Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Three.

Anderson, Macnaghten, Abberline and Littlechild lied.

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Hi Jon,

Three.

Anderson, Macnaghten, Abberline and Littlechild lied.

Regards,

Simon

Simon may I ask what sources you have used to allow you to make this statement?
What data you have to back the statement up?
I have every copy of your book so far and still no real answers just hints and open questions. It is somewhat frustrating to pay for 2 updates and be no further forward.


Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

No matter which way you approach the supposed mystery of the identity of Jack the Ripper, you eventually run up against a lie. Some told for profit, some told to burnish a family history, some told because certain people were supposed to be in the know and were expected to say something.

I have detailed three Anderson anecdotes which weren't worth the paper they were written on. Why should I believe the fourth, about a Polish Jew?

Why, via Major Griffiths, did Macnaghten keep [an unnamed] Ostrog in the frame four years after he had learned he had been in a French prison throughout the autumn of terror?

I could go on, but have to dash.

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

No matter which way you approach the supposed mystery of the identity of Jack the Ripper, you eventually run up against a lie. Some told for profit, some told to burnish a family history, some told because certain people were supposed to be in the know and were expected to say something.

I have detailed three Anderson anecdotes which weren't worth the paper they were written on. Why should I believe the fourth, about a Polish Jew?

Why, via Major Griffiths, did Macnaghten keep [an unnamed] Ostrog in the frame four years after he had learned he had been in a French prison throughout the autumn of terror?

I could go on, but have to dash.

Regards,

Simon

Ah anecdotes which by definition are not always accurate. So we will disagree about that.

As for MM, lie or just sloppy. So many mistakes.

Abberline and Littlechild?

Look Simon I understand you have this undisclosed theory, however is it not time to come clean about it?

Steve

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

How do I now know "that there were no illegal acts committed by Scotland Yard officers in America?"

How do I now know "why James Monro resigned as Commissioner?"

How do I now know that "the Special Commission was a red herring, a false trail down which I took myself?"

Because you told me in a rambling series of diatribes?

Hi Simon,

I note this is the second time you have referred to my reasoned, well argued articles, supported by evidence, as "diatribes" to which you now add "rambling". Good to see you are not "ill mannered" or "mean spirited". Strange, though, that, despite your description of them, these very same articles caused you not only to modify the second (hardback) edition of your book, but also to add new information taken from them, although you have never actually admitted this. Are you prepared to admit publicly that you did change your book as a result of my articles?

As for your questions, well Simon, look at #64 in this thread, back on 15 July, in which I asked you:

"What was the "illegal Scotland Yard activity in North America"? And how comes it's not "alleged" illegal Scotland Yard activity in North America?

Do you still not understand why James Monro resigned?"

Then look at #65:

"There were only two Scotland Yard officers in North America during the period of the Special Commission – inspectors Andrews and Jarvis - both of whom were on official police business, executing lawful extradition warrants. There was no illegal Scotland Yard activity in North America. Simon knows this. Furthermore, there was no connection between the activity of the two officers in North America and the Special Commission. Simon also knows this.

As Simon must now know, if he didn't when he originally wrote his book, James Monro resigned because he was extremely unhappy about the government’s refusal to agree to his demands concerning Metropolitan police pensions. That is a matter of historical fact. It had nothing to do with the Special Commission inquiry or any aspects of that inquiry. The Special Commission inquiry, therefore, did not lead to the resignation of James Monro in any way."

Your response to all this was to post a drawing of Richard Pigott! You have never challenged a word of what I've said on these subjects although you have had plenty of opportunity to do so. As a result of this, and of previous discussions we have had on this forum, I felt able to conclude that you are fully aware that you got it wrong on all this.

But, look, if you disagree then perhaps you can answer these three simple questions:

1. What law (or laws) do you say was broken by Scotland Yard officers in America in 1888 or 1889?

2. For what reason do you say James Monro resigned as Commissioner in June 1890?

3. Other than that they were both going on in 1888, what connection is there between the Whitechapel murders and the Special Commission inquiry?

There can hardly be simpler questions than this and if you genuinely believe what you are saying in your book it should be no problem for you to answer them.

[David Orsam]

You know absolutely nothing, yet obviously have a hard-on for the concept of Jack the Ripper.

