Deconstructing Jack in Paperback

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

He did answer me..Thank you..privately. The paperback version has additions of note, yes. I am sure you will be interested in them when you read the paperback book yourself.

I'm surprised you didn't email him with your question then Phil. I thought the purpose of posting on this forum was for answers to be posted in the forum in response.

Let me repeat my post with one addition re the question: By the way, are there any additions in this paperback version?

I note that Simon never answered this question in this forum, nor the question asked by Scott Nelson in #3 as to whether his paperback was longer than the kindle version.

I wonder if he would like to take this opportunity to explain what changes to his e-book he made in the paperback version and why those changes were made.

[Phil Carter]

I'm surprised you didn't email him with your question then Phil. I thought the purpose of posting on this forum was for answers to be posted in the forum in response.

Let me repeat my post with one addition re the question: By the way, are there any additions in this paperback version?

I note that Simon never answered this question in this forum, nor the question asked by Scott Nelson in #3 as to whether his paperback was longer than the kindle version.

I wonder if he would like to take this opportunity to explain what changes to his e-book he made in the paperback version and why those changes were made.

David,

Not that it is any of your concern. .but on that particular day I was having trouble with my email. Simon saw the question the NEXT day and replied via email.

In answer to your revised question. Yes. There are.


Phil

[David Orsam]

David,

Not that it is any of your concern. .but on that particular day I was having trouble with my email. Simon saw the question the NEXT day and replied via email.

You are seriously trying to tell me, Phil, that you wanted to ask Simon a question by email but realised your email wasn't working so you decided to post your question on this forum instead and Simon realised what you were doing and replied privately to you by email. And perhaps Scott Nelson was having exactly the same email problems on the same day.

Well great, thanks for the explanation, but like you say, it is no concern of mine and I am not the slightest bit interested.

[Phil Carter]

Some people can never be happy with an honest answer. Goodness me.
Simon answered together with other things we had been discussing. He did not know of my email problems that day. I suppose he just killed two birds with one stone.

Now. Back to my trip home from Sweden in peace.
Phil

[David Orsam]

In answer to your revised question. Yes. There are.

If you were to read my post with a certain amount of care and attention, Phil, you will see that I was not asking Simon a question. I was offering him the opportunity to explain what changes to his e-book he made in the paperback version and why those changes were made.

Your statement "Yes. There are" is an answer to your own question which is not a question I was asking Simon.

To be clear: I'm not at all interested in any response you have to make to my post which was directed at Simon, not at you.

[Phil Carter]

Good. Enjoy the conversation with him then. If he bothers to reply......



Phil

[David Orsam]

Good. Enjoy the conversation with him then. If he bothers to reply......

Well he didn't bother to reply to your post or Scott Nelson's, in this forum, so it won't surprise me greatly if he doesn't - but perhaps he will think the reason I am posting in this forum is because my email isn't working so will send me an email in response.

[Phil Carter]

Or perhaps he just won't respond at all.
But as you quoted ME in the original question. I did.

Live with it. Enjoy the weekend.


Phil

[David Orsam]

Or perhaps he just won't respond at all.
But as you quoted ME in the original question. I did.

I quoted your question, Phil, which Simon never answered in this thread.

I'm aware of the possibility that Simon won't respond to me in this thread, like he never responded to you or Scott Nelson, but I wanted to give him the opportunity to explain what changes to his e-book he made in the paperback version and why those changes were made. It's entirely up to him if he replies or not.

[jmenges]

He changed the way he thanked me in the acknowledgments.

JM

[David Orsam]

For anyone interested, I have posted an analysis of Simon Wood's book on my website in an article entitled 'Reconstructing Jack'. It can be found here:

http://www.orsam.co.uk/reconstructingjack.htm

It also deals with the issue of the changes made by Simon in his paperback compared to his e-book.

I should warn that it is quite long and will take a good few hours to read through properly.

[wigngown]

Thanks David. I've read the book & look forward to reading your analysis. Best regards.

[Pierre]

Hi All,

All being well, the paperback version of "Deconstructing Jack: The Secret History of the Whitechapel Murders," will be available from Amazon on Monday 14th December 2015.

[ATTACH]17277[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

What is it that you have deconstructed?

Is it:

1) the killer of the C-5

2) the discourse about the killer of the C-5 or

3) the field of the producers of the discourse about the C-5?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Response to Howard Brown Part 1

Over on JTR Forums, Howard Brown has quoted a sentence from my article in which I ask if Simon is saying no more than that the person who wrote the Jack the Ripper correspondence is a different individual to the person who murdered the women and, he says:

"I believe what Simon is really saying is that no two murders were committed by the same man, regardless of who wrote the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcard. I could be wrong."

I did discuss this point at some length in my article but it I appreciate it is a long article so some of what I have said might have been overlooked. For that reason I will try and capture it more succinctly here. To avoid one long body of text I’ll break this up into six separate posts.

[David Orsam]

Response to Howard Brown Part 2

The first thing I will say about Howard’s post is that the second sentence, "I could be wrong", perfectly captures what I am saying about Simon’s book. It is basically impossible to be certain about what Simon is "really saying". Having read Simon’s very long and detailed book, Howard should not be writing a sentence which says "I could be wrong" about its central thesis as to whether there was a serial killer in the East-end in 1888. He should know exactly what Simon is saying. So immediately we see that Simon’s book has failed by not communicating its message.

The second thing about Howard’s post is that his first sentence is arguably and, indeed, demonstrably incorrect. Commenting on Hughes-Hallett’s description of the Whitechapel murderer as "a West End man, a gentleman, a person of wealth and culture", Simon says, "All in all, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Colonel Francis Charles Hughes-Hallett may have been describing himself" (p. 420). Simon then goes on to discuss "his Whitechapel murderer’s motive" namely that the killer had contracted a disease from a prostitute and was out for revenge and he suggests this could have applied to Hughes Hallett.

What possible purpose could there be for Simon to include this in his book unless he was suggesting that Hughes Hallett was in fact the man then known as the Whitechapel Murderer, a.k.a. Leather Apron, and thus the murderer of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman and, indeed, Martha Tabram?

That being the case, far from no two murders having been committed by the same man we seem to have two of the canonical 5 being murdered by the same man with the addition of Tabram to create the modern definition of a serial killer with three kills to his name.