Why disguise the fact that JtR was educated?

[curious]

The only way to know it was even human is a DNA test.

And the timing on the preservation is highly changeable. Higher alcohol content, different additives, temperature, a vacuum... if you've ever tried to pickle something you know how delicate such processes are.

Wonder just what the odds would be of your average prankster choosing materials and a process that might make it appear that the timing is right for it to be Eddowes'?

[Sam Flynn]

Did any of the doctors at the time say they thought it wasn't human?

Not to my knowledge

I seem to recall that a doctor wrote a letter to the press expressing that opinion, but I may be imagining it. Don't think so, though.

BTW, a lot of what we "know" about the Lusk kidney has come down to us via some dodgy press reports and even dodgier police memoirs. Reader beware!

[GUT]

I seem to recall that a doctor wrote a letter to the press expressing that opinion, but I may be imagining it. Don't think so, though.

BTW, a lot of what we "know" about the Lusk kidney has come down to us via some dodgy press reports and even dodgier police memoirs. Reader beware!

That applies to almost anything we know of the case.

[Damaso Marte]

A Casebook thread actually convinced me that the Lusk letter is false. Somebody posted about "stage Irish" - when a British play had a character who was Irish, that character's lines were written in a way that imitated an Irish accent by misspelling the words in a way that imitated the stereotypical Irish way of pronouncing them.

The Lusk letter was written in stage Irish.

If the author actually had an Irish accent, he would not write it. We have people on Casebook from all over the world, with easily more than a dozen different accents represented. We all write the same.

[Pcdunn]

^^^ Interesting point, but we all have spell-checkers, and auto-correction, too.

I read recently that the "Sor" in the Lusk letter (long believed to be Irish, or "stage" Irish) has been examined recently and seems to be recognized now as "Sir" written with a looped and un-dotted "i"... Don't know if it's so, but if so, the writer may have been neither uneducated or a hoaxer, just rather poor at forming his letters.

[GUT]

^^^ Interesting point, but we all have spell-checkers, and auto-correction, too.

I read recently that the "Sor" in the Lusk letter (long believed to be Irish, or "stage" Irish) has been examined recently and seems to be recognized now as "Sir" written with a looped and un-dotted "i"... Don't know if it's so, but if so, the writer may have been neither uneducated or a hoaxer, just rather poor at forming his letters.

And if you have handwriting like mine??

[Pcdunn]

And if you have handwriting like mine??

I have left-handed writing, I'm afraid! Make of that what you will!
Actually, due to getting some chronic pain in my hands (likely arthitis), I often type rather more than write, lately.

[Errata]

Wonder just what the odds would be of your average prankster choosing materials and a process that might make it appear that the timing is right for it to be Eddowes'?

Pretty good probably. Preserving flesh is not like, say, brewing liquor where the longer you leave it the more potent it is. There is a saturation point, and beyond that keeping the thing in the solution really only serves as storage. I mean your pickles aren't more pickled after being in your fridge for a month, you know? And a scientist would have no way of knowing how long a pickle had been sitting in pickling solution, because once it hits the saturation point, thats it. So pickled for a month or pickled for a week, it's the same. As long as it's been pickled long enough to hit the saturation point.

Kidneys are made to absorb, much more so than muscle tissue. So once all the tissue sucks up alcohol the process is complete. I'd say a week, although it could be as short as 48 hours. Alcohol sort of cooks flesh in a weird way, so it's like a steak. Once it's cooked, it's cooked. It cannot go back to raw, and you cannot tell when something was cooked by examining it. At best you can tell how long the piece of flesh was allowed to decay before it was preserved. Which isn't that helpful unless it was left to rot longer ago than the murder occurred. Which would be super weird.

[Abby Normal]

Pretty good probably. Preserving flesh is not like, say, brewing liquor where the longer you leave it the more potent it is. There is a saturation point, and beyond that keeping the thing in the solution really only serves as storage. I mean your pickles aren't more pickled after being in your fridge for a month, you know? And a scientist would have no way of knowing how long a pickle had been sitting in pickling solution, because once it hits the saturation point, thats it. So pickled for a month or pickled for a week, it's the same. As long as it's been pickled long enough to hit the saturation point.

Kidneys are made to absorb, much more so than muscle tissue. So once all the tissue sucks up alcohol the process is complete. I'd say a week, although it could be as short as 48 hours. Alcohol sort of cooks flesh in a weird way, so it's like a steak. Once it's cooked, it's cooked. It cannot go back to raw, and you cannot tell when something was cooked by examining it. At best you can tell how long the piece of flesh was allowed to decay before it was preserved. Which isn't that helpful unless it was left to rot longer ago than the murder occurred. Which would be super weird.

Which kidney was removed from eddowes and which one was sent to lusk?

[Abby Normal]

I seem to recall that a doctor wrote a letter to the press expressing that opinion, but I may be imagining it. Don't think so, though.

BTW, a lot of what we "know" about the Lusk kidney has come down to us via some dodgy press reports and even dodgier police memoirs. Reader beware!

Hi Sam and errata

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

[Abby Normal]

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

[packers stem]

If the author actually had an Irish accent, he would not write it. We have people on Casebook from all over the world, with easily more than a dozen different accents represented. We all write the same.

Not always.
I have a friend who always writes his Facebook posts using his Geordie (Newcastle upon Tyne) slang.
Sometimes takes a fair bit of deciphering

[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

[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.

[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?