It's amazing that despite having told that I'm perfectly prepared to accept that all of the C5 were killed by different people, you have still somehow convinced yourself that I have "a hard-on for the concept of Jack the Ripper". It's a fantasy which you obviously cannot get out of your head despite all the evidence.

The weird truth is – not that I, or probably anyone else, wants Jack the Ripper to have existed - but that YOU so badly want others to believe in the concept of Jack the Ripper! Because if we don't, then how do you manage to be provocative by saying that "Jack the Ripper" did not exist?

What I know is that the "concept" of "Jack the Ripper" certainly and undeniably did exist. It was a nickname applied to the person (or indeed persons) who murdered, and usually mutilated, a number of women in the East End of London in 1888. SOMEONE murdered those women. For ease of reference he (or they) was referred to as "Jack the Ripper" but it also could have been "The Whitechapel Murderer" or "Leather Apron" or "The East End Killer" or "The Devilish Disemboweller" any other number of descriptors.

So what do you mean when you say "Jack the Ripper" did not exist? Is it no more than that the name "Jack T. Ripper" was not on the birth certificate of the murderer, or murderers? I think we all knew that already Simon.

So what are you telling us that is new?

[David Orsam]

So perhaps you might like to give us the benefit of your infinite wisdom and tell us who it was.

You have a choice from over 200 candidates.

Does this mean that what you are really saying is that because no-one has been able to identify Jack the Ripper – and because so many different candidates have been put forward – that THIS is the reason that you believe Jack the Ripper did not exist?

You know, it wouldn't surprise me, but would you agree that such an argument would be based on a total failure of logic and sense?

[David Orsam]

Three.

Now this is interesting, Simon, and of course three matches what you said in your 2005 dissertation, namely:

"I firmly believe that the person known as Jack the Ripper committed murders 1, 2 and 4."

So that's Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes right?

In which case, as at 1 October 1888, would not any member of the police or public have been entirely justified in believing in the existence of "Jack the Ripper", a crazy and terrifying person who had recently murdered and mutilated three women in the streets of the East End?

Okay, that killer wasn't responsible for both murders on 30 September, but boy that's a pretty scary guy, no? Ripping out the insides of three women in the open streets?? That's some devilish feat isn't it?

And so, finally, after all this, it turns out that what you mean when you say "Jack the Ripper did not exist" is nothing more than that the Whitechapel Murderer did not murder Stride and Kelly.

That was your big point was it?

[David Orsam]

Why, via Major Griffiths, did Macnaghten keep [an unnamed] Ostrog in the frame four years after he had learned he had been in a French prison throughout the autumn of terror?

According to your book, Simon, which is, admittedly not the most reliable document in the world, it wasn't until about 2002 that Philip Sugden made the discovery that Ostrog had been in a French prison during 1888.

So how did Macnaghten learn about it more than 100 years earlier?

All you tell us in your book is that the British police discovered that Ostrog had been in a French prison as at May 1889. But even this was after Macnaghten had completed and filed his 1894 memorandum.

Even if Mac did find out that Ostrog had been in a French prison during 1888, prior to the publication of Major Griffiths' book in 1898, how could Mac conceivably have been said to "keep" him in the frame when he didn't publish anything himself about the murders in that year?

Oh, you think that he is responsible for what Major Griffiths published do you? And he checked every word of his book before it was published did he?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You mean that it wasn't a recorded fact until it's 2002 discovery?

Since my last post, you have reached rock bottom and started to dig.

Try harder.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

You mean that it wasn't a recorded fact until it's 2002 discovery?

Well Philip Sugden couldn't have found out about it in 2002 if it wasn't a recorded fact. But the question is: did Macnaghten know about this recorded fact at any time prior to 1898, or indeed at any time during his life?

If he did, you don't tell us about it in your book.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You obviously haven't read my book too closely.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

You obviously haven't read my book too closely.

On the contrary, Simon, I carried out a word search for "Ostrog" in the e-book to ensure I didn't miss anything.

And your feeble response, with its absence of any contradictory information, reassures me that I certainly didn't miss a thing.

[John G]

Hi Jon,

Three.

Anderson, Macnaghten, Abberline and Littlechild lied.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Thanks for reply and clarification!

[David Orsam]

So Jack the Ripper murdered Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

He did exist after all!

But tell me Simon. I can understand why you might exclude Stride. No mutilations. But why exclude Kelly?

Please tell me it's not because some guy told you it was a Special Branch operation.

You do know he was pulling your leg, right?