Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[Harry D]

Because serial killers carry out each murder identically?

[David Orsam]

Let's remove the non-existent Jack the Ripper from this equation.

We now have nothing to connect the murders, and are left with five murders and five perpetrators.

Let's further say it was politically [small p] embarrassing/undesirable to bring these perpetrators to justice.

What better way to paper over these five murder investigations than to conjure up a mythical multiple/serial-killer who could never be caught allegedly responsible for them all?

At 3.00pm on 9th November 1888, whilst the doctors were still examining the body, and the police still interviewing witnesses, readers of the Aberdeen [northern Scotland] Evening Express were being told that "On this occasion, however, the fiend has departed from his usual method, inasmuch as the crime was committed, not in the open streets, but in a room in a lodging house. This should afford a more definite clue in tracing the murderer than has been given in any of the previous cases.”

Do you actually understand the question you are being asked Simon?

You are being asked to assume that all five murders (and, separately, four of the five murders) were committed by the same individual.

In THAT case, would it be true or reasonable to say that Jack the Ripper did not exist?

It's a very simple question. What's the answer?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

As Ohrocky rightfully observed—

"What we actually have are five murders, within a small area and committed within a relatively short period of time, that had some similarities sufficient to suggest that they may have been committed by the same hand."

Okay.

Let's remove the non-existent Jack the Ripper from this equation.

We now have nothing to connect the murders, and are left with five murders and five perpetrators.

Let's further say it was politically [small p] embarrassing/undesirable to bring these perpetrators to justice.

What better way to paper over these five murder investigations than to conjure up a mythical multiple/serial-killer who could never be caught allegedly responsible for them all?

At 3.00pm on 9th November 1888, whilst the doctors were still examining the body, and the police still interviewing witnesses, readers of the Aberdeen [northern Scotland] Evening Express were being told that "On this occasion, however, the fiend has departed from his usual method, inasmuch as the crime was committed, not in the open streets, but in a room in a lodging house. This should afford a more definite clue in tracing the murderer than has been given in any of the previous cases.”

Jack the Ripper/The Fiend was a concept that worked beyond his creator's dreams.

In closing, I would ask if David Orsam offers excursions to the distant planet he obviously inhabits.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Because as a man he did not exist, he was fictional, made up.

Well this is precisely what I am asking Simon.

Five women were murdered and (four) mutilated. Someone committed each of those murders. It wasn't a ghost or a fictional character.

If it was one single individual then Jack the Ripper existed didn't he?

It's just the nickname that was made up isn't it, not the man?

The image it created in people's minds might not have reflected the reality but the person the nickname was intended to be applied to must have existed if he did the murders. Is that not right?

And I'm really asking Simon, not you Trevor, because Simon is the one who wrote the book and claims that "Jack the Ripper did not exist".

[David Orsam]

Hi David
It is all a question of how you accept the facts surrounding all of the murders not just the canonical five, because some suggest that one, some or all of the other murders were the work of the same person who killed the canonical five.

However there is also a case to suggest that at least two of the original five may not have been killed by the same hand. My personal belief is that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were killed by the same hand. So that leads us away from one solo killer who could be called Jack the Ripper.

The modern day definition of a serial killer is someone who kills at least 3 or more victims. However this term serial killer was not a term used in 1888. So can we 129 years later conclusively prove that all were killed by the same hand? can we conclusively prove the opposite, the answer is no to both.

So where does that leave us with regards to the name of Jack the Ripper? We cannot prove that the person or persons who killed any of these victims was in reality Jack the Ripper, because no killer was ever convicted of any of the murders, and so that name cannot be attached to a real person, as it has been with more modern day serial killers who killed in Ripper like fashion !, i.e Peter Sutcliffe- The Yorkshire Ripper, Anthony Hardy- The Camden Ripper.

So was there in reality a person who killed any of these victim that we can attribute the name Jack the Ripper to? If we accept that the name JTR was an invention of the press, then there was in reality no Jack the Ripper. There was a killer or killers who killed one, some or all of the victims in what we have come to define as "Ripper like fashion" but even that term is a modern day spin off from the name Jack the Ripper.

Take away from the the mystery the name Jack the Ripper, on the basis there was no JTR, and what is left? Nothing more than a series of similar unsolved murders, which had it not been for the name Jack the Ripper, these murders would have drifted into oblivion many years ago. But it is the name JTR, which has made this mystery into a world wide phenomenon for the past 129 years.

Hi Trevor,

I haven't used the expression "serial killer" in any of my posts addressed to Simon so I don't know why you include a definition of a serial killer in your post addressed to me.

It really doesn't matter who you believe committed the murders nor what effect the name "Jack the Ripper" had on the imagination of the population. I am asking Simon to assume that the same individual murdered all five women (or even just four women). In that case, would it be reasonable, in his view, to say that Jack the Ripper DID exist?

That is the question I am asking and it is one that Simon has singularly failed to answer. He hasn't answered, I suggest, it because he can't answer it.

But if his answer to that question is "No, Jack the Ripper did not exist even if one individual murdered all the C5" then it could only mean that his oft repeated claim that "Jack the Ripper" did not exist" is unbelievably trite and means no more than that "Jack the Ripper" was a lurid nickname which was, quite possibly, created by someone other than the murderer. But we all know that!!!

Does Simon mean something as unbelievably trite as this?

Well, do you Simon.....?

[David Orsam]

Just a point to mention.

The term "serial killer" is relatively new. Although the term "serial murderer" is of German origin from 1930...describing Peter Kurten.

It is claimed the term "serial killer" was used first in 1974 by the FBI, although apparently not used in law, until 1981 if memory serves.

So the best part of 42 years from 1888 in Europe at least, in terminology, no such thing as a "serial murderer" or "serial killer existed. And the term avoided the USA for at least 86 years.

It is only in retrospect that murderers pre 1930 of more than two people are given the epithet "serial killer/murderer".

Where an UNKNOWN murderer is concerned, they cannot be given the title of "serial killer/murderer" simply because assumption does not lawfully, normally stand up to such a lable.
If there is no evidence against one known person being responsible for multiple murder, then even under the "nickname" of "Fred the Slicer" for example, it is only assumption..however well thought out..yet unproven, that said "Fred" is a serial killer. Factually..he..the nickname..is not.

Sure but you could simply use the phrase "multiple murderer" in Abby's post and the point would be the same.

What Abby was, I believe, attempting to do was convey to Simon that we all know (as did everyone in 1888) that "Jack the Ripper" was a nickname applied to the individual believed to have committed a series of murders in 1888.

The question to Simon is, IF a single individual committed those murders would it be reasonable to say that Jack the Ripper DID exist? That's the question Simon has failed to answer. I believe he has failed to answer it because he can't answer it. He doesn't actually know what he means when he says "Jack the Ripper did not exist". He has managed to bamboozle himself.

[Trevor Marriott]

But surely "Jack the Ripper" was just a populist construct arising out of the Dear Boss letter? And used subsequently by newspapers, periodicals, authors and film-makers to peddle their wares, from 1888 to the present day. "Jack the Ripper" was always going to sell better than "Leather Apron"!

What we actually have are five murders, within a small area and committed within a relatively short period of time, that had some similarities sufficient to suggest that they may have been committed by the same hand.

If they were by the same hand (and I personally struggle with the notion that there were multiple knife killers targeting prostitutes in the same small area over such a short period of time), then we have what we refer to today as a serial killer.

Whether that "serial killer" was responsible for 4 or 5 of the C5 is purely academic as they would still be a serial killer....whatever sobriquet we give to them.

Yes you are right a possible serial killer, who was referred to by the police in 1888 as "The Whitechapel Murderer" and would have continued to be so referred to, had it not been for the Dear Boss letter which first introduced the name JTR, which thereafter invented a mythical man who has been portrayed wearing a black hat, a long black cape, and carrying a Gladstone bag and has appeared on, or in almost ever ripper publication, film, and documentary as such.

This image is now the public's, authors, and filmmakers perception of the killer or killers. It is a false image, JTR as real person did not exist, Thats what the police in 1888 believed.

Yes there was a killer or killers, who could have been any Tom Dick or Harry, who may have killed enough individuals to elevate him to the modern day definition of a serial killer. But sadly not Jack the Ripper.

Jack was a moniker widely used in Victorian Times, such as "Jack Tar" "Jack o Lantern" "Springheeled Jack" "Jack the Lad"

The burning question is who wrote the Dear Boss letter and was thus responsible for this murder mystery hitting the heights that is has over the past 129 years ? Frederick Best ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[ohrocky]

But surely "Jack the Ripper" was just a populist construct arising out of the Dear Boss letter? And used subsequently by newspapers, periodicals, authors and film-makers to peddle their wares, from 1888 to the present day. "Jack the Ripper" was always going to sell better than "Leather Apron"!

