Letters to Police

[GUT]

G'Day Stewart

But I can think of at least 5 reasons the paper may have reported that Openshaw recanted his original position.

My point is attack the newspapers or Reed or Smith all you want.

But don't say there is no evidence that he said from a 45 year old Female and Ginny, because there are more accounts that he did than that he didn't.

Major Smith's 1910 remarks from his error-strewn account of the murders need not detain us and should be dismissed as unfounded.

Why? Even if one accepts that there are errors, why I repeat does that prove that it is entirely wrong?

Until one can put Openshaw, Reed, Smith and the reporters in the witness box and cross-examine them we 125 years later have no idea who is telling the truth.

[GUT]

G'Day

Five possible reasons for the paper to publish a recantation:

1. Openshaw didn't say what he was alleged to have said by Smith and Reed.

2. Openshaw [or Reed] had been "dragged over the coals" for releasing information the authorities wanted repressed.

3. Openshaw on consideration decided he had gone too far with his original statements.

4. He realized that one day he might be called upon in Court to defend his position and that some of his statements may be difficult to persuade a jury as to accuracy.

5. He was worried about his professional reputation.

And of course if by 20th he had decided he wanted to distance himself from his original position [if it was his original position] then his report of 27th won't contain that information.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that one point can be made about this correspondence and specimen.....although the sample cannot be conclusively attributed to Kate Eddowes...(it was a sample, not a complete specimen),...that the possibility it was from her killer cannot be excluded.

As I mentioned, the Police were actively looking at Medical Students as a possible source for the skills sets seen in the first 2 Canonical murders at that time, and as Stewart pointed out, a possible occupation that would put someone in contact with such an organ sample were Medical Students, ...so I think it would be unwise to eliminate this a possible genuine article without further evidence to assess.

Its also possible that the real killer sent a section of someone elses kidney.

[Stewart P Evans]

My Assessment

My final assessment of the Lusk episode appeared at the end of chapter six of my 2001 book, Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell. I see no reason to change my conclusion as it appeared there.

'Thus the mysterious episode of the 'Lusk letter and kidney' was consigned to the pages of history and there it remains unresolved, as do many of the mysteries of this case. For some the 'From hell' letter accompanied by a section of human kidney plus the views of Henry Smith of the City Police indicate the killer himself sent it. For others the opinions of Dr Brown, the police, and the belief of George Lusk himself tend to tilt the balance in favour of a macabre practical joke.'

[GUT]

G'Day Stewart

'Thus the mysterious episode of the 'Lusk letter and kidney' was consigned to the pages of history and there it remains unresolved, as do many of the mysteries of this case. For some the 'From hell' letter accompanied by a section of human kidney plus the views of Henry Smith of the City Police indicate the killer himself sent it. For others the opinions of Dr Brown, the police, and the belief of George Lusk himself tend to tilt the balance in favour of a macabre practical joke.'

There we are in total agreement.

[pinkmoon]

My final assessment of the Lusk episode appeared at the end of chapter six of my 2001 book, Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell. I see no reason to change my conclusion as it appeared there.

'Thus the mysterious episode of the 'Lusk letter and kidney' was consigned to the pages of history and there it remains unresolved, as do many of the mysteries of this case. For some the 'From hell' letter accompanied by a section of human kidney plus the views of Henry Smith of the City Police indicate the killer himself sent it. For others the opinions of Dr Brown, the police, and the belief of George Lusk himself tend to tilt the balance in favour of a macabre practical joke.'

Hi Stewart,is it possible that Mr lusk had a very good idea who the prankster was who sent the kidney?could this explain why he was reluctant to go to the police with it?

[AndrewL]

I agree with Stewart Evans that the Lusk kidney was most likely a sinister hoax. Unfortunately, it has become such an integral part of Ripper folklore that many people are emotionally attached to the idea that it was genuine and cannot let it go.

In my opinion, this applies to several other aspects of the case as well. When I first became interested in it around 1988, much of the attraction was that the Ripper seemed like a Satanic figure. He was frequently depicted as a criminal mastermind who escaped from the murder scenes like magic, left cryptic messages behind on walls, wrote taunting letters to the police and even indulged in cannibalism. We now that the reality was almost certainly a lot more mundane.

I am grateful to researchers like Mr Evans for bringing us closer to the truth, but I must admit there are times when I miss the myth - and I suspect I am not alone.

[pinkmoon]

I agree with Stewart Evans that the Lusk kidney was most likely a sinister hoax. Unfortunately, it has become such an integral part of Ripper folklore that many people are emotionally attached to the idea that it was genuine and cannot let it go.

In my opinion, this applies to several other aspects of the case as well. When I first became interested in it around 1988, much of the attraction was that the Ripper seemed like a Satanic figure. He was frequently depicted as a criminal mastermind who escaped from the murder scenes like magic, left cryptic messages behind on walls, wrote taunting letters to the police and even indulged in cannibalism. We now that the reality was almost certainly a lot more mundane.

I am grateful to researchers like Mr Evans for bringing us closer to the truth, but I must admit there are times when I miss the myth - and I suspect I am not alone.

Hi Andrew,I think that is why the royal ripper is such a popular theory for a lot of people because last face it that is a cracking yarn to say the least.

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day JB

So we are, are we not, back to the same question have, and will, come up against in this case forever and a day. Which account is to be believed?

Why should one paper be more or less accepted than the other? ie the Star, The Post, The evening News.

Hi Gut. It's not the papers that were in error in this case, it was their source.

Now if individuals wish to ignore all that I have shown and accept dubious, conflicting, press reports and fanciful memoir accounts written over twenty years later, so be it. That is up to them. I suggest that a study of the interpretation of historical data might be useful. It's fine to quote press reports. Totally believing in them is another matter.

Hi Stewart, this is pretty much what I was saying. I'm amazed anyone can look at the same evidence you and I do and be able to say with full confidence that the Lusk kidney was Eddowes or that it wasn't Eddowes. Only the now impossible DNA test could conclude that once and for all. What is beyond doubt is that the press reports stating it was a female 'ginny' kidney were blatant lies.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
__________________

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

I for one have certainly not said that:

that the Lusk kidney was Eddowes

.

What I have repeated ad nauseum is that you can't say that it was never said that the Kidney was female or "Ginny". By all means attack the reports but at least acknowledge that there is a different version than you contend for.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Gut, I know you haven't. Your posts are usually quite sensible. But there's books and endless posts from others who have. I'm not as convinced as Stewart that Smith was talking out of his bum though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

And if he wasn't where does that leave the issue?

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Tom

And if he wasn't where does that leave the issue?

Just where it's always been. An uncertainty.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Henry Smith

The caveats regarding the writings of Henry Smith have long been in place, as witness the following from The Jack the Ripper A-Z -

'In his memoirs From Constable to Commissioner (1910) he wrote, "There is no man living who knows as much of those murders as I do", a claim that was accepted at face value until the discovery in 1988 of G.H. Edwards' caveat concerning the major's veracity, written on the title-page of the Scotland Yard library copy, and the realization that some of the major's anecdotes were demonstrably untrue.'

[Stewart P Evans]

How Reliable?

How reliable was Smith regarding the Lusk letter and kidney episode? We have to look no further than the following from his 1910 book, From Constable to Commissioner, page 154 -

'When the body was examined by the police surgeon, Mr. Gordon Brown, one kidney was found to be missing, and some days after the murder what purported to be that kidney was posted to the office of the Central News, together with a short note of rather a jocular character unfit for publication. Both kidney and note the manager at once forwarded to me.'