Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[Monty]

The fact 'said quarters' have kept their counsel, unlike they have with the recent Edwards episode, kinda pooh-poohs the suggestion that there is a fear of wheel failure.

Interesting book, as one should expect from Simon.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

The fact 'said quarters' have kept their counsel, unlike they have with the recent Edwards episode, kinda pooh-poohs the suggestion that there is a fear of wheel failure.

Interesting book, as one should expect from Simon.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Indeed. Totally agree. For it could be argued, said quarters not keeping council could cause a detrimental effect on the loosening of said wheels. Wise choice.

And not everyone pooh poohed the Edwards effort straight away either. I note that both you and I did so right from the off though. See through that was.

Hope you are in good health. ☺

Phil

[Monty]

It was more an urging of caution with Edwards,

However, this is a different beast. Gladly Simon doesn't share his eating habits and what time he went to bed, and focuses on the business in hand.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

It was more an urging of caution with Edwards,

However, this is a different beast.....

Monty

Hello Monty,

Indeed. Serious research. Serious book. Thought provoking and analytical. Without fear nor favour.


Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Deconstructing Jack, available at Amazon Kindle Stores, now sports a striking new cover, designed by Thomas Lee Communications - https://www.facebook.com/thosleecom



Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

When I finished it the phrase "tour de force" easily sprang to mind. Although I don't support everything Simon states, I thought the book was very well written, thought provoking (that't an understatement) and incredibly informative. One of four excellent books published fairly recently.

Wolf.

[spyglass]

HI,
Only just found out that this long awaited book is finally here.
But is it and when will it be released in ( what I call ) normal form.?
Regards

[Watcher_Don]

Hello, all. It's been quite some time since I've been around these forums, but I recently read Mr. Wood's book and it prompted to come back and check out the current discussions.

As to "Deconstructing Jack," I found the book extremely interesting, but I was unclear upon finishing it just what Mr. Simon's thesis was. The blanket statement "Jack the Ripper never existed" is stated repeatedly. What I was unclear about was what, exactly, Mr. Wood meant by the statement. Is he saying that the mythical figure of the knife wielding toff is imaginary? That the name "Jack the Ripper" was never used or embraced by the killer? That each murder was committed by a separate person? Surely someone killed those women in Whitechapel, and the prevailing opinion of the police and historians since has indicated one man's hand behind at least some combination of the victims.

I'm glad to have read it - there was a great deal of information therein that simply isn't included in most books on the case, and a lot of sources used that I haven't come across in other works. I did feel, however, that the case was never actually made as to WHY the reader should come to the conclusion that there was no "Jack," or even why the reader should view any or none of the victims as being killed by the same person. I've read compelling arguments that victim X or Y should be omitted, or that victim Z should be added, but I didn't find any such evidence in the book to back up the "No Jack" theory.

Or am I missing something?

[wigngown]

Got my copy Simon & look forward to reading it immensely.

Best regards.

[David Orsam]

Hello, all. It's been quite some time since I've been around these forums, but I recently read Mr. Wood's book and it prompted to come back and check out the current discussions.

As to "Deconstructing Jack," I found the book extremely interesting, but I was unclear upon finishing it just what Mr. Simon's thesis was. The blanket statement "Jack the Ripper never existed" is stated repeatedly. What I was unclear about was what, exactly, Mr. Wood meant by the statement. Is he saying that the mythical figure of the knife wielding toff is imaginary? That the name "Jack the Ripper" was never used or embraced by the killer? That each murder was committed by a separate person? Surely someone killed those women in Whitechapel, and the prevailing opinion of the police and historians since has indicated one man's hand behind at least some combination of the victims.

I'm glad to have read it - there was a great deal of information therein that simply isn't included in most books on the case, and a lot of sources used that I haven't come across in other works. I did feel, however, that the case was never actually made as to WHY the reader should come to the conclusion that there was no "Jack," or even why the reader should view any or none of the victims as being killed by the same person. I've read compelling arguments that victim X or Y should be omitted, or that victim Z should be added, but I didn't find any such evidence in the book to back up the "No Jack" theory.

Or am I missing something?

Hi Don,

There's a second thread on this forum about the book in which I've discussed this very question, here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9303&page=6

I've also written a much longer analysis which you can access from this link:

http://www.orsam.co.uk/reconstructingjack.htm

[David Orsam]

I've made a couple of additions to my article entitled "Reconstructing Jack" (link as above).

Firstly, on the question of the mysterious "Inspector Soyle", it occurred to me that the Philadelphia Times reporter who supposedly interviewed Soyle said that he had "A pair of steel-blue eyes".

Did Superintendent Shore have blue eyes?

I checked in the police pension records at the National Archives and discovered that Shore had hazel eyes. So I think that puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Shore could have been Soyle.

Secondly, I found a news report in the London Evening Post in late 1888 which repeated the story from the American press that Shore had been in New York and Kansas City. Consequently, it is possible that Robert Anderson, when providing the answer to the Home Secretary to a parliamentary question re. "Inspector Shore", had been aware of the American reports about Shore having been in the United States. So I have amended my article accordingly - although it doesn't change the fact in my view that when asked whether an "Inspector Shaw" had been the US in 1888 he answered in respect of the only Inspector Shaw in the Met Police.

[David Orsam]

One further addition. I have now added a section on Dr Bond's opinion of November 1888 following my discussion with Simon about it on this forum.

[Robert]

I haven't pored over the original images (to save my eyes) but looking through the Ancestry transcription of the "Elbe" passenger list, I didn't see any name resembling "Soyle" or indeed any British passengers at all.

[David Orsam]

I haven't pored over the original images (to save my eyes) but looking through the Ancestry transcription of the "Elbe" passenger list, I didn't see any name resembling "Soyle" or indeed any British passengers at all.

Yes, but if you look at the last line on the first page of the list you will see that it's torn off so that there is one passenger unaccounted for. One might say that it had been deliberately removed but it's consistent with the other tearing around the edges of the paper.

So, unfortunately, I don't think the passenger list is conclusive one way or the other.

[Robert]

I see what you mean, David. You mean the passenger below Carter? But if you look at the whole line, the name is missing but the citizenship box would suggest American. There seems only room for the ditto mark which is written on the bottom line, so that would make him American.

I think it's a bit clearer on the LDS site. Unfortunately however small I make the images, they still exceed the board guidelines!