Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[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]

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?

[Harry D]

Because serial killers carry out each murder identically?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas."

But five [or even four] of the C5 murders were not committed by the same hand.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Why have you got such a hard-on for Jack the Ripper?

He did not exist.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas."

But five [or even four] of the C5 murders were not committed by the same hand.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Why have you got such a hard-on for Jack the Ripper?

He did not exist.

Simon, I don't have a problem with only three murders being committed by the same hand, if THAT is what you are saying.

I don't have a problem with only two murders committed by the same hand, or none. If that is what you are saying. I can understand it.

I don't care if Jack the Ripper existed or not.

What I want to know is what you mean when you say "Jack the Ripper did not exist".

So are you saying that if only three of the murders were committed by a single individual then we CANNOT say that Jack the Ripper existed? But if it were four or five it would be reasonable to say that he did exist?

You see, and I'm sure you've read me saying this, I'm certain you can't answer these questions because you simply don't know what you mean when you say "Jack the Ripper did not exist". You have confused and bamboozled yourself. That's why you are having trouble answering my very simple hypothetical questions.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You are the gift which goes on giving

In order to prove JtR's existence you have now reduced his tally to three

I'll give it an hour or so before I next reply

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

You are the gift which goes on giving

In order to prove JtR's existence you have now reduced his tally to three

I have no interest in proving Jack the Ripper's existence nor have I reduced his tally to three.

In fact, had you been concentrating you will have seen that I said in #262 yesterday that I am prepared to accept that his tally was zero!

I want to know what YOU are saying. Is it YOUR view - is it the case as set out in YOUR book - that a single individual killed only three women in 1888 and that THEREFORE because he killed only three women, not five, it is reasonable to say that Jack the Ripper did not exist?

The corollary of that, of course, is that if he killed four of five of the women then he DID exist, right?

Why are you so afraid to say that Jack the Ripper DID exist if one individual murdered all five women?

[Abby Normal]

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

LOL. the only "distant planet" anyone on here exists on is the one with Simon and Trevor-one on which serial killers don't exist, people cant answer a simple question, cant admit mistakes, spread ridiculous misinformation, and claim Jack the Ripper didnt exist yet still use the name to profit off of!! what a joke.

Why a real researcher and author like David wastes his time with you clowns is beyond me-he has the patience of a saint.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

I am certain that David relishes all your obsequious buttering-up

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi Abby,

I am certain that David relishes all your obsequious buttering-up

That's all you've got to say is it?

The same person who complained about my allegedly "ill mannered and mean spirited post" earlier in this thread.

(It wasn't, of course.)

No defence at all then.

[Harry D]

Ripperology is a saturated market. Everyone's trying to think up the next hot take to stand out from the crowd. If you can't come up with a sensational suspect, deny he ever existed in the first place!

There are people out there who think the Zodiac Killer was a myth too.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I am certain that David relishes all your obsequious buttering-up

Regards,

Simon

as a matter of fact I doubt he does. because the thing with David I noticed is the most important thing to him is the truth Simon.

[David Orsam]

Some people might be wondering why Simon is finding it so difficult to answer such a simple hypothetical question.

I'll tell you the answer. He can't possibly admit that Jack the Ripper would have existed if there was a single individual who killed all five, or even four of the women.

Why not?

I've explained it all at length in my article Reconstructing Jack (http://www.orsam.co.uk/reconstructingjack.htm)
but the short point is that the issue of Jack the Ripper's existence would then become a straightforward factual one.

On the basis that Stride and Kelly were the exceptions, an author, like Simon, wanting to prove that JTR did not exist would, naturally and inevitably, have to demonstrate that the single killer who murdered Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes did not murder Stride and Kelly.

Even then, of course, with three victims to his name, it would be a difficult argument for Simon to make that JTR did not exist. Such a murderer would still constitute the modern definition of a serial killer and "Jack the Ripper" would be a very suitable name considering all three victims were "ripped" open.

But, that aside, what Simon would have to do – and there is no getting round it – is prove that Stride and Kelly were murdered by a person or persons who was not the same individual who murdered Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

But this is precisely what he does NOT do in his book. He does not even attempt it. Not in the nearly 600 pages.

He doesn't do it because he can't do it. It's impossible.

And if he can't do it then (as he well knows) it remains entirely possible that a single individual murdered all five victims.

If a single individual murdered all five victims then it's pretty much insane to try and argue that Jack the Ripper did not exist. He was the person who did the murders! A five year old child could work that out.

Simon - you can say that to hold a belief that Jack the Ripper might really have existed means that you inhabit a distant planet until you are blue in the face. You are not at all convincing. Unless, of course, Simon, you are writing from Uranus.

[John G]

Hi David,

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas."

But five [or even four] of the C5 murders were not committed by the same hand.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Why have you got such a hard-on for Jack the Ripper?

He did not exist.

Regards,

Simon

Have you any evidence for this assertion Simon? As no one was ever caught for any of the C5 murders I don't see how it can be argued that JtR definitely did or did not exist. That makes no logical sense.

[David Orsam]

John, you pick up on a very important point; and, indeed, the key flaw in Simon's argument.

As you have identified, Simon says:

"But five [or even four] of the C5 murders were not committed by the same hand."

That is, of course, a factual claim. So where is the evidence to support it?

More to the point of this thread, where do we find it demonstrated in Simon's book?

Perhaps he can supply the page numbers.