Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[Simon Wood]

Thank you David,

Most interesting.

The most fascinating aspects of this newspaper report are the absence of the interpreter; that Piggot signed into the hotel under the name Moyerman, and that many people wanted to believe the dead man was Jack the Ripper.

El Pais, 2nd March 1889 [translated via Google]—

Half an hour after the arrival of the express train from Paris on February 28th, an elegant gentleman presented himself at the Hotel de Embajadores in demand of lodging.

His age was between fifty-five to sixty years old; His high stature; His long beard and blond, already gray; His abundant hair, the same color as the beard, which formed a thick mane around his neck, gave the character in question a grave and majestic appearance, very much in harmony with the serious and reserved character of the children of Great Britain.

He was installed in room no. 3, which is one of the principal, and after enlisting the help of the valet in charge of his room he signed the register of the establishment with the name of Moyerman, washed perfectly, taking care that his toilet was the most chic possible.

An hour later, he delivered to the clerks a telegram to London, conceived in these terms: "I arrived in Madrid without incident. I'm Hotel Embajadores." During the remainder of the 28th, it was only after five o'clock in the afternoon that the guest remained almost continuously locked in his room, from which alone he sat at the hour of the meal, or to return shortly when he left the inn.

With great mystery, no doubt to avoid suspicion, the police arrived late at five o'clock at the Hotel de Embajadores, asking what was the room of a knight of English nationality, arrived the day before Madrid, and whose name was Mr. Roland Ponsonby. The descriptions exactly matched those of the gentleman of whom we have spoken; But the name appears different. They understood the agents of authority, in spite of this difference, which were themselves both persons, and without hesitation for a single moment, they went to the room number. 3, on whose door they struck three times.

There was little hesitation in the interior, and an uncertain voice asked who it was. "Open yourself to authority"; Was the only answer.

A minute went by without the door being opened or any sound heard in the room. Tired of waiting, the officers were about to strike again, when the entrance of the room was opened, and Mr. Roland, livid and trembling at the urge of deep terror, asked the object of such an unpleasant visit.

"You must accompany us in order to settle a matter that is pending," they replied.

More serene then, and as if enlightened by a sudden idea, he begged the authority to allow him to take some clothes from his suitcase, to dress in street clothes.

He entered again in his room, without any of the present could harbor the slightest suspicion of the act he intended to take effect; But soon a detonation of a firearm, which made the whole house tremble, made it clear to them that the persecuted English could no longer be dispossessed by the courts.

Indeed; Stretched out in the middle, on a pool of still smoldering blood, his skull horribly shattered, and his face disfigured to the point of sinister appearing on the face, which before moments of sympathy, was the corpse of Mr. Roland Ponsomby.

Naturally, part of the fact was given to the Court of the guard, who appeared in the place of the event, dictating the transfer of the corpse to the judicial deposit of the South.

Then he seized a small suitcase, inside which were two changes of white linen, a letter written in English addressed to his mistress of white papers, another book and a license to use weapons. In the pocket of the waistcoat, four coins were found, and two gold coins.

This operation was attended by all the employees of the hotel, and Mr. Garcia Alba, owner of the same, who came after hear the firing.

The arrest of this individual was arranged by the authorities of Madrid as a result of a telegraphic notice received yesterday from England.

Regarding the personality of the suicide, very little is known by those who ordered their arrest. There are, however, some indications which may seem to suggest that the unfortunate man who arrived in this capital was the famous Irishman, Mr. Pigott, who was widely spoken throughout the world on the occasion of the forged letters of the public acquaintance Parnell.
Tomorrow, the English ambassador, Sir Clare Ford, and a large part of the English colony will examine the corpse, in order to enable its identification.

Last night, there were some hallucinators who tried to see the sadly famous woman ripper of London in the suicide.

ENDS

There's a book in here somewhere.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

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

I think I can save you some time, Simon, in what would only have been a fruitless "investigation" because I know the source of the story you have reproduced about Captain O'Shea in Madrid. It transpires that the story you have posted is partly true and partly false.

In March 1889, Captain O'Shea was temporarily living in Madrid because he had a business interest in a Madrid bank. His residence there was very well known because he had returned from Madrid to give evidence at the Special Commission on 1 November 1888 and then returned to that city immediately on leaving the witness box, much to the evident frustration of Charles Russell who wanted to keep open the option of recalling him to the witness box - and this was all fully reported.

The café in which O'Shea spotted Pigott on 28 February was the Café Ingles, or the English Café, which was, according to O'Shea, the only café in the city where it was possible to read an English newspaper, so the fact of O'Shea seeing Pigott in that café, in the city in which he was residing, is rather less of an amazing coincidence that it might otherwise have appeared.

Anyway, we know of the sighting from a private letter that O'Shea wrote to Joseph Chamberlain on 9 March 1889 which was published in a 1933 book, 'The Life of Joseph Chamberlain', by J.L. Garvin. In that letter, O'Shea said:

"About 7pm on Thursday week, I saw a man accompanied by another with the superscription "Interprete Fonda de Embajadores", enter the Café Ingles in the Calle de Sevilla. Having seen portraits of Pigott and read descriptions of his appearance, in the newspapers, I observed the former, who called for a bottle of beer and an English newspaper. I suppose the interpreter took him to the café in question because it is the only one (I think) where an English paper is taken.

I was soon convinced that the stranger was Pigott. He “quartered” the paper as I have often seen journalists do; his hand trembled; then he looked round the café through an eye glass, rose suddenly, touched the interpreter on the shoulder, and left hurriedly.

I mentioned the matter to the President of the Chamber and other friends whom I met in the course of the evening, and hearing of the suicide a few minutes after it occurred the next day, I had no doubt of the identity. I am sorry the Attorney-General had not the opportunity of re-examining Pigott – although judging by the wretched manner he has conducted the case I am not sure he would have made much out of him. Still, Labouchere’s conduct has been very suspicious and something might have “transpired” as the reporters say."

Interesting though the coincidence is, it in no way puts "a different spin" on things.

In the first place, by this time in the evening, Pigott had already revealed his whereabouts by telegram to William Shannon, who represented the Times newspaper, and this information had been passed on to Chief Inspector Littlechild. Littlechild forwarded the information to the Home Office from where it was passed to the Foreign Office and then on to the British Ambassador to Spain. Indeed, at literally the same time that Pigott was in the café (7.05pm) the British Foreign Secretary (and Prime Minister) was sending a telegram to Sir Clare Ford, the British Ambassador, asking him to apply at once to the Spanish authorities to have Pigott arrested.

In other words, if someone within Scotland Yard, or the Home Office, or the Foreign Office, had wanted to inform Captain O'Shea, or anyone else in Madrid, of Pigott being in that city, along with the hotel in which he was staying, and name he was using, they could have done so by telegram before Pigott entered the Café Ingles that evening.

The same is true for the President of the Chamber, who O'Shea says he informed of his sighting, but neither he nor the Spanish authorities nor the Spanish police had any interest in Pigott who had not committed any crimes in Spain. They only became involved on the request from Sir Clare Ford to arrest him for extradition.

According to the version you posted Simon:

"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."

But clearly Captain O'Shea had not "shadowed" Pigott at all. It is clear from his letter that he had never seen him before in his life and only knew his description from the newspapers and portraits. It's also hardly true to say that he "summoned the authorities". It was Pigott's telegram to London, and its being given to Chief Inspector Littlechild which alerted the only authorities who were interested in Pigott's whereabouts.

Further, you can't pick and choose what bit of the story you want to believe. Captain O'Shea clearly states that Pigott's death was a "suicide" which he learnt of after it occurred.

As I mentioned earlier, the flight and suicide was a disaster for the Times not least because they now had no opportunity to repair the damage caused in Pigott's cross-examination by an effective re-examination of the witness. This is a point made by O'Shea in the letter. Earlier in the same letter he also says: "I suppose it is all up with the Times case". What happened, of course, was that the Times was compelled to concede that all of the Parnell letters were forgeries which was the very last thing they wanted to do.

Finally, nothing has changed because nothing possibly could change. We have the evidence of two independent Spanish witnesses who had no conceivable motive to lie that Pigott shot himself almost in front of their very eyes, certainly in front of their very ears. There was simply no other explanation for how a bullet passed through Pigott's skull. And there never will be.

The clearest case of suicide one could expect to find, regardless of who saw Pigott in Madrid.

[David Orsam]

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.

My posts are all aimed at getting answers to questions which are, or should be, within your knowledge, alternatively intended to force you to confront the incomprehensibility of, and lack of evidence for, your central thesis.

They are no more ill mannered and mean spirited than your posts about Stephen Knight's book which you have made recently. You described his book as "elaborate balderdash" didn't you? So it's fair comment if I say the same about your book isn't it?

The difference is that Stephen Knight is dead and can't answer for himself whereas you can. But you don't. You simply refuse to engage.

Yet you happily post on other threads that your book is "fact" whereas others are "fiction". You constantly repeat, as if it is a fact, that Jack the Ripper did not exist. The sheer nerve of it is breathtaking!

I don't hate your book Simon - I have bought it twice and will no doubt purchase the new edition - but I do believe that it contains elaborate balderdash, horsefeathers and cobblers. I've said it openly and explained why. It's up to you to respond.

And I have no intention of going away, much as you would like me to.

[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

[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,

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]

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,

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]

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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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.

[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?

[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.