Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[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 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 Jon,

Three.

Anderson, Macnaghten, Abberline and Littlechild lied.

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

Hi Simon,

But when you say there was no Jack the Ripper are you merely arguing that there wasn't some oddball wandering around Whitechapel, wearing a cloak and top hat, and referring to himself as Jack the Ripper? Because I think we'd all agree with that.

Or are you saying that the name Jack the Ripper was a media fabrication-also possible, if not likely- but that there may have been a single killer of, say, the C5 plus Tabram?

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?

Or are you saying that some of the victims were killed by a single killer, and some were not, but your not sure which ones?

Or are you saying that some of the victims were killed by a single killer, and some not, and you are sure which ones?

Or are you saying that all of the victims may have been killed by a single killer, but then again they might not have been?

Or are you saying you're not really sure about any of this but you'll get back to us when you are sure, or a least responsibly satisfied with your conclusions?

Please let me know if I've left out any options.

[Simon Wood]

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?

Oh puleeze!

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

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.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Then we come to the question of WHY.

Why would someone (especially within the British police or government) have wanted to create the existence of someone called "Jack the Ripper"?

The fact of the matter is that Simon does not know.

He is just baffled as everyone else who reads his book.

He has admitted in this thread to "merely" asking the question if it was connected with the Special Commission. The answer is of course: no. We’ve seen very clearly in this thread that there were no murders connected with the Special Commission as Simon seems to have thought when he wrote is book. Simon now knows that there were no illegal acts committed by Scotland Yard officers in America. He knows why James Monro resigned as Commissioner. The Special Commission "prize" is a red herring. It was all a false trail down which Simon took himself.

So why did anyone POSSIBLY want to create a fake Jack the Ripper in 1888?

Who would have gone to the lengths of murdering and mutilating women to do this (and if it was a single individual, or even a gang of men, does that mean he DID exist after all????)?

Did the police do it for more resources? Seems very unlikely and Simon doesn't offer it as a reason.

We know that newspaper owners and editors were happy to use the nickname to sell newspapers. So did THEY murder those women?

I don’t think so. Nor does Simon, it seems. But someone murdered them all. Whether it was one person or more than one person.

But if it was one person then, of course, it was Jack the Ripper.

We don’t know his name so that’s what we call him. But we can also call him the Whitechapel Murderer if we like.

He existed just like Jack the Ripper IF he killed all those women (or most of them).

If it wasn't one person then were some of the murders copycat murders by killers who knew their victims? Or did there happen to be two or three crazy people in Whitechapel who enjoyed cutting throats and mutilating prostitutes in the streets? Or was it Special Branch officers doing it for some nefarious reason that no-one can understand?

Perhaps Simon can tell us and finally reveal the thing he didn't include in his book.

[David Orsam]

I think Michael has rather missed the point in any event. This is a thread about Simon's book so it's about what Simon is saying about the existence or otherwise of Jack the Ripper, not about Michael's personal views on the number of victims. If it can be gleaned from the autopsies that there was a different hand at work for all or most of the murders then I would have expected to find this demonstrated, or at least argued, in "Deconstructing Jack". But Simon doesn't do it.

This is why I have been trying unsuccessfully to extract from Simon what he means by "Jack the Ripper does not exist". Does he, in fact, mean that all five women were murdered by different individuals? If he means this, it should be a simple matter for him to say so.

If this is what he means and he could show us that this was the case (and especially if he could tell us who DID commit the murders) then he would surely be entitled to say that JTR did not exist. But that's precisely what he doesn't do. In fact, he doesn't do anything like it.

Even if thinks only two or three murders were committed by a single crazed individual then fine, he can start an argument from that point and we would know that the reason JTR didn't exist, in Simon's view, is because he didn't murder ALL of the women attributed to him.

But he point blank refuses to explain anything.

So what does he mean? Why does he refuse to agree with the obvious conclusion that if a single individual murdered all five women then Jack the Ripper must have existed? Why does he call a simple question like that "a teaser" as he did earlier in the thread?

The answer, I believe, is because he really does not have a clue what he means by "Jack the Ripper does not exist". He just thinks it sounds good!

[John G]

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

Well spotted, David. I hadn't noticed. Oops!

[David Orsam]

there is zero evidence that links these Five women, or any 2 of these women for that matter, to a single killer.

Polly and Annie were killed by one person, almost certainly.

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

[John G]

All this nonsense about this supposed killer of Five women. The opinions of the contemporary investigators have been taken by so many as some official line drawn in the sand, despite the fact that no-one really knows the sincerity with which these opinions were given and there is zero evidence that links these Five women, or any 2 of these women for that matter, to a single killer.

