Why disguise the fact that JtR was educated?

[Abby Normal]

If you have seen Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner's Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell you will be aware that there were hundreds of these letters sent, maybe even thousands -- because there are far more reported in the press from 1888 onward than are in their book. Clearly, countless people were getting their jollies off writing such letters pretending they were the killer. The killer wrote a letter signing it "Jack the Ripper"? A bit too good to be true.

Hi Chris
yes I own it. and most of them are signed jack the ripper, because of the original Dear Boss. and are obvious copy cats (hoaxes). most are incoherent nonsense.

That's why from hell stands out.

The killer wrote a letter signing it "Jack the Ripper"? A bit too good to be true

and re Dear Boss. why wouldn't the killer write a letter and sign it jack the ripper?

Ever hear of Zodiac, BTK, Son of Sam?

[Abby Normal]

Of course they did. They were handed a piece of kidney and were told that it came from this letter by someone claiming to be the Ripper, so see if it's human would you? There certainly wouldn't be anything ruling out the idea it was a human kidney. There was no way to know one way or the other. So they made some assumptions. Possibly even correct assumptions. But any suggestion that they had some way of 100% knowing for sure really anything about that piece of meat... is frankly a lie. Or to be more generous, optimistically fallacious. They might have even been sure in their own minds. But the science did not exist to back up their claims.

Hi Errata
of course. I understand they couldn't be 100% correct. They were also aware that it could be a hoax, so not so sure they were so predisposed that it was from a human.

Its one thing to debate if it came from eddowes, or a female, etc but we now have slipped back to is it an animals? come on. they couldn't be 100% sure but they could be, and probably are, correct in there assessment that it was human.

[Michael W Richards]

Well yes but remember the person or persons who wrote the letters is a prankster, and the wording is within their own control. It doesn't have to be consistent from one letter to the other. Besides, if the person was drunk, as they may have been -- for example, an alcoholic such as Roslyn D'Onston -- would they care about such inconsistencies?

Chris

I believe Chris that there is at least a reasonable chance that the letter and parcel were intended to scare Lusk, not the female public at large, as the Ripper letters seem to be. The Irish gentleman asking for Lusks address earlier that week ,and then the parcel matching that format, the fact that Lusk seems afraid of the message from the outset, rather than outraged someone would send him such a thing, or perhaps eager to find out if this is a clue of use to the authorities. He sticks it in his drawer for over a day, doesnt tell anyone, and when he does he can barely stand the sight of it.

That might dovetail in nicely with what I believe could be Irish terrorist roots in the killing of Kate Eddowes. Which means I believe its possible that the kidney section did belong to Kate, and I believe it was used to tell Lusk who killed her, and possibly what might happen to him.

Just add that IF Kate had told her ex landlady about turning in someone for the gruesome murders happening that Fall, and that person was an Irish self rule terrorist,.... whether involved with the murders or other nefarious plots, she would be someone to silence.

[Shaggyrand]

Well yes but remember the person or persons who wrote the letters is a prankster, and the wording is within their own control. It doesn't have to be consistent from one letter to the other. Besides, if the person was drunk, as they may have been -- for example, an alcoholic such as Roslyn D'Onston -- would they care about such inconsistencies?

Chris

I don't think the Lusk letter is a drunk prankster. The Lusk letter was carried out with a much higher degree of risk and planning compared to every other letter that I'm aware of. It's a bold, dramatic and fairly impressive prank. The Openshaw letter is not, its a standard JtR letter that incorporates what the writer thinks is the newest twist on format, just claims of what he was going to do but didn't for reason whatever. It's generic. The Openshaw writer has probably written other fake letters with a hand closer to their own and when it didn't get the attention they thought it would they went back to that.
Two different pranksters to me.

[Mirandola]

Regarding the Lusk Kidney, the basic points seem straightforward.
- There was no test in 1888 that could with certainty distinguish between the kidney of a human and a pig (it's only with DNA sequencing that we could positively do so now, but obviously that wasn't available), [just as there was no test that could reliably distinguish human from mammalian blood until Paul Uhlenhuth devised one in 1901, despite the Daily News report of 15 September regarding the Chapman killing that ' the blood-stained newspapers have been subjected to analysis, and the stains certified to have been those of human blood'. (http://www.fmap.archives.gla.ac.uk/C...loodtest.htm)]

- Anyone could buy a pig's kidney at any butcher's shop.
- Organs were generally preserved in Methylated Spirit (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3162231/), and anyone could buy this in any Chemist's or large Grocer's.

- People do hoaxes for any and every reason under the sun, or for no reason at all - here's just one of thousands of websites discussing this http://www.bestpsychologydegrees.com/hoaxes/.

Finally, I'll repost the link that someone posted earlier to what seems a pretty exhaustive discussion of the ins and outs of Lusk's Kidney, by Christopher-Michael DiGrazia, http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html.

[ChrisGeorge]

Similar style handwriting but not the same. Not similar enough to say they came from the same hand. Besides the most important differences that separate them, to me at any rate, are not found in the body of the letter but in the deliveries. Lusk's was hand delivered but Openshaw's was mailed. Not just mailed but everything on the envelope is spelled correctly. I don't buy that someone who went to the trouble of including a kidney in one letter would make the mistake of spelling "pathological curator" and "hospital" (hospital is misspelled in the body) correctly on the envelope in his next letter.

Well yes but remember the person or persons who wrote the letters is a prankster, and the wording is within their own control. It doesn't have to be consistent from one letter to the other. Besides, if the person was drunk, as they may have been -- for example, an alcoholic such as Roslyn D'Onston -- would they care about such inconsistencies?

Chris

[Shaggyrand]

I think there is a good case to be made that the Lusk letter and the Openshaw letter were sent by the same person. Same lousy handwriting, same ribbing dialect phrases obviously written by someone who was educated but was trying to make it look as if they were not and that they couldn't spell. And yet the Openshaw letter is signed "Jack the Ripper."

Similar style handwriting but not the same. Not similar enough to say they came from the same hand. Besides the most important differences that separate them, to me at any rate, are not found in the body of the letter but in the deliveries. Lusk's was hand delivered but Openshaw's was mailed. Not just mailed but everything on the envelope is spelled correctly. I don't buy that someone who went to the trouble of including a kidney in one letter would make the mistake of spelling "pathological curator" and "hospital" (hospital is misspelled in the body) correctly on the envelope in his next letter.

[ChrisGeorge]

Except for the writer of the letter to Lusk, which I think is quite interesting.

I think there is a good case to be made that the Lusk letter and the Openshaw letter were sent by the same person. Same lousy handwriting, same ribbing dialect phrases obviously written by someone who was educated but was trying to make it look as if they were not and that they couldn't spell. And yet the Openshaw letter is signed "Jack the Ripper."

Here is a Youtube video featuring a dramatic reading of the Openshaw letter:

https://youtu.be/oJdF3FcXEsQ

[Rosella]

Except for the writer of the letter to Lusk, which I think is quite interesting.

[ChrisGeorge]

G'day Chris, what I'm wondering about though is of those 109s and 1000s (almost all hoaxes I think) how many we're signed JtR after the name was used first time.

I'll have to find Letters From Hell (I think I lent it out) and try and work it our. Memory says it was a LOT.

I would say that most of the letters were signed "Jack the Ripper" -- for the same reason that the case became famous worldwide. The name is like lightning -- it's electric. So of course all the hoaxers would want to use it, to spread fear.

Chris

[GUT]

If you have seen Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner's Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell you will be aware that there were hundreds of these letters sent, maybe even thousands -- because there are far more reported in the press from 1888 onward than are in their book. Clearly, countless people were getting their jollies off writing such letters pretending they were the killer. The killer wrote a letter signing it "Jack the Ripper"? A bit too good to be true.

G'day Chris, what I'm wondering about though is of those 109s and 1000s (almost all hoaxes I think) how many we're signed JtR after the name was used first time.

I'll have to find Letters From Hell (I think I lent it out) and try and work it our. Memory says it was a LOT.

[ChrisGeorge]

Also, wouldn't a hoaxer be more inclined to sign the letter jack the ripper?

To my mind (and I may be wrong) that is one of the strongest pointers to it being genuine.

I wonder if anyone has done a breakdown of the signature or name on those post Dear Boss?

If you have seen Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner's Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell you will be aware that there were hundreds of these letters sent, maybe even thousands -- because there are far more reported in the press from 1888 onward than are in their book. Clearly, countless people were getting their jollies off writing such letters pretending they were the killer. The killer wrote a letter signing it "Jack the Ripper"? A bit too good to be true.

[GUT]

Also, wouldn't a hoaxer be more inclined to sign the letter jack the ripper?

To my mind (and I may be wrong) that is one of the strongest pointers to it being genuine.

I wonder if anyone has done a breakdown of the signature or name on those post Dear Boss?

[Errata]

Hi Sam and errata

Both Openshaw and brown, who examined the kidney, came to the conclusion that it was a human kidney.

Of course they did. They were handed a piece of kidney and were told that it came from this letter by someone claiming to be the Ripper, so see if it's human would you? There certainly wouldn't be anything ruling out the idea it was a human kidney. There was no way to know one way or the other. So they made some assumptions. Possibly even correct assumptions. But any suggestion that they had some way of 100% knowing for sure really anything about that piece of meat... is frankly a lie. Or to be more generous, optimistically fallacious. They might have even been sure in their own minds. But the science did not exist to back up their claims.

[packers stem]

Also, wouldn't a hoaxer be more inclined to sign the letter jack the ripper?

I agree
It's always been the most likely to be authentic because of that and also by sending it to Lusk