Was it reported in the early articles covering the Eddowes murder that she was missing a kidney?
I'm just thinking in terms of the Lusk letter being a forgery. If it was well-known that the body was missing a kidney, then the fact that the forger chose the include a kidney for shock value (and verisimilitude) isn't so surprising. However, if it wasn't well-known, then it was either a very lucky guess, or that's a point in favor of authenticity. Or maybe it really was a journalist, or someone like that, someone in position to know a little more than the typical man on the street.
BTW, I suppose someone has already proposed Lusk himself as the forger of the Lusk letter-- you know, to make himself and his vigilance committee more important, and part of the investigation. Not saying I believe it-- it's probably better for my novel than my real-life theory-- but it's something at least worth considering, just for the sake of covering all the bases.
I'm just thinking in terms of the Lusk letter being a forgery. If it was well-known that the body was missing a kidney, then the fact that the forger chose the include a kidney for shock value (and verisimilitude) isn't so surprising. However, if it wasn't well-known, then it was either a very lucky guess, or that's a point in favor of authenticity. Or maybe it really was a journalist, or someone like that, someone in position to know a little more than the typical man on the street.
BTW, I suppose someone has already proposed Lusk himself as the forger of the Lusk letter-- you know, to make himself and his vigilance committee more important, and part of the investigation. Not saying I believe it-- it's probably better for my novel than my real-life theory-- but it's something at least worth considering, just for the sake of covering all the bases.
Comment