Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[David Orsam]

As we do not know that five [or perhaps only four] of the C5 were murdered by a single individual, no rationale exists for insisting that this hypothetical individual was operating under the sobriquet of Jack the Ripper.

I understand what you are saying here but that's not what I'm asking you.

[David Orsam]

Jack the Ripper's existence depends on a single individual having been responsible for murdering all [or perhaps only four] of the C5.

That's the very question I am asking you Simon.

Do you accept that Jack the Ripper existed if a single individual murdered four of the C5?

Is the answer yes or no?

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi David,

Okay, let me break down your latest teaser.

Jack the Ripper's existence depends on a single individual having been responsible for murdering all [or perhaps only four] of the C5.

As we do not know that five [or perhaps only four] of the C5 were murdered by a single individual, no rationale exists for insisting that this hypothetical individual was operating under the sobriquet of Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

Does the fact that the press and police were positing a single perpetrator as early as the Nichols killing strengthen or weaken the case for Jack's existence?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

We do not know if a single individual murdered four or five of the C5.

Your question is irrelevant.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

We do not know if a single individual murdered four or five of the C5.

Your question is irrelevant.

My question does not, in any way, depend on whether we know it or not Simon. I'm asking you what the position would be IF a single individual murdered them.

And it's perfectly clear from your evasive responses that you can't answer the question.

I basically predicted this in my "Reconstructing Jack" article. The simple fact is that you don't understand what you mean yourself when you say "Jack the Ripper did not exist". You are unable to provide a coherent explanation of this provocative and catchy statement.

You cannot answer the question because, despite having nearly 600 pages in your book, you don't know what you mean!

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I'm waiting for a coherent explanation of your insistence that 'Jack the Ripper' did exist.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

I'm waiting for a coherent explanation of your insistence that 'Jack the Ripper' did exist.

Had I ever insisted that Jack the Ripper did exist (and especially if I had published a book saying he did) you would be perfectly entitled to wait for and, indeed, expect, such an explanation from me.

However, as I have already said in this thread, I have never insisted any such thing.

On the contrary, I am perfectly prepared to accept that five different individuals murdered those five women if you or anyone else were to make a coherent argument that this were the case.

But this thread is not about me. It's about your book

What you should be able to do, Simon, as the author of "Deconstructing Jack", is explain what you mean when you say "Jack the Ripper did not exist". It's patently obvious that you can't do it.

If you disagree, then just answer the simple questions I have asked you.

[Abby Normal]

simon
Do you have a problem with the name "Jack the ripper"?
Its just the name given to what the FBI refer to as the "unsub".

IF the same man murdered at least 4 of the C5 then we have a serial killer. it dosnt matter what we call him.

Surely IF the same man did kill at least 4 of the C5, you can at least admit we have a serial killer. correct? can you even admit that?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

We don't know if one man killed all [or only four] of the C5.

But the idea of a serial killer was certainly a neat and tidy convenience.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

We don't know if one man killed all [or only four] of the C5.

But the idea of a serial killer was certainly a neat and tidy convenience.

You still haven't answered the question!

But it's clear that what what you are trying to say, Simon, is not "Jack the Ripper did not exist" but "Jack the Ripper might not have existed".

That's rather different isn't it?

[Phil Carter]

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.



Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay, Simon, perhaps that question was a bit too difficult – although it was your question. Surely you can answer this one:

When you say that Jack the Ripper did not exist, is it your view that Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were all killed by different individuals?

Five separate murderers?

But if the same individual murdered (say) four of those five women, would you accept that Jack the Ripper DID in fact exist?

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

But it is the name JTR, which has made this mystery into a world wide phenomenon for the past 129 years.

Really ?!?

And not the mystery of a spate of ghastly, unsolved murders in atmospheric old London Town ?

[Harry D]

This sounds like a load of semantics.

Replace 'Jack The Ripper' with the 'Whitechapel Murder' or 'Leather Apron', granted neither of those have the same ring to 'em, and the point remains that a series of killings were attributed to one unidentified individual.

[Trevor Marriott]

Really ?!?

And not the mystery of a spate of ghastly, unsolved murders in atmospheric old London Town ?

Describe them how you like, it still doesn't take way from the fact that the name Jack the Ripper has kept this mystery alive, along with the belief that he removed organs from the victims.

So if you remove from the mystery the belief that he did all of those things, the mystery is shattered.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk