Deconstructing Jack by Simon Wood

[Joshua Rogan]

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

Does the fact that the press and police were positing a single perpetrator as early as the Nichols killing strengthen or weaken the case for Jack's existence?

[David Orsam]

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

That's the very question I am asking you Simon.

Do you accept that Jack the Ripper existed if a single individual murdered four of the C5?

Is the answer yes or no?

[David Orsam]

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.

I understand what you are saying here but that's not what I'm asking you.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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,

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

Regards,

Simon

[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?

[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]

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?

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert St Devil,

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

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.