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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - by RockySullivan 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (50 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (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
  #311  
Old 08-03-2017, 10:34 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Do you notice any kind of inconsistency in your post Michael?
Well spotted, David. I hadn't noticed. Oops!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 08-03-2017, 12:44 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

I think Michael has rather missed the point in any event. This is a thread about Simon's book so it's about what Simon is saying about the existence or otherwise of Jack the Ripper, not about Michael's personal views on the number of victims. If it can be gleaned from the autopsies that there was a different hand at work for all or most of the murders then I would have expected to find this demonstrated, or at least argued, in "Deconstructing Jack". But Simon doesn't do it.

This is why I have been trying unsuccessfully to extract from Simon what he means by "Jack the Ripper does not exist". Does he, in fact, mean that all five women were murdered by different individuals? If he means this, it should be a simple matter for him to say so.

If this is what he means and he could show us that this was the case (and especially if he could tell us who DID commit the murders) then he would surely be entitled to say that JTR did not exist. But that's precisely what he doesn't do. In fact, he doesn't do anything like it.

Even if thinks only two or three murders were committed by a single crazed individual then fine, he can start an argument from that point and we would know that the reason JTR didn't exist, in Simon's view, is because he didn't murder ALL of the women attributed to him.

But he point blank refuses to explain anything.

So what does he mean? Why does he refuse to agree with the obvious conclusion that if a single individual murdered all five women then Jack the Ripper must have existed? Why does he call a simple question like that "a teaser" as he did earlier in the thread?

The answer, I believe, is because he really does not have a clue what he means by "Jack the Ripper does not exist". He just thinks it sounds good!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 08-03-2017, 01:04 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Then we come to the question of WHY.

Why would someone (especially within the British police or government) have wanted to create the existence of someone called "Jack the Ripper"?

The fact of the matter is that Simon does not know.

He is just baffled as everyone else who reads his book.

He has admitted in this thread to "merely" asking the question if it was connected with the Special Commission. The answer is of course: no. Weíve seen very clearly in this thread that there were no murders connected with the Special Commission as Simon seems to have thought when he wrote is book. Simon now knows that there were no illegal acts committed by Scotland Yard officers in America. He knows why James Monro resigned as Commissioner. The Special Commission "prize" is a red herring. It was all a false trail down which Simon took himself.

So why did anyone POSSIBLY want to create a fake Jack the Ripper in 1888?

Who would have gone to the lengths of murdering and mutilating women to do this (and if it was a single individual, or even a gang of men, does that mean he DID exist after all????)?

Did the police do it for more resources? Seems very unlikely and Simon doesn't offer it as a reason.

We know that newspaper owners and editors were happy to use the nickname to sell newspapers. So did THEY murder those women?

I donít think so. Nor does Simon, it seems. But someone murdered them all. Whether it was one person or more than one person.

But if it was one person then, of course, it was Jack the Ripper.

We donít know his name so thatís what we call him. But we can also call him the Whitechapel Murderer if we like.

He existed just like Jack the Ripper IF he killed all those women (or most of them).

If it wasn't one person then were some of the murders copycat murders by killers who knew their victims? Or did there happen to be two or three crazy people in Whitechapel who enjoyed cutting throats and mutilating prostitutes in the streets? Or was it Special Branch officers doing it for some nefarious reason that no-one can understand?

Perhaps Simon can tell us and finally reveal the thing he didn't include in his book.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 08-03-2017, 09:26 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,218
Default

Hi David,

How do I now know "that there were no illegal acts committed by Scotland Yard officers in America?"

How do I now know "why James Monro resigned as Commissioner?"

How do I now know that "the Special Commission was a red herring, a false trail down which I took myself?"

Because you told me in a rambling series of diatribes?

Oh puleeze!

You know absolutely nothing, yet obviously have a hard-on for the concept of Jack the Ripper.

So perhaps you might like to give us the benefit of your infinite wisdom and tell us who it was.

You have a choice from over 200 candidates.

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/

Last edited by Simon Wood : 08-03-2017 at 09:33 PM. Reason: spolling mistook
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 08-03-2017, 10:55 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,106
Default

Hi Simon,

But when you say there was no Jack the Ripper are you merely arguing that there wasn't some oddball wandering around Whitechapel, wearing a cloak and top hat, and referring to himself as Jack the Ripper? Because I think we'd all agree with that.

Or are you saying that the name Jack the Ripper was a media fabrication-also possible, if not likely- but that there may have been a single killer of, say, the C5 plus Tabram?

Or are you saying that all of the victims attributed to a person colloquially referred to as Jack the Ripper were killed by someone else?

Or are you saying that some of the victims were killed by a single killer, and some were not, but your not sure which ones?