What we actually have are five murders, within a small area and committed within a relatively short period of time, that had some similarities sufficient to suggest that they may have been committed by the same hand.

If they were by the same hand (and I personally struggle with the notion that there were multiple knife killers targeting prostitutes in the same small area over such a short period of time), then we have what we refer to today as a serial killer.

Whether that "serial killer" was responsible for 4 or 5 of the C5 is purely academic as they would still be a serial killer....whatever sobriquet we give to them.

[Trevor Marriott]

As always, I wish you luck with your tour and books, Trevor.

Thank you,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

But on the latest tour I do tell what I believe to be the real truth about jack the Ripper and I use all the same words that I have used here on this thread.

Incidentally you are a bit behind the times its all changed now see below. New show title new book title

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I do the same with the book and a new show name available here http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

As a result, more and more people are not so ready to continue to accept the old accepted theories and facts, because the old accepted theories and facts do not now stand up to close scrutiny.

As always, I wish you luck with your tour and books, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

No need for your usual rhetoric above, Trevor.
You nailed it in your post #274:
we are specifically talking about the name given to a faceless, nameless and unidentified person who became know as JTR as a result of the dear boss letter

Although your bluster about the Jack the Ripper epithet is a little bit ironic considering your use of it on your tour posters and books ...

But on the latest tour I do tell what I believe to be the real truth about jack the Ripper and I use all the same words that I have used here on this thread.

Incidentally you are a bit behind the times its all changed now see below. New show title new book title

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I do the same with the book and a new show name available here http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

As a result, more and more people are not so ready to continue to accept the old accepted theories and facts, because the old accepted theories and facts do not now stand up to close scrutiny.

[Jon Guy]

Because as a man he did not exist, he was fictional, made up. If he had have been caught and had admitted to writing that first letter using the name JTR that started the bandwagon rolling, then we could safely say the killings were the work of .............. aka Jack the Ripper.

But of course the name JTR is, and was, more appealing, to the media and authors than simply "The Whitechapel Killer/Murderer/Fiend" who singularly has been attributed in killing all of the many Whitechapel women.

The name JTR is what we have been left with over the years, remove that name from the mystery, along with the modern day thinking that he did not singularly kill all of the women, and that he did not remove the organs, and the Ripper mystery is dispelled, and a lot of people p....d off.

No need for your usual rhetoric above, Trevor.
You nailed it in your post #274:
we are specifically talking about the name given to a faceless, nameless and unidentified person who became know as JTR as a result of the dear boss letter

Although your bluster about the Jack the Ripper epithet is a little bit ironic considering your use of it on your tour posters and books ...

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, that`s about it in a nutshell.
So why is everyone banging on about Jack The Ripper not existing ?



.. or proof

Because as a man he did not exist, he was fictional, made up. If he had have been caught and had admitted to writing that first letter using the name JTR that started the bandwagon rolling, then we could safely say the killings were the work of .............. aka Jack the Ripper.

But of course the name JTR is, and was, more appealing, to the media and authors than simply "The Whitechapel Killer/Murderer/Fiend" who singularly has been attributed in killing all of the many Whitechapel women.

The name JTR is what we have been left with over the years, remove that name from the mystery, along with the modern day thinking that he did not singularly kill all of the women, and that he did not remove the organs, and the Ripper mystery is dispelled, and a lot of people p....d off.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Cannot you see my point that we are specifically talking about the name given to a faceless, nameless and unidentified person who became know as JTR as a result of the dear boss letter.

Yes, that`s about it in a nutshell.
So why is everyone banging on about Jack The Ripper not existing ?

Your proof on the aforementioned is different to mine it would seem and I am not going to go over it all again. I dont have the time or the inclination

.. or proof

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, after the Nichols murder the press and police were already connecting the murder to the cases of Tabram and Smith.

Maybe be connecting them as one might expect, but not by referring to the killer as JTR. Cannot you see my point that we are specifically talking about the name given to a faceless, nameless and unidentified person who became know as JTR as a result of the dear boss letter.

Your proof on the aforementioned is different to mine it would seem and I am not going to go over it all again. I dont have the time or the inclination

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk