Catch me when you Can

[Jurriaan Maessen]

In connection to possible suspect Charles Lechmere/Cross as being JTR, a thought, albeit a seemingly farfetched one: in the 'from hell'-letter (the only letter not bearing any resemblance to the other ones) the author signes off with the enigmatic 'Catch me when you Can'. Note that the Wikipedia-transcript writes the C's as capitals, and you'll observe that in the original the C's indeed appear to be somewhat larger than the other letters. Could it be a clue left by Cross in which he signes off with his actual inititals? Very curious as to what you think..

[Sam Flynn]

The biggest letters are the F in "From" and the M in "Mr" - Florence Maybrick? (Only kidding!) Then again, the L in the first "Lusk", the S in "Sor" and the "I" are just as big. All five are bigger than the Cs in "Catch me when you can".

[Jurriaan Maessen]

Haha, yeah I guess you're right. Me being a newcomer to the casebook ('cadet') this might not be the best possible first post. I just found it to be an interesting thought, especially since the "C's" come after 'signed', although it's quite farfetched, especially since the handwriting of the Lusk-letter doesn't match Lechmere's at all.

[Abby Normal]

In connection to possible suspect Charles Lechmere/Cross as being JTR, a thought, albeit a seemingly farfetched one: in the 'from hell'-letter (the only letter not bearing any resemblance to the other ones) the author signes off with the enigmatic 'Catch me when you Can'. Note that the Wikipedia-transcript writes the C's as capitals, and you'll observe that in the original the C's indeed appear to be somewhat larger than the other letters. Could it be a clue left by Cross in which he signes off with his actual inititals? Very curious as to what you think..

well I don't know about all that-but I would suggest a better way would be to see if lechs handwriting matches this (or dear boss for that matter.)

[London1888]

Is there a copy of Lechs handwriting?

I like him as a suspect, but probably another red herring.

[Michael W Richards]

I wonder.....if this letter, (one which I am on the fence about since it has that biological specimen as well and is not addressed to the Police or the Press), was written by Kates killer...which is the letters premise, and he is the man who was called Jack the Ripper, assumed murderer of Polly and Annie...then why did he single out Lusk in this? There were lots of vigilance committees and prominent locals to choose from. Lusk had also complained in previous weeks he had received threats...was this another threat to Lusk specifically,...and if so, why would Jack the Ripper be threatening men, or at least this one man ?

[Patrick S]

I wonder.....if this letter, (one which I am on the fence about since it has that biological specimen as well and is not addressed to the Police or the Press), was written by Kates killer...which is the letters premise, and he is the man who was called Jack the Ripper, assumed murderer of Polly and Annie...then why did he single out Lusk in this? There were lots of vigilance committees and prominent locals to choose from. Lusk had also complained in previous weeks he had received threats...was this another threat to Lusk specifically,...and if so, why would Jack the Ripper be threatening men, or at least this one man ?

I'd always been on the fence as well. Though, in recent years I've become more convinced it was simply another hoax. And you touched upon my reason for believing so in your post: Lusk had been the target of threats, harassment, and had previously received "crank letters". Thus, I feel as if this is simply another "crank letter", probably by the author of a previous hoax pulled on Mr. Lusk, who'd decided to up the ante, so to speak, by including a portion of kidney (probably human). It seems to me that human nature - as we understand it today - would have made Mr. Lusk a natural target for hoaxers, jokers, and, "haters". We see it today when anyone separates themselves from the crowd in some way, as Lusk did as chairman of the Vigilance Committee. These days "Twitter" (it seems to be referred to as a living, breathing thing) is quick to intervene in an effort to bring those who seem to think too much of themselves and their role in life back down with the rest of us, where they belong.

