Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

It's all still there, so goodness knows what you've been reading.

The RIC was in London in late 1888 conducting investigations allegedly without the direct knowledge or authority of the Home Secretary. Michael Quilter, who had recently arrived in London from county Kerry to give evidence at the Special Commission, mysteriously died from poisoning on Monday 5th November.

Two months later, in February 1889, Professor Thomas Maguire of Dublin, in London to give evidence at the Special Commission about his role in the Richard Pigott affair, died in the exact same manner as Quilter on the day Piggot escaped to Paris and Madrid. Murder was suspected in certain quarters, but a coroner's inquest into Maguire's death was never convened. It was also suggested in Parliament at the time that Scotland Yard had purposely delayed serving a bench warrant on Piggot and thus connived in his escape.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

As I'm clearly not going to get an answer to my question as to why you continue to falsely claim that Jarvis and Pinkertons had 'no idea' what Barton looked like, Simon, I'd like to turn to something that DID remove from your book.

I see from the Amazon preview that this crazy suggestion, which appeared in the previous editions, has now been totally expunged from the introduction:

"Was there a political agenda behind the Whitechapel murders?
Could the prize have been connected with the Special Commission...an inquiry which led to a shooting, two suspected London murders, an alleged suicide in Madrid, illegal Scotland Yard activity in North America and the sudden resignation of a second Metropolitan Police Commissioner, James Monro?"

Hilariously, it's been replaced with:

"Whatever the prize - and there had to be prize to make the exercise worth the candle - it is clear it could not have been won by wholly clandestine means."

Should we be taking that as an acceptance by you that "the prize" behind the Whitechapel murders was not connected in any way with the Special Commission inquiry? Has it finally clicked, in the light of my articles, that there was never any "illegal Scotland Yard activity in North America"? Do you now appreciate that the resignation of James Monro was all about the rather dull issue of pensions? Do you further understand that there was nothing "alleged" about Pigott's suicide?

And even though it has now been obliterated from the introduction, I feel I really should ask you: What were those "two suspected London murders" that you thought was connected with "the prize"? Who did you think was murdered Simon?

[David Orsam]

The last time Barton had been seen in England was 1886.

This was 1889. What description of Barton was everyone working on?

Oh Simon what a fantastic point. A man in his 40s is going to change dramatically in two years isn't he? I say "two years" because Jarvis set out to catch him in 1888. But really, three years if you like, from about 43 to 46. What differences do you think there could possibly have been to Barton's description Simon?

He wasn't going to be able to change his height or his build or the colour of his hair was he? He wasn't going to get plastic surgery was he?

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

It's a simple enough question.

If Jarvis and the Pinkertons knew what Barton looked like, why did someone think it was a smart idea to go to the expense and bother of shipping Edward Plant across the Atlantic?

I've already given the very simple answer Simon.

Barton could not be extradited back to the UK without his identity being proved to the satisfaction of a US (or Canadian) judge. Neither Jarvis nor the Pinkertons were in a position to prove his identity because they had never seen him before. In a time before fingerprints and DNA, there was no other way of doing it. Someone who knew Barton had to be present in America to formally identify him to ensure that his arrest was legal and could not be challenged during the extradition process.

That aside, it seems sensible, if it's possible, to have someone available who could positively identify Barton if you are trying to catch him.

But Edward Plant's presence in America is irrelevant to the question I am asking you about which is why you keep stating in your book that Jarvis and Pinkertons had 'no idea' what Barton looked like. By any standards that is a wholly false statement isn't it?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

It's a simple enough question.

If Jarvis and the Pinkertons knew what Barton looked like, why did someone think it was a smart idea to go to the expense and bother of shipping Edward Plant across the Atlantic?

The last time Barton had been seen in England was 1886.

This was 1889. What description of Barton was everyone working on?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Jarvis did not personally know Barton. Nor did he have a photograph by which to recognize him. For purposes of identification, Inspector Jarvis took with him to America Barton’s lifelong friend, Edward Plant.

But this was not true.

Fascinating though your irrelevant obsession with Edward Plant is, I'm asking you why you have retained in your book the statement that Jarvis and Barton had "no idea" what Barton looked like.

You don't say that they didn't personally know him or that they didn't have a photograph of him, both of which would have been true. You say they had "no idea" what he looked like. So why have you kept this untrue statement in your book?

Do you want to now answer the question.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Jarvis did not personally know Barton. Nor did he have a photograph by which to recognize him. For purposes of identification, Inspector Jarvis took with him to America Barton’s lifelong friend, Edward Plant.

But this was not true.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

To bring this back to my question despite your attempts to change the subject.

Why have you retained the statement in your book that Jarvis and Pinkertons had "no idea" what Barton looked like when, as you must know, because it was in my articles which you read, that they had a very good idea what he looked like?

[David Orsam]

I'm interested in how and why Edward Plant travelled to America.

I just told you why he travelled to America.

Sorry to nitpick, but it was Henry Cave, and I doubt he sported an "English" accent.

Two silly statements in one sentence. You are excelling yourself. Harry and Henry are interchangeable, as you must know, and Barton was from Macclesfield so I don't suppose he had an American accent did he?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I'm interested in how and why Edward Plant travelled to America.

Sorry to nitpick, but it was Henry Cave, and I doubt he sported an "English" accent.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

When did Edward Plant travel to America for this Barton business?

As you know, that information hasn't survived but what does it matter? He was there when Barton was arrested.

And this has got absolutely nothing to do with my point that it is simply false to say that Jarvis and Pinkertons had "no idea" what Barton looked like.

Not only did they both have a very good idea what Barton looked like, from his description, but they knew he was going under the name of "Harry Cave" and obviously had an English accent.

So why does the statement that they had "no idea" what he looked like survive in your book?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

When did Edward Plant travel to America for this Barton business?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

So why take Edward Plant along for the ride?

I've already explained this in my Reconstructing Jack article Simon:

"Plant's presence was required because he was the only person who could identify Barton for the purposes of satisfying a court of law in America that the correct man had been arrested."

That, of course, was in respect of ensuring a successful extradition back to the UK.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

So why take Edward Plant along for the ride?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Neither Jarvis nor Pinkertons had "no idea" what Barton looked like. A description of Barton was available to both of them.

I've mentioned this in my Suckered! trilogy and in my online article about your book, both of which I know you've read. So why did you keep this false statement in your book?