Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: ORIGINAL doors in Miller's court - by richardh 53 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: ORIGINAL doors in Miller's court - by Wickerman 55 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: ORIGINAL doors in Miller's court - by jerryd 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: Letter dated 14th October 1896. - by Joshua Rogan 4 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by sdreid 4 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: Letter dated 14th October 1896. - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (20 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: Letter dated 14th October 1896. - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: ORIGINAL doors in Miller's court - (5 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: PC Richard Pearce and the candle in the window...... - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Media > Books > Non-Fiction

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-24-2015, 12:19 PM
Wolf Vanderlinden Wolf Vanderlinden is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 461
Default

When I finished it the phrase "tour de force" easily sprang to mind. Although I don't support everything Simon states, I thought the book was very well written, thought provoking (that't an understatement) and incredibly informative. One of four excellent books published fairly recently.

Wolf.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-20-2015, 04:58 AM
spyglass spyglass is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: gravesend,kent
Posts: 564
Default

HI,
Only just found out that this long awaited book is finally here.
But is it and when will it be released in ( what I call ) normal form.?
Regards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-22-2016, 01:22 AM
Watcher_Don Watcher_Don is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1
Default

Hello, all. It's been quite some time since I've been around these forums, but I recently read Mr. Wood's book and it prompted to come back and check out the current discussions.

As to "Deconstructing Jack," I found the book extremely interesting, but I was unclear upon finishing it just what Mr. Simon's thesis was. The blanket statement "Jack the Ripper never existed" is stated repeatedly. What I was unclear about was what, exactly, Mr. Wood meant by the statement. Is he saying that the mythical figure of the knife wielding toff is imaginary? That the name "Jack the Ripper" was never used or embraced by the killer? That each murder was committed by a separate person? Surely someone killed those women in Whitechapel, and the prevailing opinion of the police and historians since has indicated one man's hand behind at least some combination of the victims.

I'm glad to have read it - there was a great deal of information therein that simply isn't included in most books on the case, and a lot of sources used that I haven't come across in other works. I did feel, however, that the case was never actually made as to WHY the reader should come to the conclusion that there was no "Jack," or even why the reader should view any or none of the victims as being killed by the same person. I've read compelling arguments that victim X or Y should be omitted, or that victim Z should be added, but I didn't find any such evidence in the book to back up the "No Jack" theory.

Or am I missing something?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-22-2016, 01:46 AM
Premium Member
wigngown wigngown is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: UK 🇬🇧
Posts: 145
Default

Got my copy Simon & look forward to reading it immensely.

Best regards.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-22-2016, 10:10 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watcher_Don View Post
Hello, all. It's been quite some time since I've been around these forums, but I recently read Mr. Wood's book and it prompted to come back and check out the current discussions.

As to "Deconstructing Jack," I found the book extremely interesting, but I was unclear upon finishing it just what Mr. Simon's thesis was. The blanket statement "Jack the Ripper never existed" is stated repeatedly. What I was unclear about was what, exactly, Mr. Wood meant by the statement. Is he saying that the mythical figure of the knife wielding toff is imaginary? That the name "Jack the Ripper" was never used or embraced by the killer? That each murder was committed by a separate person? Surely someone killed those women in Whitechapel, and the prevailing opinion of the police and historians since has indicated one man's hand behind at least some combination of the victims.

I'm glad to have read it - there was a great deal of information therein that simply isn't included in most books on the case, and a lot of sources used that I haven't come across in other works. I did feel, however, that the case was never actually made as to WHY the reader should come to the conclusion that there was no "Jack," or even why the reader should view any or none of the victims as being killed by the same person. I've read compelling arguments that victim X or Y should be omitted, or that victim Z should be added, but I didn't find any such evidence in the book to back up the "No Jack" theory.

Or am I missing something?
Hi Don,

There's a second thread on this forum about the book in which I've discussed this very question, here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9303&page=6

I've also written a much longer analysis which you can access from this link:

http://www.orsam.co.uk/reconstructingjack.htm
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-28-2016, 09:38 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,290
Default

I've made a couple of additions to my article entitled "Reconstructing Jack" (link as above).

Firstly, on the question of the mysterious "Inspector Soyle", it occurred to me that the Philadelphia Times reporter who supposedly interviewed Soyle said that he had "A pair of steel-blue eyes".

Did Superintendent Shore have blue eyes?

I checked in the police pension records at the National Archives and discovered that Shore had hazel eyes. So I think that puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Shore could have been Soyle.

Secondly, I found a news report in the London Evening Post in late 1888 which repeated the story from the American press that Shore had been in New York and Kansas City. Consequently, it is possible that Robert Anderson, when providing the answer to the Home Secretary to a parliamentary question re. "Inspector Shore", had been aware of the American reports about Shore having been in the United States. So I have amended my article accordingly - although it doesn't change the fact in my view that when asked whether an "Inspector Shaw" had been the US in 1888 he answered in respect of the only Inspector Shaw in the Met Police.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-28-2016, 09:52 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,290
Default

One further addition. I have now added a section on Dr Bond's opinion of November 1888 following my discussion with Simon about it on this forum.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-29-2016, 03:11 AM
Robert Robert is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,676
Default

I haven't pored over the original images (to save my eyes) but looking through the Ancestry transcription of the "Elbe" passenger list, I didn't see any name resembling "Soyle" or indeed any British passengers at all.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-29-2016, 04:02 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
I haven't pored over the original images (to save my eyes) but looking through the Ancestry transcription of the "Elbe" passenger list, I didn't see any name resembling "Soyle" or indeed any British passengers at all.
Yes, but if you look at the last line on the first page of the list you will see that it's torn off so that there is one passenger unaccounted for. One might say that it had been deliberately removed but it's consistent with the other tearing around the edges of the paper.

So, unfortunately, I don't think the passenger list is conclusive one way or the other.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-29-2016, 05:55 AM
Robert Robert is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,676
Default

I see what you mean, David. You mean the passenger below Carter? But if you look at the whole line, the name is missing but the citizenship box would suggest American. There seems only room for the ditto mark which is written on the bottom line, so that would make him American.

I think it's a bit clearer on the LDS site. Unfortunately however small I make the images, they still exceed the board guidelines!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.