[Takod]

I'd always been on the fence as well. Though, in recent years I've become more convinced it was simply another hoax. And you touched upon my reason for believing so in your post: Lusk had been the target of threats, harassment, and had previously received "crank letters". Thus, I feel as if this is simply another "crank letter", probably by the author of a previous hoax pulled on Mr. Lusk, who'd decided to up the ante, so to speak, by including a portion of kidney (probably human). It seems to me that human nature - as we understand it today - would have made Mr. Lusk a natural target for hoaxers, jokers, and, "haters". We see it today when anyone separates themselves from the crowd in some way, as Lusk did as chairman of the Vigilance Committee. These days "Twitter" (it seems to be referred to as a living, breathing thing) is quick to intervene in an effort to bring those who seem to think too much of themselves and their role in life back down with the rest of us, where they belong.

On the other hand, this is the only letter that I know of that references Cannibalism. I'd be more inclined to believe it was a hoax if Lusk had received the Bloody knife and a followup.

[Abby Normal]

On the other hand, this is the only letter that I know of that references Cannibalism. I'd be more inclined to believe it was a hoax if Lusk had received the Bloody knife and a followup.

out of all the letters I think this is most likely to be real. the kidney could have been Eddowes, the writer dosnt jump on the ripper signed bandwagon and there is the mention of cannibalism, a trait common among post mortem type serial killers. (and not something known at the time).

Ive never bought into the whole a human kidney could be easy to get a hold of/prank by medical students etc idea.

re-why Lusk? why not? he was the head of a local group put together to catch the ripper. and the ripper was local and intimately involved in the neighborhood.
The night eddowes was murdered, the ripper was disturbed by several people. and with eddowes specifically Lawende and friends while the ripper was chatteing her up. perhaps he thought they were part of Lusks group?

[Sam Flynn]

re-why Lusk? why not?

Lusk's activities as head of the Vigilance Committee received quite some publicity, and his address had recently been published in the papers. Any number of people would have read about him and learned where he lived.

[Takod]

Lusk's activities as head of the Vigilance Committee received quite some publicity, and his address had recently been published in the papers. Any number of people would have read about him and learned where he lived.

What kind of publicity? Did he make a claim that he'd catch the guy responsible or anything of that nature thereby inviting a letter?

[GUT]

If any letter is real, I’d say it’s this one, but OMG looking for hints in what letters are larger than the others, pleeeeaaseeee.

[drstrange169]

Problem is according to Lechmerites, his initials were always C.L. not C.C.

[Sam Flynn]

What kind of publicity? Did he make a claim that he'd catch the guy responsible or anything of that nature thereby inviting a letter?

A letter from Lusk, giving his address, was published in the Daily Telegraph and Daily News (and possibly others) on the 1st October, urging the Home Office to reconsider its decision not to offer a reward. The same edition of the Telegraph contained articles underlining Lusk's position as head of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, reporting that Lusk had written to the Queen with a petition requesting that she should lean on the Home Secretary to reverse his decision.

The Government response to Lusk, again including his home address, was published on 8th October in The Times, Daily Telegraph and the Echo, and possibly elsewhere. The same editions of those papers carried an account of Lusk's having seen a strange man in a deerstalker hat who had been prowling around Lusk's premises, and went on to give a description of the prowler that Lusk had provided to the police.

The activities of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee had been widely reported on since September, about which time posters had gone up advertising the Vigilance Committee's own offer of a reward. The posters had evidently printed George Lusk's name, but not his address.

[Sam Flynn]

"From Hell" wasn't the first or last letter Lusk would receive. There was another letter reported in the papers, presumably dated 12th October 1888 (The Times of 15th October says that it was received "last Friday" by Lusk), which read as follows:

I write you a letter in black ink, as I have no more of the right stuff. I think you are all asleep in Scotland-yard with your bloodhounds, as I will show you to-morrow night (Saturday). I am going to do a double event, but not in Whitechapel. Got rather too warm there. Had to shift. No more till you hear me again - JACK THE RIPPER

This letter was posted in the London borough of Kilburn, long associated with Irish immigrants and their descendants, which is interesting because the more famous Lusk Letter is widely thought to be peppered with Irishisms (e.g. "Sor", "tother", "prasarved", "mishter"). It's pure speculation, of course, but perhaps both letters were written by the same, Kilburn-based author? If so, then whoever wrote "From Hell" lived quite some distance from the Ripper's hunting grounds, which would be another strike against the author's being the killer.