Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[David Orsam]

Your post is ill-mannered and mean-spirited.

You hate my book. You've made your point.

Now please go away and write your own.

My posts are all aimed at getting answers to questions which are, or should be, within your knowledge, alternatively intended to force you to confront the incomprehensibility of, and lack of evidence for, your central thesis.

They are no more ill mannered and mean spirited than your posts about Stephen Knight's book which you have made recently. You described his book as "elaborate balderdash" didn't you? So it's fair comment if I say the same about your book isn't it?

The difference is that Stephen Knight is dead and can't answer for himself whereas you can. But you don't. You simply refuse to engage.

Yet you happily post on other threads that your book is "fact" whereas others are "fiction". You constantly repeat, as if it is a fact, that Jack the Ripper did not exist. The sheer nerve of it is breathtaking!

I don't hate your book Simon - I have bought it twice and will no doubt purchase the new edition - but I do believe that it contains elaborate balderdash, horsefeathers and cobblers. I've said it openly and explained why. It's up to you to respond.

And I have no intention of going away, much as you would like me to.

[David Orsam]

I'll get back to you when I've finished my investigation.

I think I can save you some time, Simon, in what would only have been a fruitless "investigation" because I know the source of the story you have reproduced about Captain O'Shea in Madrid. It transpires that the story you have posted is partly true and partly false.

In March 1889, Captain O'Shea was temporarily living in Madrid because he had a business interest in a Madrid bank. His residence there was very well known because he had returned from Madrid to give evidence at the Special Commission on 1 November 1888 and then returned to that city immediately on leaving the witness box, much to the evident frustration of Charles Russell who wanted to keep open the option of recalling him to the witness box - and this was all fully reported.

The café in which O'Shea spotted Pigott on 28 February was the Café Ingles, or the English Café, which was, according to O'Shea, the only café in the city where it was possible to read an English newspaper, so the fact of O'Shea seeing Pigott in that café, in the city in which he was residing, is rather less of an amazing coincidence that it might otherwise have appeared.

Anyway, we know of the sighting from a private letter that O'Shea wrote to Joseph Chamberlain on 9 March 1889 which was published in a 1933 book, 'The Life of Joseph Chamberlain', by J.L. Garvin. In that letter, O'Shea said:

"About 7pm on Thursday week, I saw a man accompanied by another with the superscription "Interprete Fonda de Embajadores", enter the Café Ingles in the Calle de Sevilla. Having seen portraits of Pigott and read descriptions of his appearance, in the newspapers, I observed the former, who called for a bottle of beer and an English newspaper. I suppose the interpreter took him to the café in question because it is the only one (I think) where an English paper is taken.

I was soon convinced that the stranger was Pigott. He “quartered” the paper as I have often seen journalists do; his hand trembled; then he looked round the café through an eye glass, rose suddenly, touched the interpreter on the shoulder, and left hurriedly.

I mentioned the matter to the President of the Chamber and other friends whom I met in the course of the evening, and hearing of the suicide a few minutes after it occurred the next day, I had no doubt of the identity. I am sorry the Attorney-General had not the opportunity of re-examining Pigott – although judging by the wretched manner he has conducted the case I am not sure he would have made much out of him. Still, Labouchere’s conduct has been very suspicious and something might have “transpired” as the reporters say."

Interesting though the coincidence is, it in no way puts "a different spin" on things.

In the first place, by this time in the evening, Pigott had already revealed his whereabouts by telegram to William Shannon, who represented the Times newspaper, and this information had been passed on to Chief Inspector Littlechild. Littlechild forwarded the information to the Home Office from where it was passed to the Foreign Office and then on to the British Ambassador to Spain. Indeed, at literally the same time that Pigott was in the café (7.05pm) the British Foreign Secretary (and Prime Minister) was sending a telegram to Sir Clare Ford, the British Ambassador, asking him to apply at once to the Spanish authorities to have Pigott arrested.

In other words, if someone within Scotland Yard, or the Home Office, or the Foreign Office, had wanted to inform Captain O'Shea, or anyone else in Madrid, of Pigott being in that city, along with the hotel in which he was staying, and name he was using, they could have done so by telegram before Pigott entered the Café Ingles that evening.

The same is true for the President of the Chamber, who O'Shea says he informed of his sighting, but neither he nor the Spanish authorities nor the Spanish police had any interest in Pigott who had not committed any crimes in Spain. They only became involved on the request from Sir Clare Ford to arrest him for extradition.

According to the version you posted Simon:

"Coincidentally, the man who had shadowed the fugitive and summoned the authorities was Captain William O'Shea, whose estranged wife Katherine had been Parnell's lover for several years."

But clearly Captain O'Shea had not "shadowed" Pigott at all. It is clear from his letter that he had never seen him before in his life and only knew his description from the newspapers and portraits. It's also hardly true to say that he "summoned the authorities". It was Pigott's telegram to London, and its being given to Chief Inspector Littlechild which alerted the only authorities who were interested in Pigott's whereabouts.

Further, you can't pick and choose what bit of the story you want to believe. Captain O'Shea clearly states that Pigott's death was a "suicide" which he learnt of after it occurred.

As I mentioned earlier, the flight and suicide was a disaster for the Times not least because they now had no opportunity to repair the damage caused in Pigott's cross-examination by an effective re-examination of the witness. This is a point made by O'Shea in the letter. Earlier in the same letter he also says: "I suppose it is all up with the Times case". What happened, of course, was that the Times was compelled to concede that all of the Parnell letters were forgeries which was the very last thing they wanted to do.

Finally, nothing has changed because nothing possibly could change. We have the evidence of two independent Spanish witnesses who had no conceivable motive to lie that Pigott shot himself almost in front of their very eyes, certainly in front of their very ears. There was simply no other explanation for how a bullet passed through Pigott's skull. And there never will be.

The clearest case of suicide one could expect to find, regardless of who saw Pigott in Madrid.

[Simon Wood]

Thank you David,

Most interesting.

The most fascinating aspects of this newspaper report are the absence of the interpreter; that Piggot signed into the hotel under the name Moyerman, and that many people wanted to believe the dead man was Jack the Ripper.

El Pais, 2nd March 1889 [translated via Google]—

Half an hour after the arrival of the express train from Paris on February 28th, an elegant gentleman presented himself at the Hotel de Embajadores in demand of lodging.

His age was between fifty-five to sixty years old; His high stature; His long beard and blond, already gray; His abundant hair, the same color as the beard, which formed a thick mane around his neck, gave the character in question a grave and majestic appearance, very much in harmony with the serious and reserved character of the children of Great Britain.

He was installed in room no. 3, which is one of the principal, and after enlisting the help of the valet in charge of his room he signed the register of the establishment with the name of Moyerman, washed perfectly, taking care that his toilet was the most chic possible.

An hour later, he delivered to the clerks a telegram to London, conceived in these terms: "I arrived in Madrid without incident. I'm Hotel Embajadores." During the remainder of the 28th, it was only after five o'clock in the afternoon that the guest remained almost continuously locked in his room, from which alone he sat at the hour of the meal, or to return shortly when he left the inn.

With great mystery, no doubt to avoid suspicion, the police arrived late at five o'clock at the Hotel de Embajadores, asking what was the room of a knight of English nationality, arrived the day before Madrid, and whose name was Mr. Roland Ponsonby. The descriptions exactly matched those of the gentleman of whom we have spoken; But the name appears different. They understood the agents of authority, in spite of this difference, which were themselves both persons, and without hesitation for a single moment, they went to the room number. 3, on whose door they struck three times.

There was little hesitation in the interior, and an uncertain voice asked who it was. "Open yourself to authority"; Was the only answer.

A minute went by without the door being opened or any sound heard in the room. Tired of waiting, the officers were about to strike again, when the entrance of the room was opened, and Mr. Roland, livid and trembling at the urge of deep terror, asked the object of such an unpleasant visit.

"You must accompany us in order to settle a matter that is pending," they replied.

More serene then, and as if enlightened by a sudden idea, he begged the authority to allow him to take some clothes from his suitcase, to dress in street clothes.

He entered again in his room, without any of the present could harbor the slightest suspicion of the act he intended to take effect; But soon a detonation of a firearm, which made the whole house tremble, made it clear to them that the persecuted English could no longer be dispossessed by the courts.

Indeed; Stretched out in the middle, on a pool of still smoldering blood, his skull horribly shattered, and his face disfigured to the point of sinister appearing on the face, which before moments of sympathy, was the corpse of Mr. Roland Ponsomby.

Naturally, part of the fact was given to the Court of the guard, who appeared in the place of the event, dictating the transfer of the corpse to the judicial deposit of the South.

Then he seized a small suitcase, inside which were two changes of white linen, a letter written in English addressed to his mistress of white papers, another book and a license to use weapons. In the pocket of the waistcoat, four coins were found, and two gold coins.

This operation was attended by all the employees of the hotel, and Mr. Garcia Alba, owner of the same, who came after hear the firing.

The arrest of this individual was arranged by the authorities of Madrid as a result of a telegraphic notice received yesterday from England.

Regarding the personality of the suicide, very little is known by those who ordered their arrest. There are, however, some indications which may seem to suggest that the unfortunate man who arrived in this capital was the famous Irishman, Mr. Pigott, who was widely spoken throughout the world on the occasion of the forged letters of the public acquaintance Parnell.
Tomorrow, the English ambassador, Sir Clare Ford, and a large part of the English colony will examine the corpse, in order to enable its identification.

Last night, there were some hallucinators who tried to see the sadly famous woman ripper of London in the suicide.

