Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Bizarre convo?

It certainly was, Simon, if it went like this:

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

Simon Wood: Three.

Is that what "Three" was responsive to?

Can you be more evasive?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You'd do well in the Trump White House.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

I suggest you read it again.

I've read it again, John's read it again, neither of us can work out what you meant when you said "Three".

Tell you what, Simon, rather than play games, why not just explain what you meant.

[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!!!

[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]

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,

It's hardly my fault if you are obtuse.

Regards,

Simon

[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!

[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!

[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]

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!!!!

[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]

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,

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

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi David,

You'd do well in the Trump White House.

Regards,

Simon

And ther it is. Lol