I believe the myth that we are assuredly seeking a single killer of the women in the Canonical Group has clouded mens minds, and much like the Shadow, its done with a bunch of misdirection, smoke and mirrors. Anyone reading only the autopsies and opinions of the medical authorities who actually saw the bodies and wounds in the flesh, can see the inconsistency with the MO, Signature and knife itself, yet people who are reminiscent of sheep by virtue of the fact that they just follow some 129 year old opinions like they are gospel seem to believe that these very inconsistencies are what point us to serial killings. Because modern studies of captured, convicted and interviewed serial killers indicate they occasionally work inconsistently.

Polly and Annie were killed by one person, almost certainly. There, you have a double murderer. Period.

Now lets see see how long that keeps anyones attention, or how many books it launches.

I agree we can't be at all certain as to how many victims were by a single hand, however, I would question some of your logic. For instance, regarding the knife. How do you know that a different knife was used throughout the "series."? In fact, even if this was the case, why would it be unlikely for a serial killer to possess more than one knife?

Zero evidence that links the victims. Okay, it's a valid point but hardly decisive. I mean, before Sutcliffe was caught how many of his victims were linked? Answer: zero.

And I'm afraid you place too much reliance on the opinions of the nineteenth century medicos. I mean, take Dr Phillips' analysis of the Chapman murder. On one hand he seems to imply that the perpetrator was a medical expert, but then he effectively contradicts himself by concluding that, "he had a certain amount of anatomical knowledge", which doesn't sound like an expert at all.

[Abby Normal]

All this nonsense about this supposed killer of Five women. The opinions of the contemporary investigators have been taken by so many as some official line drawn in the sand, despite the fact that no-one really knows the sincerity with which these opinions were given and there is zero evidence that links these Five women, or any 2 of these women for that matter, to a single killer.

I believe the myth that we are assuredly seeking a single killer of the women in the Canonical Group has clouded mens minds, and much like the Shadow, its done with a bunch of misdirection, smoke and mirrors. Anyone reading only the autopsies and opinions of the medical authorities who actually saw the bodies and wounds in the flesh, can see the inconsistency with the MO, Signature and knife itself, yet people who are reminiscent of sheep by virtue of the fact that they just follow some 129 year old opinions like they are gospel seem to believe that these very inconsistencies are what point us to serial killings. Because modern studies of captured, convicted and interviewed serial killers indicate they occasionally work inconsistently.

Polly and Annie were killed by one person, almost certainly. There, you have a double murderer. Period.

Now lets see see how long that keeps anyones attention, or how many books it launches.

Hi Michael
no ones even arguing that except you guys!!!!
all Me and david are trying to ask is a rhetorical question-IF a single man murdered at least 3 of the C5, can you or simon or Trevor even bring yourselves to admit-yes there was a serial killer?

its a simple question-and its really weird some cant or wont answer.
you all just keep going back to its unproven one man killed more than one. WE KNOW THAT!

[Michael W Richards]

All this nonsense about this supposed killer of Five women. The opinions of the contemporary investigators have been taken by so many as some official line drawn in the sand, despite the fact that no-one really knows the sincerity with which these opinions were given and there is zero evidence that links these Five women, or any 2 of these women for that matter, to a single killer.

I believe the myth that we are assuredly seeking a single killer of the women in the Canonical Group has clouded mens minds, and much like the Shadow, its done with a bunch of misdirection, smoke and mirrors. Anyone reading only the autopsies and opinions of the medical authorities who actually saw the bodies and wounds in the flesh, can see the inconsistency with the MO, Signature and knife itself, yet people who are reminiscent of sheep by virtue of the fact that they just follow some 129 year old opinions like they are gospel seem to believe that these very inconsistencies are what point us to serial killings. Because modern studies of captured, convicted and interviewed serial killers indicate they occasionally work inconsistently.

Polly and Annie were killed by one person, almost certainly. There, you have a double murderer. Period.

Now lets see see how long that keeps anyones attention, or how many books it launches.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Pinocchio,

If your nose gets any longer, you'll tip over and plant yourself in the ground.

Regards,

Simon

hahhahha! good one.


heres one for you.

Simon says
Be a dum arse

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pinocchio,

If your nose gets any longer, you'll tip over and plant yourself in the ground.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Thanks David. What I don't understand about Simon's approach is that he rejects the single killer argument as being fanciful, but then constructs what may be regarded as fantastical arguments by way of an alternative explanation. Obviously, you've discussed his theory about Kelly, but doesn't he also have an unusual theory about Chapman?

Yes, he seems to think that perhaps it was Colonel Hughes Hallet wot did it, having disguised himself as Ted Stanley. But the irony of this is that he can't resist hinting that the Colonel might have finished off Tabram and Nichols too, thus playing the very game of hunt the Ripper that he affects to despise!!

It may only be the Colonel's departure from these shores prior to the "double event" that has saved Simon from being sucked in to having a "theory" about Jack the Ripper's identity!