ENDS

There's a book in here somewhere.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert St Devil]

hi simon. the principal is referring to the first floor. it's not hallucinators, it's more along the lines of gawkers. for example, the crowds who gather around the murder scenes after Jack the Ripper's murders would be allucinados.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert St Devil,

How did you make a connection between principal and hallucinators [madmen]

Regards,

Simon

[Robert St Devil]

you used principal in an earlier paragraph, referring to Room no. 3. its saying its on the first floor.

what you are calling hallucinators is more in line with bewildered or shocked people. The gawkers went to see the hotel where the renowned fugitive Pigott commits suicide.

[David Orsam]

Thank you David,

Most interesting.

The most fascinating aspects of this newspaper report are the absence of the interpreter; that Piggot signed into the hotel under the name Moyerman, and that many people wanted to believe the dead man was Jack the Ripper.

What is it that you find "fascinating" in this newspaper report Simon?

I mean, we all know journalists make mistakes don't we? Especially in early reports of incidents. And I can add another one. Pigott wasn't carrying any gold coins. But perhaps, because some newspaper reports say he was, you will be believe it? Or you will think it is significant?

The following day's report in El Pais does mention the interpreter.

What do you get out of the fact that some people in Madrid apparently got confused and thought that Jack the Ripper had come to Spain and committed suicide?

Pigott probably didn't register under the name Moyerman although it's not impossible he did and then sent the telegram under the name Ponsonby, giving the telegraph operator instructions to send any reply to him (Moyerman).

But this is a good example of what you do in your book. You find some contradictory press reports of the same incident, draw attention to those contradictions and then leave it hanging that this means the incident is fabricated and somehow the fact that a journalist has made mistakes doesn't mean that he is incompetent or hasn't got the story right, but it means either that the true story has somehow leaked or the authorities haven't been able to properly control a fake news story. It's a terrible technique.

But let me ask you this. Fascinating though you might find this report (and good luck if you think there is a book in it), is there ANYTHING in the report of El Pais of 2 March 1889 - or in any other press report - which gives you reason to think that Pigott did not commit suicide?

[David Orsam]

Simon, you evidently don't wish to discuss issues relating to "the prize" with me (but then why would you? No-one connected to the Special Commission inquiry was murdered, there were no Scotland Yard officers committing illegal acts in America and Monro's resignation was over pensions - so that particular "prize" never existed). But you do appear to be willing to discuss other issues relating to your book. I see that over in JTR Forums you started a thread in which you ask:

"So why did the cops want the public to believe the C5 were all the work of the same hand?"

Leaving aside that you haven't, as far as I am aware, ever produced any evidence that the cops actually did want to the public to believe this, can you tell me what the answer to your question is, in your view?

I mean, why do you think that the police wanted the public to believe that Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were all killed by "Jack the Ripper"?

I would truly love to know. I've read your book carefully (a number of times) and couldn't find the answer in there.

[David Orsam]

Okay, Simon, perhaps that question was a bit too difficult – although it was your question. Surely you can answer this one:

When you say that Jack the Ripper did not exist, is it your view that Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were all killed by different individuals?

Five separate murderers?

But if the same individual murdered (say) four of those five women, would you accept that Jack the Ripper DID in fact exist?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

On what are you basing your insistence that Jack the Ripper did exist and murdered five women?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

On what are you basing your insistence that Jack the Ripper did exist and murdered five women?

I've never insisted upon any such thing Simon.

What I'm really asking you, as the author of the book in question, is whether Jack the Ripper can reasonably be said to have existed if a single individual murdered and mutilated Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly in 1888. Can he?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You must have, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question.

You're now saying that "a single individual" may have been responsible for every murder except Stride.

On what do you base this idea?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

You must have done, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question.

You're now saying that "a single individual" may have been responsible for every murder except Stride.

On what do you base this idea?

Your first statement simply isn't true Simon.

Your second statement isn't true either. I'm asking you to tell me whether Jack the Ripper could be said to have existed IF a single individual was responsible for those four murders.

Are you having difficulty with the question? I'm not asking you to accept that a single individual WAS responsible as a matter of fact. Only to tell me whether Jack the Ripper existed IF a single individual was responsible.

[David Orsam]

I mean, perhaps we should start with an even easier question:

Would it be reasonable to say that Jack the Ripper existed if a single individual murdered all of the C5?

(I'm truly not sure what your answer would be to this.)

Then tell me if it would be reasonable to say JTR existed if a single individual murdered just four of them.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Okay, let me break down your latest teaser.

Jack the Ripper's existence depends on a single individual having been responsible for murdering all [or perhaps only four] of the C5.

As we do not know that five [or perhaps only four] of the C5 were murdered by a single individual, no rationale exists for insisting that this hypothetical individual was operating under the sobriquet of Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon