Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[Robert St Devil]

La exposicion del cadaver

el cadaver de Pigott ha sido trasladado al deposito judicial del Sur, donde actualmente se encuentra.
yace vestido, sobre unos trozos de aspillera, dentro de un ataud ordinario de tablas forrado de tela negra de algodon. el ataud esta colocado sobre una mesa. el traje del suicida se compone de abrigo marron, chaquet y chaleco de tricot negro, pantalon de rayas oscuro y botas recias. todo ello bastante usado. el chaleco esta casi todo desabrochado y por entre la abertura de la pechera asoma un escapulario pequeno y grasiento, en uno de cuyos lados hay pintadas las letras IHS, el monograma de Jesus, dominado por una cruz.
la boca y parte del bigote estan llenos de sangre seca, y en las manos y en la cara hay tambien manchas de sangre. los ojos, azules claros y vidriosos, estan entreabiertos. la bala ha debido salir por cerca del cogote, hacia el lado derecho.
en la misma sala hay otros cadaveres cubiertos de lienzos. todos ellos son de personas halladas heridas o muertas en la calle y que antes de ir al deposito han pasado por las salas de diseccion.
la vista de aquella sala es miserable, repugnante e indecorosa. !que diferencia entre ella y las de la Morgue de Paris!

[end]

[describes the clothes he's wearing; his mouth, mustache, hands and face are bloodstained. the bullet must have come out of the right side of the neck (ill have to double check this phrase). it mentions he is wearing his scapular and he is an ordianry coffin lined with black cotton cloth.]

[Robert St Devil]

i found the article with your posted sentence david. its el imparcial 2nd march 1889. ill post it later but it pretty much says that when the hotel guy announces the arrival of the authorities, Pigott tells the man that he,s going for his hat, and the next thing the man hears is the gunshot.

[Robert St Devil]

finally. i double checked and the cogote is the nape of the neck. This is the location where the bullet left his body, on the right side.

[David Orsam]

finally. i double checked and the cogote is the nape of the neck. This is the location where the bullet left his body, on the right side.

Well, that's just what the newspaper said.

A Central News reporter, who had seen the corpse in the mortuary, wrote on 2 March that "The ball went out at the back of the head, near the neck, on the right side."

For the actual location of the exit wound check out the result of the post-mortem in the 8 March issue of El Imparcial:

El destrozo causado por el proyectil fué terrible. Sabida es ya la forma en que se suicidó Pigott: la bala penetró por la parte superior del velo palatino, destrozande la base del cráneo, y por consiguiente, lo apofixis baxilar, el cerebelo pro su parte aneterior y en uno de sus dos lóbulos, y per ultimo, los dós lobulos occuitales ó posteriores del cerebro, teniendo su orificio de salida por el mismo vertice del occtipal, fracturando además los dos parietals.

[Robert St Devil]

El destrozo causado por el proyectil fué terrible. Sabida es ya la forma en que se suicidó Pigott: la bala penetró por la parte superior del velo palatino, destrozande la base del cráneo, y por consiguiente, lo apofixis baxilar, el cerebelo pro su parte aneterior y en uno de sus dos lóbulos, y por ultimo, los dós lobulos occuitales ó posteriores del cerebro, teniendo su orificio de salida por el mismo vertice del occtipal, fracturando además los dos parietals.

the destruction caused by the bullet was terrible. Describing the trajectory of the bullet causing Pigott's death: the bullet penetrated the top part of his palate (velo palatino), destroying the base of his skull, and, the basilar process (apofisis basilar), the front part of his cerebellum, and one of the frontal lobes, and both rear lobes of the brain; the bullet's exit-wound being on the same vertex as the occipital, [in addition] fracturing the 2 parietal bones.

It sounds like the force of the bullet leaving the base of his skull fractured the adjacent parietal bones. wasn't it a large caliber pistol?

[Robert St Devil]

the destruction caused by the bullet was terrible. The [details] of Pigott's suicide are now known: the bullet penetrated the upper part of the soft palate (velo palatino), and destroyed the base of his skull. [The bullet also destroyed] the basilar process (apofisis basilar); and, one of the frontal lobes of the cerebellum; and finally, the two occipital lobes or the back of the brain. The bullet's exit-wound was along the occipital ridge or vertex. It also fractured the 2 parietal bones.

i have "the palate's veil" being toward the back of the mouth, believing it is referring to that area of the throat that resembles a curtain being opened, off the uvula. i add this note bc it may imply that Pigott had the barrel of the revolver deep in his mouth.

[David Orsam]

Simon Says......nothing!

So it looks like that’s it. The only reason Simon thinks that Pigott did not commit suicide is because of a single press report in an Australian newspaper which, in his understanding, said that Pigott’s lower jaw was "a total mess". The actual claim in the newspaper report was that the charge of the gunshot "blew a portion of the jaw away".

The source of the Australian newspaper report was the Provincial Press Agency whose report is stated to have been filed from London on 3 March 1889. Obviously, a journalist in London on 3 March could not possibly have seen Pigott’s body in Madrid so was relying on someone else’s account.

It is certainly strange that Simon relies on a report filed in London when there is mention of the state of Pigott’s jaw written by a Central News reporter from Madrid on 2 March, one who had seen Pigott’s body in the mortuary. This account was published in a number of newspapers on 4 March including the York Herald. That reporter stated:

"The means by which death was accomplished are plainly and horribly evident. The lines of the mouth are almost hidden by blood and the beard and moustache are matted with it. Blood is spattered, in truth, all over the face, and even the hands are stained red with it. The bullet and the explosion at close quarters played havoc with the lower jaw. The ball went out at the back of the head, near the neck, on the right side."

So there – regardless of the precise state of the lower jaw – we are told that the bullet exited at the back of the head. Entirely consistent with a suicide. Perhaps that is why Simon has not cited this particular report.

Even in Simon’s article from the Daily Northern Argus, however, it is stated that Pigott shot himself in the mouth (wrongly saying that he did so twice). In a part of the article not reproduced by Simon it is also stated:

"A post-mortem examination was held, but elicited nothing beyond the fact already known that he met his death by his own hand."

(We know that there was no actual post-mortem until 7 March but it was reported that a doctor had examined the body at the hotel.)

In other words, in the newspaper article upon which Simon entirely relies for his theory that Pigott did not commit suicide, it is repeatedly stated that he shot himself!

So what about the reports that there was something amiss about the lower jaw? Well the first thing to note is that there was blood splattered all over Pigott’s face when it was in the mortuary on 2 March. This was evidently cleaned up on 3 March when a photograph was taken. Once the blood was removed it would seem from the Belgian gentleman who saw the body while it was tied to a chair that Pigott’s face was "not much disfigured, all traces of blood having been washed off". He said that only the upper lip and nose were swollen.

So the truth would appear to be that there was nothing wrong with Pigott’s jaw and the journalist who thought that the bullet had played havoc with the lower jaw must have been misled by the blood over that part of the face.

However, let’s say that the Belgian gentlemen was not very observant and that the newspaper report that a portion of Pigott’s jaw had been blown away is correct, then what? How does this inform Simon that this was not a suicide?

For a bullet in the mouth effectively creates an explosion inside the mouth which is going to send bone, tissue and other debris flying at high speed, potentially causing associated damage to other parts of the face not directly in line with the route of the bullet.

There was, by coincidence, an inquest into a suicide carried out at on the very day before Pigott’s death.

This is from the Times of 1 March 1889:

"Yesterday Mr Wynne Baxter, Coroner, held an inquest at the Vestry Hall, Shadwell on the body of Lieutenant Arthur Benjamin Clare, aged 49, late of the 16th Regiment Bengal Light Infantry whose dead body was found in the River Thames on Sunday last…Mr M M’Coy, assistant divisional surgeon, said when he saw the body it was very much decomposed, and he should say it had been in the water a month. On the forehead and temple were bluish black marks, such as would be produced by the explosion of gunpowder. The face was completely shattered, and the lower jaw was also blown away. In his opinion, death was due to the gun-shot wound."

The verdict of the jury was as reported in the Times was that "deceased committed suicide while suffering from temporary insanity." According to a report of the same inquest in the Dundee People’s Journal of 2 March 1889, "The jury returned a verdict that the deceased was found dead from a gunshot wound to the head, which shot was fired by the deceased while in an unsound state of mind."

That newspaper also reported the surgeon’s evidence as:

"The police surgeon said that on the forehead and temple there were bluish marks, such as would be produced by the explosion of gunpowder, while the front of the face was completely shattered. The lower jaw from an angle at the right side, was blown away, and there was a circular hole in the tongue and a corresponding hole in the roof of the mouth. Witness now, by a post-mortem examination, had discovered that death was due to shock to the system from a gunshot wound. He thought it was possible that the man could have shot himself in the head and then fallen into the water – that was, if he stood on the edge of the steps."

So we have a verdict of suicide in a case where a man has shot himself in the head, the bullet passing through the roof of the mouth, where the lower jaw was also blown away.

If that was the case with Lieutenant Clare it could also easily have been the case with Richard Pigott. In other words, even if a portion of Pigott’s jaw was blown away this is entirely consistent with him having committed suicide. And it’s impossible to know what else Simon thinks it could mean.

We have seen in this thread that Simon posted an illustration of Pigott’s corpse, as if this told us something about how Pigott died, but he has since confessed that he does not rely on it as showing that Pigott did not commit suicide. The only thing he has produced is a newspaper report in which it is stated that Pigott did shoot himself in the mouth! It's a report written in London not said to be based on an eye-witness account which is probably wrong but, even if it is correct in its description of the lower jaw, is entirely consistent with a man committing suicide by shooting himself in the head.

So will Simon now have the integrity to step forward and say there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt that Pigott committed suicide on 1 March 1889?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I'm sticking with alleged suicide until such time as you prove Pigott pulled the trigger.

I'm presently investigating the following coincidence—

"Richard Pigott, the forger, fled to Madrid, where, by a monstrous irony, he was spotted by Parnell's colleague Captain William O'Shea. Pigott shot himself in his hotel room before the Spanish police could get to him . . ."

"Coincidentally, the man who had shadowed the fugitive and summoned the authorities was Captain William O'Shea, whose estranged wife Katherine had been Parnell's lover for several years."

This puts a different spin on things.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

I'm sticking with alleged suicide until such time as you prove Pigott pulled the trigger.

What do you mean by "prove Pigott pulled the trigger" Simon?

Who else could possibly have pulled the trigger in the circumstances?

The evidence is overwhelming isn't it?

What possible reason can you have to doubt it?

[David Orsam]

I'm presently investigating the following coincidence—

"Richard Pigott, the forger, fled to Madrid, where, by a monstrous irony, he was spotted by Parnell's colleague Captain William O'Shea. Pigott shot himself in his hotel room before the Spanish police could get to him . . ."

"Coincidentally, the man who had shadowed the fugitive and summoned the authorities was Captain William O'Shea, whose estranged wife Katherine had been Parnell's lover for several years."

This puts a different spin on things.

How does it put "a different spin" on things Simon?

Even if it's true, which I very much doubt (and I note that you provide no source for it) how could Captain O'Shea possibly have murdered Pigott inside his hotel room by sticking a revolver into his mouth when there was a Spanish police officer who had come to arrest him at the door? Not to mention the hotel interpreter? And then where did he vanish to?

And if it wasn't Captain O'Shea personally, who else could possibly have arrived in Madrid within 24 hours to murder Pigott having been tipped off as to his whereabouts? Where would they have come from?

How could such an assassination have been planned? And for what possible purpose?

But EVEN if you are right (which, of course, you are not) and Captain O'Shea, or someone connected with O'Shea, murdered Pigott for some reason, what the blazes does it all have to do with the Whitechapel murders which had occurred some months earlier?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

There you go again, rushing headlong into a wild scenario of your own invention.

And for your information, I never said there was a connection between the alleged Pigott suicide in Madrid and the WM. That was another of your inventions.

In my book, whilst discussing a number of possible WM scenarios, I merely asked if the prize—the reason behind the WM—could have been connected with the Special Commission and the death of Pigott.

I'll get back to you when I've finished my investigation.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

There you go again, rushing headlong into a wild scenario of your own invention.

I don't know what you mean by "wild scenario of [my] own invention". Surely that applies to you and your secret Home Office cabal who plotted the creation of "Jack the Ripper", no? Or your "Special Branch operation" which was involved in the murder of Mary Kelly (but of course you didn't invent that, someone else did and you just put it in your book).

What I was asking you, Simon, was how the presence of Captain O'Shea in Madrid - even if he saw Pigott there - puts a different spin on anything. How does it do so?

It changes absolutely nothing. It still makes it utterly impossible that Pigott did not commit suicide.

At best, you could say Pigott was terrified at having been recognised and this played a part in his suicide. But suicide it certainly must have been. There is no other possibility and you don't have ANY reason to think so do you?

So your belief that he did not commit suicide is just a wild scenario of your own invention isn't it?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Regarding your question about Captain O'Shea, I don't know yet.

As I said, I'll get back to you when I've finished my investigation.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

And for your information, I never said there was a connection between the alleged Pigott suicide in Madrid and the WM. That was another of your inventions.

In my book, whilst discussing a number of possible WM scenarios, I merely asked if the prize—the reason behind the WM—could have been connected with the Special Commission and the death of Pigott.

Well, Simon, there are no fewer nine express mentions of Pigott (not including the reference to an "alleged suicide") in your book "Reconstructing Jack" which I thought (but correct me if I am wrong) is all about Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel murders.

So why are you even mentioning Pigott at all?

One of the mentions is a whole paragraph where you refer to George R. Sims when he supposedly "challenged the story of Pigott's suicide". In fact, when read carefully, he doesn't actually challenge that Pigott committed suicide. But what's it even doing in the book?

This mention of Pigott follows your account of his death where you say that he:

"whilst under twenty-four hour surveillance from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, fled to Madrid where in a first floor room of the Hotel Des Embazadores, booked in under the name of Roland Ponsonby, he shot himself in the head with a pistol as two detectives sent from Scotland Yard arrived to arrest him."

You've done well there with two factual errors - he was not under 24 hour surveillance from the RUC nor did any detectives sent from Scotland Yard ever arrive to arrest him - but you are remarkably accurate in saying of Pigott that "he shot himself in the head". Well done!

However, in an earlier footnote, and contradicting the above, you refer to him having "committed suicide", with the phrase in inverted commas, thus suggesting that he did not commit suicide, following on from your reference to an "alleged suicide". So what is the reader supposed to think here Simon?

And as for your "prize" scenario, it's no good distancing yourself from it by saying that you were "merely" asking a question. It's the central thesis of your entire book isn't it? That "Jack the Ripper" was created by the authorities for some reason connected with the Parnell Commission and the "alleged" suicide of Pigott and the illegal actions of Scotland Yard officers in the USA that never took place and the resignation of James Monro over, er, pensions. But of course you never tell us what you really mean by it and we have to guess. And the reason why you never tell us what it means is because it is balderdash too elaborate even for you to make any sense of it. That's right isn't it?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Your post is ill-mannered and mean-spirited.

You hate my book. You've made your point.

Now please go away and write your own.

Regards,

Simon