Letters to Police

[Abby Normal]

An opinion. It's something I felt when I first read about the kidney some 30 years ago. It just seemed to me, and it still does, that it was someone screwing with Lusk. That's what I mean when I say it was more about Lusk. That is to say the sender's focus was Lusk's reaction. As far as the kidney itself goes: in researching it, I'm not convinced about much with respect to where it came from. There seems to have been a desire by nearly everyone involved for it to have come from Mitre Square, even as their criteria for establishing that provenance didn't exist then, and in some cases doesn't exist today. Various doctors claimed that the kidney came from someone with Bright's disease, from a woman, from a woman in her mid-40s, that it came from an alcoholic....all pointing to it having come from Eddowes - and all beyond the medical technology of the time. I think it was likely human, although, based on the seeming desire of the doctors who's opinions were given to trace the kidney to Eddows and her killer, I think even that could be questioned (a contemporary Dr. did exactly that (Saunders?), stating he wished those who'd examined the kidney (he himself had not) might just say, "I don't know" if it's human.

Hi Patrick
thanks! I think out of all the letters proportately by the killer-this one has the most chance of being authentic. Indeed, IMHO, I give it about 70% from the killer.

The author of the letter dosnt use the by then well known sign off as the ripper-which lends it credence in my eyes.

I have never thought that a kidney would be easy to come by-even from someone in the medical profession.

and the fact that the writer said he ate half. Postmortem mutilators we now know are the serial killer type that engage in cannibalism. something nobody would have known of back then, and the ripper was certainly a post mortem mutilator.

[Abby Normal]

Intimidation.

Lusk was already being stalked and had a strange encounter with a guy in a pub. The resident crooks in Whitechapel would want the Vigilance Committee off the streets just as much as Jack would.

Hi harry

got it-yes he had some strange encounters. and then there was tall irish guy who was inquiring about Lusks address at the shop.

I agree the crooks thugs and weirdos might have a thing against a vigilance committee, but would that type have access to a human kidney?

Ive never bought the idea that a human kidney could be easy to come by-even by a Medical student.

[Patrick S]

Interesting take. Care to expound? I know that it has been proposed that it was actually a hoax from someone from within the vigilance committee or Lu SK himself that hoaxed it to drum up support/money/notoriety for the committee.

An opinion. It's something I felt when I first read about the kidney some 30 years ago. It just seemed to me, and it still does, that it was someone screwing with Lusk. That's what I mean when I say it was more about Lusk. That is to say the sender's focus was Lusk's reaction. As far as the kidney itself goes: in researching it, I'm not convinced about much with respect to where it came from. There seems to have been a desire by nearly everyone involved for it to have come from Mitre Square, even as their criteria for establishing that provenance didn't exist then, and in some cases doesn't exist today. Various doctors claimed that the kidney came from someone with Bright's disease, from a woman, from a woman in her mid-40s, that it came from an alcoholic....all pointing to it having come from Eddowes - and all beyond the medical technology of the time. I think it was likely human, although, based on the seeming desire of the doctors who's opinions were given to trace the kidney to Eddows and her killer, I think even that could be questioned (a contemporary Dr. did exactly that (Saunders?), stating he wished those who'd examined the kidney (he himself had not) might just say, "I don't know" if it's human.

[Harry D]

Interesting take. Care to expound? I know that it has been proposed that it was actually a hoax from someone from within the vigilance committee or Lu SK himself that hoaxed it to drum up support/money/notoriety for the committee.

Intimidation.

Lusk was already being stalked and had a strange encounter with a guy in a pub. The resident crooks in Whitechapel would want the Vigilance Committee off the streets just as much as Jack would.

[Abby Normal]

I completely agree. This phenomenon is apparent these days and it's not new. Anyone who achieves a degree of renown, notoriety, fame, celebrity, becomes a distraction, obsession, object of love or hatred for some person, some group, somewhere. I think the kidney was about Lusk completely.

Interesting take. Care to expound? I know that it has been proposed that it was actually a hoax from someone from within the vigilance committee or Lu SK himself that hoaxed it to drum up support/money/notoriety for the committee.

[Patrick S]

I think the person who sent the letter was more interested in Lusk than in killing destitute women.

There are newspaper articles describing strange people sneaking around his house and making contact with him in strange ways.

I found those a few days ago, can not refer to them now since I am sitting by another computer. But they are easy to find in the BNA if you search for Lusk and/or Vigilance committee.

Cheers, Pierre

I completely agree. This phenomenon is apparent these days and it's not new. Anyone who achieves a degree of renown, notoriety, fame, celebrity, becomes a distraction, obsession, object of love or hatred for some person, some group, somewhere. I think the kidney was about Lusk completely.

[Pierre]

I flip flop a bit but lean towards it being the most likely letter to come from a killer, save to say if it did I think Openshaw probably did too.

I think the person who sent the letter was more interested in Lusk than in killing destitute women.

There are newspaper articles describing strange people sneaking around his house and making contact with him in strange ways.

I found those a few days ago, can not refer to them now since I am sitting by another computer. But they are easy to find in the BNA if you search for Lusk and/or Vigilance committee.

Cheers, Pierre

[GUT]

I believe personally that the letter sent to Lusk was sent by Kates killer....I'm loathe to conclude by that he was the Ripper though.

I flip flop a bit but lean towards it being the most likely letter to come from a killer, save to say if it did I think Openshaw probably did too.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think the 'Dear Boss' letter was written by the killer. As well, I doubt ANY of the correspondence received by police, Lusk, etc. was written by the killer.

Of course, we cannot know anything for certain at this point. This is simply my personal feeling. In my personal composite of the killer, he was just that: a killer. Everything else was extraneous, ancillary, even unncecessary. Killing was the thing. It was not a game. It was not something to be advertised or boasted about. It was his passion, compulsion, obsession. His focus was on what he was about, what he HAD to do. Therefore, I don't think he would have put pen to paper, contacted anyone, boasted, recorded in a diary or journal. Hoaxes all.

I believe he was a social imbecile. I believe he posessed some amount of intelligence that was not apparent due to his social awkwardness and strange personal manner. I also believe that witnesses who saw victims speaking and laughing with a man before their murders did not see the killer. I sense the killer was man of few words, very shy, someone his victims actually felt they had to draw out, or even for whom they may have felt some amount of pity. Shy. Awkward. Quite. Wouldn't hurt a fly. Until he cut their throats, that is. I believe the killer's name is foreign to us, unknown. He lived quietly, unnoticed. He died, silenly, mourned by few, missed by none.

I believe personally that the letter sent to Lusk was sent by Kates killer....I'm loathe to conclude by that he was the Ripper though.

[GUT]

Did they say that his claims about himself have 'low validity', because there are 'no sources'?

Nope, couldn't talk at all too busy laughing.

[Henry Flower]

Not only no evidence but posts that indicate no (or at best limited) knowledge in the area. I've shown some of his expert posts to REAL historians, (you know Deans of faculties, professors etc) who have laughed.

Did they say that his claims about himself have 'low validity', because there are 'no sources'?

[GUT]

And moreover, this being the internet how very, very easy it is for any tom dick or harry to simply announce their own academic brilliance as a historian, or scientist, or sociologist, or statistician et al, without actually having any expertise in any of those fields.

I trust an expert or historian when I can look them up and see what they have studied or published, or how many years of expertise and experience they have amassed.

Imagine being such a snake that you spend more than a year trying to 'pull rank' on everyone, without ever offering one sliver of evidence that you have properly earned any right to do so.

Not only no evidence but posts that indicate no (or at best limited) knowledge in the area. I've shown some of his expert posts to REAL historians, (you know Deans of faculties, professors etc) who have laughed.

[Henry Flower]

You don't need a subject to be a University Discipline for someone to be an expert.

Just have a look at any dictionary, here's what Webster says

And moreover, this being the internet how very, very easy it is for any tom dick or harry to simply announce their own academic brilliance as a historian, or scientist, or sociologist, or statistician et al, without actually having any expertise in any of those fields.

I trust an expert or historian when I can look them up and see what they have studied or published, or how many years of expertise and experience they have amassed.

Imagine being such a snake that you spend more than a year trying to 'pull rank' on everyone, without ever offering one sliver of evidence that you have properly earned any right to do so.

[GUT]

Hi Steve,

and then of course we have the "real experts", in this particular case, the ripperologists.

But ripperology is not a university discipline.

Cheers, Pierre

You don't need a subject to be a University Discipline for someone to be an expert.

Just have a look at any dictionary, here's what Webster says

having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience

[Henry Flower]

No but their knowledge of the events is useful and should be used, the same does not apply to the intreptation of those events of course.

I was more thinking of medical experts and historians as the post appeared to be an attack on historians in general and suggesting journalists are somehow superior.


Steve

Steve, I agree - and that is precisely why I think it is actually *very* important to remind people again and again that the poster 'Pierre' has repeatedly claimed to be a historian, but has provided not a jot of evidence to support the claim, and has moreover made innumerable statements that are frankly - in terms of content, reasoning, evidence, and temperament - way, way below what would be expected of an academic of any standing.

It is precisely BECAUSE the evidence and reasoning of genuine historians, experts, and scientists is greatly to be preferred to the guesswork of amateurs that I keep reminding people that Pierre is an amateur ripperologist and - until he wants to offer evidence to the contrary - not an historian. I don't appreciate charlatans posing as experts, giving expertise a bad name.

I actually think that's quite important.