Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

John G thanked me for my reply and clarification." Post #329. Of course, he could have been being impish.

It's a historical fact that five women were murdered in a small geographical area within a three month period.

What do you mean when you say there was a Jack the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

Hi John,

Well your last sentence was "Please let me know if I've left out any options."

How is "Three" responsive to that I wonder?

Or did you mean your actual last question which was: "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?"

I can't see how "Three" can answer that one.

I'm starting to think he didn't answer your post at all!

I'm sure he could have conjured up another three alternatives, so he was probably answering that question I posed in the last sentence. But who knows with Cryptic Simon. In fact, I'm thinking about writing a book entitled, "Deconstructing Simon Wood." What do you think?

[David Orsam]

There is no logical basis for this assertion as no perpetrator was ever caught. Maybe these was, maybe there wasn't. Who knows?

Yes, indeed, I guess "There might not have been a Jack the Ripper" wasn't quite sexy enough for Simon.

[Sam Flynn]

I believe it was the late Christopher Hitchens who said, " What can be asserted without evidence can easily be dismissed without evidence."

In this case, however, there is strong evidence that suggests that the same person was involved in more than one of the murders, and the fact that this person was given the epithet "Jack the Ripper" is beyond question. Putting those two facts together, it means that the existence of "[the person dubbed] Jack the Ripper" is almost certain, and evidence clearly exists to support that conclusion.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Not exactly, it was a bit cryptic! However, look at my last sentence in Post 315. I've a funny feeling he was answering that question.

Hi John,

Well your last sentence was "Please let me know if I've left out any options."

How is "Three" responsive to that I wonder?

Or did you mean your actual last question which was: "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?"

I can't see how "Three" can answer that one.

I'm starting to think he didn't answer your post at all!

[John G]

Hi Hunter,

A valid point.

So there was no Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

There is no logical basis for this assertion as no perpetrator was ever caught. Maybe these was, maybe there wasn't. Who knows?

[John G]

Hi John - Did you understand what Simon meant by "Three"?

Hi David,

Not exactly, it was a bit cryptic! However, look at my last sentence in Post 315. I've a funny feeling he was answering that question.

[David Orsam]

So there was no Jack the Ripper.

Except for the fact that we have solid evidence of five women being murdered in a small geographical area within a three month period, all of them having their throats cut and four of them being horribly mutilated.

Someone killed each one of them Simon. That's a historical fact.

So what do you mean when you say "there was no Jack the Ripper"?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

A valid point.

So there was no Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

I believe it was the late Christopher Hitchens who said, " What can be asserted without evidence can easily be dismissed without evidence."

[David Orsam]

Read John G's post, and then you'll understand what I meant. It had nothing to do with any number of victims.

I've done better than that Simon, I've asked John. He thanked you for your "clarification" so hopefully he will be able to tell me.

Your explanation of Pizer's change of mind is hilarious. It could well go down as one of the great Ripperologisms of all time.

He didn't change his mind Simon. He just found out that this is what he was being called by the locals. He explained it over 128 years ago but you simply weren't paying attention.

Please do not presume to know better than me regarding something you know nothing about.

How can I know "nothing" about it? I've read your book Simon (two editions) and you obviously explained it all in there right?

If I remember rightly it was all about someone who knows nothing about Special Branch operations in 1888 telling someone else who knows nothing about Special Branch operations in 1888 about a Special Branch operation in 1888. All very amusing and it certainly did it's job of covering up the complete absence of any explanation as to why the same person who murdered the other women did not also murder Kelly.

[David Orsam]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for reply and clarification!

Hi John - Did you understand what Simon meant by "Three"?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Read John G's post, and then you'll understand what I meant. It had nothing to do with any number of victims.

Your explanation of Pizer's change of mind is hilarious. It could well go down as one of the great Ripperologisms of all time.

Please do not presume to know better than me regarding something you know nothing about.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Over 12 years, I reserve the right to revise my opinion.

Okay Simon, I'll play. What did you mean when you said "Three" in your response to John G?

Were you trying to clarify that you meant that the same individual murdered three women or were you being deliberately obtuse and misleading?

If the former, which three women were you referring to?

Pizer denied he was known as Leather Apron, and then - hey presto - revised his opinion.

Yes, that's correct Simon. He wasn't actually aware that he was called this by the locals but was then informed by Sergeant Thick that he was. Once he had been told this, he accepted that this is how he was known.

It. is. not. rocket. science.

My leg was not pulled

People who have been fooled often don't realise it.

Do you think that Mary Kelly was murdered by Special Branch? Is that what you think you were told?

It's a complete joke, Simon, if that's the case.

[Harry D]

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.

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?