Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[Michael W Richards]

What constitutes "evidence" in your book, Michael?

Forensic evidence? That wasn't an option in 1888.

What we do have is an unprecedented outbreak of murders in a small localized area over a short period of time, a subset of which include post-mortem mutilation/evisceration/organ removal. Even the contemporary police quickly cottoned on that this was a serial murderer at work, and this was a brand new concept to them!

Let's go with the Turnbullian (emphasis on the "bull") logic that all five were carried out by different individuals. Five different individuals, all independently of one another, decided to go out into the street and start slashing & mutilating prostitutes in the same period of time. All of them had the disposition and the skill to do this and all of them managed to get away with it, but despite these synchronised rippers, the murder series almost completely ceased after a few months? Why?

The part I highlighted above was to emphasize what Ive been talking about here,...the 5 Canonical Victims were not all "slashed and mutilated in the street". There is no legitimate argument for the inclusion of other victims since the pattern, (you know, the thing that clues investigators into seeing killings as a "series" in the first place,.. like repetitious Methodology, Victimolgy, Signatures....such as double throat cut/pm mutilations... ) is not consistent and is irregular in all relevant categories. Including that of knife skill, something that was at one time in these investigations, of great important to the people searching for the killer. And I say searching for the killer... singular, because it seems to me that each investigation appears to have been constructed around the premise of a continuing spree of one killer. I would have expected extensive data on Michael Kidney, Liz's recent employers, for example.....or Joe Barnett and who the second Joe might be,...and John Kelly, when the obvious lies he told indicate some deception.

What Ripperologists do is look for a guilty party they can connect to these five murders, but what the data says is that they were most probably not all by the same hand anyway. Seems contradictory.

Motives revealed are killers revealed, and it is highly speculative and unproductive to presume that no apparent motive means that its absent. There are circumstantial elements aplenty in all of these cases, and not one of these cases was more dangerous to the public safety than the Parnell Commission could have been.

[Michael W Richards]

Do you notice any kind of inconsistency in your post Michael?

A slip up, dear me. I did mention the concept of a double murderer though didnt I?

[David Orsam]

What is the reason for believing there was someone known as Jack the Ripper?

Well, Simon, you have asked the wrong question. There definitely WAS someone "known as" Jack the Ripper. You can find the evidence for this in all the newspapers. That might have been one person or it might have been a number of people.

The murderer of Mary Nichols was known as Jack the Ripper. The murderer of Annie Chapman was known Jack the Ripper. The murderer of Elizabeth Stride was known as Jack the Ripper. The murderer of Catherine Eddowes was known as Jack the Ripper. The murderer of Mary Jane Kelly was known as Jack the Ripper.

Whether the murderer of Nichols would have turned out TO BE Jack the Ripper, if he (or she or they) had ever been caught, would depend on whether he (or she or they) committed all or most of the other murders. The same for the murderer of Chapman and so on.

I can only think that what you mean to ask is: "What is the reason for saying that the person (or persons) known as Jack the Ripper murdered all the C5 women?"

So that's the question I will answer and the answer is very simple. It is rare for so many women of the same class to be murdered and mutilated (as four of them were) in such a small geographical area over such a short space of time in quite similar circumstances. Experience tells us that such murderers and mutilators tend to be solitary men. So the likelihood on that basis is that one man (known as Jack the Ripper) was responsible for all or most of the murders.

I might add that it was also the opinion of Dr Bond, who was asked to examine the medical evidence (now lost), that the murders had all been committed by the same person.

That person - i.e. the person who was believed to have committed the murders - was given a nickname of "Jack the Ripper". It was quite an effective nickname but I have no idea why you are so hung up on it. It was just a nickname. It could have been any nickname.

Yes, most people at the time undoubtedly assumed that this was one person (or possibly a group of people) who were doing the murders - it is only natural - and that may or may not have been the case.

But if you are going to try and convince the world that there were five different murderers, four of whom cut the throats and mutilated the women in remarkably similar fashion, then you do have to offer some kind of coherent argument as to how and why this strange and unusual state of affairs occurred.

You are, of course, entitled to make such an argument, just as others have made it in the past. It's not a new argument. But so far you haven't even begun to make such an argument. It isn't found in your book. You certainly do not say in your book that there were five different murderers!

So I do wonder if you are making this all up as you go along. But good luck with your new argument that there were 5 killers of the C5. Perhaps you can squeeze it into the next edition of your book. It will be great if these five killers turn out to be a gang of assassins...sort of like, oh I don't know, Stephen Knight portrayed in his book. But then that was elaborate balderdash wasn't it Simon?

[Abby Normal]

Hi David,

You'd do well in the Trump White House.

Regards,

Simon

And ther it is. Lol

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

What is the reason for believing there was someone known as Jack the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Five murders, five different murderers.

Yes, but there is a connection.

And it ain't Jack the Ripper.

Right, thank you, Simon, for finally stating that it is your view that there were five different murderers.

That would, of course, make sense of a claim that there was no 'Jack the Ripper' (and the corollary of that is that if all five women - or even four of the five - were killed by the same individual then JTR did exist, right?).

But if you are going to claim that there were five murderers then you must surely agree that you have to explain WHY you make such a claim, no? What reason is there to think such a thing? Let alone what evidence is there. Let alone who these five murderers were.

But the problem is, Simon, that you don't provide any such explanation or give any such reasons in your book. You don't even say that there were five different murderers of these women!!

And that in a nutshell is the criticism I make of your book.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I could ask you the same about your posts.

Five murders, five different murderers.

Yes, but there is a connection.

And it ain't Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

It's amazing that we have to have such a conversation about someone who is alive and posting in this thread!

And someone who has written a near 600 page book on the very subject under discussion!!!!

[David Orsam]

It's hardly my fault if you are obtuse.

Why do you waste so much time with your evasive and meaningless posts Simon?

Can you not just engage in a normal adult discussion and answer some questions in a straightforward manner.

Are you saying that a different individual murdered each of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly?

Five different murderers? Is that actually what you are saying?

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Yes, I've realized the question could be interpreted as either five separate killers, or one killer, but not "JtR."

Logically, Simon must mean the former, because the latter's ruled out by his candid response to Post 350.

Yes John, I would say so, but as he doesn't believe (or claims not to believe) in the existence of Jack the Ripper Simon is always going to say that the five victims were all killed by "someone else", i.e. someone other than JTR. But that doesn't necessarily mean he is saying that "someone else" was one individual (however much we might think it must mean that!).

It's amazing that we have to have such a conversation about someone who is alive and posting in this thread!

[John G]

Well John clearly didn't work it out. I doubt anyone else could either.

That's because in no known universe would a normal person reply to a string of unnumbered questions by saying "Three".

And the question as worded is a little ambiguous.

Are you saying, Simon, that a different individual murdered each of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly?

Five different murderers? Is that actually what you are saying Simon?

Hi David,

Yes, I've realized the question could be interpreted as either five separate killers, or one killer, but not "JtR."

Logically, Simon must mean the former, because the latter's ruled out by his candid response to Post 350.

Then again, I suppose it could refer to more than five victims, as some people have attributed Tabram and Mackenzie to JtR.

Then again, I referred to "someone else", which logically has to relate to one individual.

So, Simon's answer must be interpreted as believing that a single individual, but not JtR, killed at least the C5 victims. Except he doesn't believe this: Post 355.

Damn, this is confusing!

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

It's hardly my fault if you are obtuse.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Good grief. You should be enrolled for Adult Learning.

Jon G [Post 315] listed a number of things which I could have meant.

I chose No. 3 — "Or are you saying that all of the victims attributed to a person colloquially referred to as Jack the Ripper were killed by someone else?"

How hard is that to work out?

Well John clearly didn't work it out. I doubt anyone else could either.

That's because in no known universe would a normal person reply to a string of unnumbered questions by saying "Three".

And the question as worded is a little ambiguous.

Are you saying, Simon, that a different individual murdered each of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly?

Five different murderers? Is that actually what you are saying Simon?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Good grief. You should be enrolled for Adult Learning.

Jon G [Post 315] listed a number of things which I could have meant.

I chose No. 3 — "Or are you saying that all of the victims attributed to a person colloquially referred to as Jack the Ripper were killed by someone else?"

How hard is that to work out?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Regarding your question, my answer is no.

My goodness, has Simon Wood actually answered a question????!!!

This is a miracle. Well done John.

So:

John G: As an aside, do you think that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were killed by the same person?

Simon Wood: Regarding your question, my answer is no.

Now we are getting somewhere. There's no point me asking the obvious follow up questions because he simply won't answer. I'll leave it to someone else.

Perhaps we will get it down to five different murderers after all!!!