Or are you saying that some of the victims were killed by a single killer, and some not, and you are sure which ones?

Or are you saying that all of the victims may have been killed by a single killer, but then again they might not have been?

Or are you saying you're not really sure about any of this but you'll get back to us when you are sure, or a least responsibly satisfied with your conclusions?

Please let me know if I've left out any options.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 08-04-2017, 06:56 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,218
Default

Hi Jon,

Three.

Anderson, Macnaghten, Abberline and Littlechild lied.

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 08-04-2017, 07:46 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi Jon,

Three.

Anderson, Macnaghten, Abberline and Littlechild lied.

Regards,

Simon
Simon may I ask what sources you have used to allow you to make this statement?
What data you have to back the statement up?
I have every copy of your book so far and still no real answers just hints and open questions. It is somewhat frustrating to pay for 2 updates and be no further forward.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 08-04-2017, 08:11 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,218
Default

Hi Steve,

No matter which way you approach the supposed mystery of the identity of Jack the Ripper, you eventually run up against a lie. Some told for profit, some told to burnish a family history, some told because certain people were supposed to be in the know and were expected to say something.

I have detailed three Anderson anecdotes which weren't worth the paper they were written on. Why should I believe the fourth, about a Polish Jew?

Why, via Major Griffiths, did Macnaghten keep [an unnamed] Ostrog in the frame four years after he had learned he had been in a French prison throughout the autumn of terror?

I could go on, but have to dash.

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 08-04-2017, 08:38 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi Steve,

No matter which way you approach the supposed mystery of the identity of Jack the Ripper, you eventually run up against a lie. Some told for profit, some told to burnish a family history, some told because certain people were supposed to be in the know and were expected to say something.

I have detailed three Anderson anecdotes which weren't worth the paper they were written on. Why should I believe the fourth, about a Polish Jew?

Why, via Major Griffiths, did Macnaghten keep [an unnamed] Ostrog in the frame four years after he had learned he had been in a French prison throughout the autumn of terror?

I could go on, but have to dash.

Regards,

Simon
Ah anecdotes which by definition are not always accurate. So we will disagree about that.

As for MM, lie or just sloppy. So many mistakes.

Abberline and Littlechild?

Look Simon I understand you have this undisclosed theory, however is it not time to come clean about it?

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:11 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi David,

How do I now know "that there were no illegal acts committed by Scotland Yard officers in America?"

How do I now know "why James Monro resigned as Commissioner?"

How do I now know that "the Special Commission was a red herring, a false trail down which I took myself?"

Because you told me in a rambling series of diatribes?
Hi Simon,

I note this is the second time you have referred to my reasoned, well argued articles, supported by evidence, as "diatribes" to which you now add "rambling". Good to see you are not "ill mannered" or "mean spirited". Strange, though, that, despite your description of them, these very same articles caused you not only to modify the second (hardback) edition of your book, but also to add new information taken from them, although you have never actually admitted this. Are you prepared to admit publicly that you did change your book as a result of my articles?

As for your questions, well Simon, look at #64 in this thread, back on 15 July, in which I asked you:

"What was the "illegal Scotland Yard activity in North America"? And how comes it's not "alleged" illegal Scotland Yard activity in North America?

Do you still not understand why James Monro resigned?"


Then look at #65:

"There were only two Scotland Yard officers in North America during the period of the Special Commission Ė inspectors Andrews and Jarvis - both of whom were on official police business, executing lawful extradition warrants. There was no illegal Scotland Yard activity in North America. Simon knows this. Furthermore, there was no connection between the activity of the two officers in North America and the Special Commission. Simon also knows this.

As Simon must now know, if he didn't when he originally wrote his book, James Monro resigned because he was extremely unhappy about the governmentís refusal to agree to his demands concerning Metropolitan police pensions. That is a matter of historical fact. It had nothing to do with the Special Commission inquiry or any aspects of that inquiry. The Special Commission inquiry, therefore, did not lead to the resignation of James Monro in any way."


Your response to all this was to post a drawing of Richard Pigott! You have never challenged a word of what I've said on these subjects although you have had plenty of opportunity to do so. As a result of this, and of previous discussions we have had on this forum, I felt able to conclude that you are fully aware that you got it wrong on all this.

But, look, if you disagree then perhaps you can answer these three simple questions:

1. What law (or laws) do you say was broken by Scotland Yard officers in America in 1888 or 1889?

2. For what reason do you say James Monro resigned as Commissioner in June 1890?

3. Other than that they were both going on in 1888, what connection is there between the Whitechapel murders and the Special Commission inquiry?

There can hardly be simpler questions than this and if you genuinely believe what you are saying in your book it should be no problem for you to answer them.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
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 03:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.