Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[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?

[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?

[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.

[John G]

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

Is this a conspiracy theory?

[John G]

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.

Are serial killers consistent? Was Sutcliffe consistent in respect of Victimology, for instance? Levels of skill?

We're reliant on the medical reports, which are open to different interpretations. Moreover, there was disagreement as regards Eddowes, therefore we are not entitled to conclude that another doctor would necessarily have agreed with Llewellyn in respect of Nichols, or Phillips in respect of Chapman.

Dr Phillips' somewhat contradicted himself when determining the level of skill exhibited by Chapman's killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If 4 or 5 murders of this type were committed today all within a similarly small area where all the victims were women of a certain occupation who would the police or anyone with an interest in the case suspect do we think?

a) a homicidal madman who either got sexual pleasure from killing or hated women in general or prostitutes specifically

or

b) a conspiracy that involved members of the government or a cabal of high ranking police officers?

Answers on a postcard please.

Regards

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

David,

I've just finished reading your articles and I'm afraid that you've erred.

You have fallen into the trap of employing meticulous and exhaustive research. You've strangely chosen to use reason and logic in your work and you have foolishly avoided flights of fancy and leaps of faith. Also, for some reason you appear unwilling to see mystery where none exists.

You will never get to the truth using those methods Mr Orsam.

Regards

Herlock

[Harry D]

Isenschmid killed Nichols & Chapman, Kidney killed Stride, Eddowes was assassinated by an Isenschmid copycat, and Joseph Barnett butchered Mary Kelly. Nothing to see here, folks. Cases closed.

[Abby Normal]

Isenschmid killed Nichols & Chapman, Kidney killed Stride, Eddowes was assassinated by an Isenschmid copycat, and Joseph Barnett butchered Mary Kelly. Nothing to see here, folks. Cases closed.

No no no. You got it all wrong!


Nichols-leather apron/pizer
Chapman- issenschmidt
Stride-club conspiracy/diemshitz, spooner etc.
Eddowes-Fenian nationals
Mary Kelly-Sickert

All connected to the royal conspiracy of course.

[Harry D]

No no no. You got it all wrong!


Nichols-leather apron/pizer
Chapman- issenschmidt
Stride-club conspiracy/diemshitz, spooner etc.
Eddowes-Fenian nationals
Mary Kelly-Sickert

All connected to the royal conspiracy of course.

Now you're just being silly, Abby.

[Abby Normal]

Now you're just being silly, Abby.

Lol!!!

[c.d.]

"Are serial killers consistent? Was Sutcliffe consistent in respect of Victimology, for instance? Levels of skill?"

I think the same question can be asked for pretty much any kind of criminal activity. Take house break-ins for example. A robber might enter through a window the first time and might enter through a back door of another house. He might take a computer or tv at the first house and jewelry from the second house. Does this inconsistency automatically lead us to conclude that it could not possibly have been the same robber at both houses even though other aspects of the two robberies are the same?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No no no. You got it all wrong!


Nichols-leather apron/pizer
Chapman- issenschmidt
Stride-club conspiracy/diemshitz, spooner etc.
Eddowes-Fenian nationals
Mary Kelly-Sickert

All connected to the royal conspiracy of course.

Get a grip Abby!

What about those pesky Freemasons and their Illuminati buds?

Regards

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Are serial killers consistent? Was Sutcliffe consistent in respect of Victimology, for instance? Levels of skill?"

I think the same question can be asked for pretty much any kind of criminal activity. Take house break-ins for example. A robber might enter through a window the first time and might enter through a back door of another house. He might take a computer or tv at the first house and jewelry from the second house. Does this inconsistency automatically lead us to conclude that it could not possibly have been the same robber at both houses even though other aspects of the two robberies are the same?

c.d.

Good points c.d.

Of course they are affected by different factors. The location, the time available, the resistance/strength of the victim, whether the killer had an injury or an illness etc. Killers don't kill whilst thumbing through an instruction manual.

Regards

Herlock

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

Yes, and maybe most importantly of all was the killer's mental state exactly the same every time? Had he been drinking prior to one kill and not another? Had he noticed a police presence when out scouting victims? Was he more paranoid during one kill than another? There are lots of factors to consider and they could all result in differences between one murder and another.

c.d.