Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jerry,

Apparently.

Puzzling, isn't it?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Daily Northern Argus, 5th March 1889

[ATTACH]18155[/ATTACH]

Before I respond to that press report, Simon, I thought you said there were "accounts" (plural). You have posted a single newspaper report from a newspaper. Are there any more, or is that it?

[David Orsam]

By the way, I didn't say the British Government murdered Richard Pigott.

I already asked you tell me who did murder him Simon.

You are, as usual, proving remarkably reticent.

[David Orsam]

Hi Jerry,

Apparently.

Puzzling, isn't it?

You find it "puzzling" do you? A newspaper making a mistake. What is "puzzling" about it?

[David Orsam]

It seems to me that unless anyone saw the actual life taking shot, ....(an eyewitness...someone actually present in the room at the time the person shooting themselves commits the act), then any deduction or pronouncement of suicide is essentially just an opinion. One that may or may not be offered with complete sincerity. The point Im trying to make here David is that you batten down the hatches and launch on just about anyone here, with, for the most part, your own interpretation of data as your main weapon. Your own belief isnt really required to have a meaningful exchange of ideas, but your contradictory evidence is. So...what specific evidence do you present that Pigott was absolutely, 100%, a death by his own hand? Press coverage which says it was? Your own assumptions of what really transpired behind a closed door?

Im not sure if its naivete, or perhaps a need to advocate devilishly, but I for one would appreciate seeing some meat on the bones of your often insulting rebuttals.

Michael, I can only respond that you are being deliberately perverse here.

Meat on the bones? I have provided it in abundance.

Of course it was 100% a death by his own hand. It's not an "opinion" at all, it's a historical fact. What more evidence do you need?

I can't produce a photograph but we have the next best thing. He was alive in a hotel room with two independent witnesses at the door who heard a gunshot. The next thing is they find him dead with a bullet through the head.

What else could possibly have happened other than him taking his own life?

And in response to your allegation that I "launch on just about anyone on here" I have been asking Simon for a reason why he doesn't think it was a suicide. You might have noticed I have been having some difficulty, or perhaps you are reading Simon's posts with a blind eye.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, I can only respond that you are being deliberately perverse here.

Meat on the bones? I have provided it in abundance.

Of course it was 100% a death by his own hand. It's not an "opinion" at all, it's a historical fact. What more evidence do you need?

I can't produce a photograph but we have the next best thing. He was alive in a hotel room with two independent witnesses at the door who heard a gunshot. The next thing is they find him dead with a bullet through the head.

What else could possibly have happened other than him taking his own life?

And in response to your allegation that I "launch on just about anyone on here" I have been asking Simon for a reason why he doesn't think it was a suicide. You might have noticed I have been having some difficulty, or perhaps you are reading Simon's posts with a blind eye.

I asked a while back if you found two snippets from a post you made contradictory, (since one indicates a determination of brain size, and the second suggests his skull was essentially obliterated)...(which is what I intended to highlight Sam, which would make the brain size question unanswerable), to illuminate the fact that perspective is often vastly different among these records. Corroborating accounts suggest pooled information more that they do the absolute truth.

In this small specific case, the witnesses claim that Piggot was alone in his room at the moment the shot was heard, but what evidence do we have that they are being truthful, or that they were mistaken in their impressions of the state of the room?

Absolutes are extremely hard to come by when simply reviewing records more than 125 years old. Its why I believe that exploring logical extrapolation of data can be more productive than trying to establish empirical positions on events, based primarily on that data.

Sorry I was a bit brusque. That was me, not the result of a provocation.

[David Orsam]

I asked a while back if you found two snippets from a post you made contradictory,

Well I remember your post very well, Michael, and your question to me wasn't as you recall it. You asked me: "Surely the damage described would make it virtually impossible to assess the brains size when it was intact?" . I replied "Why do you say that?" To which I have yet to receive an answer.

Had you actually asked me if I found the two snippets contradictory, I would have said: "No, absolutely not".

(since one indicates a determination of brain size, and the second suggests his skull was essentially obliterated)...

Well I absolutely dispute your interpretation that the press report I cited suggests that Pigott's skull was "essentially obliterated". It does nothing of the sort. The idea that it was being suggested in that report of the post-mortem examination that Pigott's skull was "essentially obliterated" must come from your imagination.

(which is what I intended to highlight Sam, which would make the brain size question unanswerable)

But if you are wrong, as you are, then the brain size question is far from "unanswerable".

to illuminate the fact that perspective is often vastly different among these records. Corroborating accounts suggest pooled information more that they do the absolute truth.

Well you have not selected a very good example to illuminate your point.

[David Orsam]

In this small specific case, the witnesses claim that Piggot was alone in his room at the moment the shot was heard, but what evidence do we have that they are being truthful, or that they were mistaken in their impressions of the state of the room?

Well I've already asked Simon these sorts of questions. If he wants to tell me that the witnesses were being untruthful then I would want to know why.

And the same from you. You seem to miss the point that we have two independent witnesses telling the same story. Why would they have possibly been lying? What conceivable reason could they have had to lie?

I'm not even asking for evidence that they were lying. I want to know WHY they lied. What REASON do you have to think that they might conceivably have been lying?

And your suggestion that they could have been "mistaken in their impressions of the state of the room" is pitiful. What "impressions of the state of the room" are you talking about? The room was subsequently locked and the judicial investigator carried out an investigation. Then there was an examination of the body and a post-mortem examination.

I mean seriously "meat on the bone". We have an entire feast here to last a week!

You are being deliberately perverse here and you clearly know you are.

[David Orsam]

Absolutes are extremely hard to come by when simply reviewing records more than 125 years old. Its why I believe that exploring logical extrapolation of data can be more productive than trying to establish empirical positions on events, based primarily on that data.

But what I'm saying Michael is that this is about as absolute as it's possible to be when reviewing a historical event from 125 years ago. It is a classic open and shut case. It was the verdict of the Spanish investigator. What possible reason is there to doubt it?

And please don't forget, it is Simon Wood who is posting elsewhere on this board that his book tells us the "facts" while other books are "fiction". So how does HE manage to establish the facts from 125 years ago where others fail?

And I'm sorry Michael but I have no time for people who say "ah we can't know anything for certain" in history. It's the type of argument used by holocaust deniers and mad conspiracy theorists of all hues. There are some facts which are clear and certain. But if Simon wants to challenge this historical fact let him go ahead. I'm listening. I'm asking him questions. He does need to explain why he thinks Pigott's death was not a suicide doesn't he?

[David Orsam]

Sorry I was a bit brusque. That was me, not the result of a provocation.

Feel free to be as brusque as you like with me Michael, it's water off a duck's back.

All I ask if for you to be fair, open minded and rational. That's all.

[Michael W Richards]

....
Well I absolutely dispute your interpretation that the press report I cited suggests that Pigott's skull was "essentially obliterated". It does nothing of the sort. The idea that it was being suggested in that report of the post-mortem examination that Pigott's skull was "essentially obliterated" must come from your imagination.

But if you are wrong, as you are, then the brain size question is far from "unanswerable".

Simons Post 178 contains the quote "completely shattered the skull", and from your post 142:" the bullet penetrated the upper part of the palatine veil, destroying the base of the skull, and consequently the [maxillary] apophysis, the cerebellum to its anterior part and in one of its two lobes, and finally, the occipital or posterior lobes of the brain, having its exit hole through the same occipital vertex, further fracturing the two parietals."

Yet you dispute my comments. Couldn't have asked you for a better example of what you oh so often do.

[David Orsam]

....
Well I absolutely dispute your interpretation that the press report I cited suggests that Pigott's skull was "essentially obliterated". It does nothing of the sort. The idea that it was being suggested in that report of the post-mortem examination that Pigott's skull was "essentially obliterated" must come from your imagination.

But if you are wrong, as you are, then the brain size question is far from "unanswerable".

Simons Post 178 contains the quote "completely shattered the skull", and from your post 142:" the bullet penetrated the upper part of the palatine veil, destroying the base of the skull, and consequently the [maxillary] apophysis, the cerebellum to its anterior part and in one of its two lobes, and finally, the occipital or posterior lobes of the brain, having its exit hole through the same occipital vertex, further fracturing the two parietals."

Yet you dispute my comments. Couldn't have asked you for a better example of what you oh so often do.

Of course I dispute your comments Michael. They are ridiculous. You do appreciate that the brain is not the skull don't you? So what does the shattering of the skull have to do with anything here?

In any case, Simon's quote about the shattering of the skull was not one of the quotes you referred me to in #157. So you are shifting your position. Is that something you "oh so often do"?

And I was quoting from a reliable report of the post-mortem examination, taken from a well-informed Spanish newspaper, not a random, dubious, hearsay article from an Australian newspaper (sourced from a press agency in London) which is what Simon posted (and posted after the post in which you asked me the original question! What am I, psychic?)

The simple fact is that there is nothing whatsoever in the post-mortem report to suggest that the brain was "essentially obliterated". Therefore, it follows that there was no inconsistency in the conclusion that the brain was abnormally large.

So there is your question answered. Not that I can see it has anything to do with the actual issue of Pigott's suicide.

[Elamarna]

....
Well I absolutely dispute your interpretation that the press report I cited suggests that Pigott's skull was "essentially obliterated". It does nothing of the sort. The idea that it was being suggested in that report of the post-mortem examination that Pigott's skull was "essentially obliterated" must come from your imagination.

But if you are wrong, as you are, then the brain size question is far from "unanswerable".

Simons Post 178 contains the quote "completely shattered the skull", and from your post 142:" the bullet penetrated the upper part of the palatine veil, destroying the base of the skull, and consequently the [maxillary] apophysis, the cerebellum to its anterior part and in one of its two lobes, and finally, the occipital or posterior lobes of the brain, having its exit hole through the same occipital vertex, further fracturing the two parietals."

Yet you dispute my comments. Couldn't have asked you for a better example of what you oh so often do.

Michael such does not support a view of obliterating the skull.. most of the quote talks of damage to the Brain; not the skull.
Shattering the skull is not the same thing as obliterating it.
Indeed let's look at JFK as an example, not discussing the case for conspiracy and more than a single shooter at all, we have damage from a high velocity projectile, which distroys much of the Brain, blows out a large section of skull, opens up the sutures between the skull plates, shatters it. However it does not obliterate the skull at all. The majority remains intact.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Does it actually matter how big his brain was?

[David Orsam]

Does it actually matter how big his brain was?

Absolutely not!

I think someone, for whatever personal agenda they were pursuing, wanted to undermine the credibility of the report of the post-mortem and leapt to the assumption that the bullet which obviously damaged the brain also must have obliterated it from existence! Hence, it was claimed, the size of the brain could not be assessed.

Now that's clearly a false argument and we should get back to the issue of Pigott's suicide as we await provision from Simon Wood of at least one further "account" that Pigott's lower jaw was "a total mess" or, alternatively, confirmation that there is only one newspaper report of this and he was wrong to use the word "accounts".

Maybe one day we will even find out what the issue of Pigott's death in 1889 has to do with the Whitechapel Murders of 1888, as the two are supposedly inextricably linked according to Wood's book (although this, of course, is pure horsefeathery cobblers and balderdash) - yet you don't find any explanation from Wood in all the nearly 600 pages.