that seem to crop up with respect to this probable hoax are Tumblety and Stephenson.

If the first, it could be a bitter irony--Tumblety making a statement to the effect that, "Go ahead and blame the Irish, you will anyway." (something of that sort)

If the second, it would likely be part of his haughty outlook towards others. Recall, he considered himself an intellectual primadonna.

I think either of these 2 chaps more than capable of such a shenanigan.

The best.
LC

I would think a grievous error like "Sor" should tell us only one thing really,...that in all likelihood the phrasing and writing are intentionally affected by the author.....which would of course raise other questions. Why? Disguising handwriting wouldnt be a huge issue back then at all, and misspelling words intentionally suggests semi-literate, which a literate man might want to imitate.

If the overall tone of the letter suggests an Irish background as it does to some people, and that was intentionally conveyed, why?

Best regards all.

[Chris]

But I would point out that although you say that reading the word as "Sor" instead of "Sir" would amount to a "bizarre misspelling", in fact the whole letter is full of bizarre misspellings, isn't it?

I'm afraid I can't see the relevance of that, unless you think it somehow makes the bizarre misspelling a more likely interpretation than precisely the word we should expect to see at the start of a letter.

And if you do think that, I can only ask again why you don't read the final phrase as "Catch me whew you caw".

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris

I entirely agree that a lengthy debate about whether it is "Sir" or "Sor" is fruitless, and that we are each entitled to our own opinion. It's like a lot of things in the case: no definitive answer can be reached. I won't post on this matter in this thread again. But I would point out that although you say that reading the word as "Sor" instead of "Sir" would amount to a "bizarre misspelling", in fact the whole letter is full of bizarre misspellings, isn't it?

Chris

[Sam Flynn]

Isn't there a severe danger of circular reasoning here? Would the stage Irish theory have been suggested in the first place if the word hadn't been read as "Sor"?

I reckon so, Chris - if only on the strength of "mishter", "tother" and "prasarved". Personally I don't care whether it starts with a "Sir" a "Sor" or a "Sur" (which it could also be, I guess), because there's clearly an attempt to affect a dialect of sorts in the body of the letter - and it appears that "Oirish" is a very likely candidate. At the very least, the letter's author seems to be feigning a dialect that's neither "Native Londoner", American, Jewish or otherwise Eastern European. Seen in the context of the East End, who else could the letter's author have realistically been pretending to be, other than an Irishman?

[Chris]

Because the use of "caw" instead of "can" isn't suggestive of an attempt to use stage Oirish - unlike "mishter", "tother" and "prasarved".

Isn't there a severe danger of circular reasoning here? Would the stage Irish theory have been suggested in the first place if the word hadn't been read as "Sor"?

In any case, once people start preferring intrinsically unlikely readings on the basis of a theory such as that, in effect they're no longer transcribing the document, but altering its text fit in with their theory. Remember Stephen Knight misreading "all your tecs" as "all your Lees"?

But really people will have to make up their own minds. As I said, the post above was simply intended to explain how the peculiarities of the handwriting could result in "Sir" looking like "Sor".

[Sam Flynn]

After all, why should the closing phrase be read as "Catch me when you can", rather than "Catch me whew you caw"?

Because the use of "caw" instead of "can" isn't suggestive of an attempt to use stage Oirish - unlike "mishter", "tother" and "prasarved".

[Chris]

Chris

I just start from the position that if a handwritten word can reasonably read in one of two ways, one of which would be absolutely standard in that context, while the other would be a bizarre misspelling, then the first reading is to be preferred.

After all, why should the closing phrase be read as "Catch me when you can", rather than "Catch me whew you caw"? It certainly looks like "Catch me whew you caw", but a modicum of common sense tells us that's not what it says.

But, as I said, if you prefer to believe it really does say "Sor", that's entirely up to you. I think it would be fruitless to get into a lengthy debate about it.

[ChrisGeorge]

Chris

If you assume that anything in Victorian handwriting that's not dotted can't be an 'i', then you are going to end up with some very funny misreadings!

Personally I have no doubt that the letter starts "Sir" in the way that letters usually did in 1888. The above is my explanation of why it looks like "Sor". Of course anyone who prefers to believe it really does say "Sor" - or even "Gov" - is free to do so. But I'm with Swanson.

But it's not a straightforward letter. It's a letter from a guy who spells "preserved" as "prasarved", "knife" as "knif", and "Mister" as "Mishter". So why should the expectancy be that the writer would write the salutation as "Sir" in which, as you say, letters usually did in 1888?

For the opening to be the mock Irish "Sor" would be entirely consistent with "Mishter".

Best regards

Chris