You know absolutely nothing, yet obviously have a hard-on for the concept of Jack the Ripper.
It's amazing that despite having told that I'm perfectly prepared to accept that all of the C5 were killed by different people, you have still somehow convinced yourself that I have "a hard-on for the concept of Jack the Ripper". It's a fantasy which you obviously cannot get out of your head despite all the evidence.
The weird truth is – not that I, or probably anyone else, wants Jack the Ripper to have existed - but that YOU so badly want others to believe in the concept of Jack the Ripper! Because if we don't, then how do you manage to be provocative by saying that "Jack the Ripper" did not exist?
What I know is that the "concept" of "Jack the Ripper" certainly and undeniably did exist. It was a nickname applied to the person (or indeed persons) who murdered, and usually mutilated, a number of women in the East End of London in 1888. SOMEONE murdered those women. For ease of reference he (or they) was referred to as "Jack the Ripper" but it also could have been "The Whitechapel Murderer" or "Leather Apron" or "The East End Killer" or "The Devilish Disemboweller" any other number of descriptors.
So what do you mean when you say "Jack the Ripper" did not exist? Is it no more than that the name "Jack T. Ripper" was not on the birth certificate of the murderer, or murderers? I think we all knew that already Simon.
So perhaps you might like to give us the benefit of your infinite wisdom and tell us who it was.
You have a choice from over 200 candidates.
Does this mean that what you are really saying is that because no-one has been able to identify Jack the Ripper – and because so many different candidates have been put forward – that THIS is the reason that you believe Jack the Ripper did not exist?
You know, it wouldn't surprise me, but would you agree that such an argument would be based on a total failure of logic and sense?
Now this is interesting, Simon, and of course three matches what you said in your 2005 dissertation, namely:
"I firmly believe that the person known as Jack the Ripper committed murders 1, 2 and 4."
So that's Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes right?
In which case, as at 1 October 1888, would not any member of the police or public have been entirely justified in believing in the existence of "Jack the Ripper", a crazy and terrifying person who had recently murdered and mutilated three women in the streets of the East End?
Okay, that killer wasn't responsible for both murders on 30 September, but boy that's a pretty scary guy, no? Ripping out the insides of three women in the open streets?? That's some devilish feat isn't it?
And so, finally, after all this, it turns out that what you mean when you say "Jack the Ripper did not exist" is nothing more than that the Whitechapel Murderer did not murder Stride and Kelly.
Why, via Major Griffiths, did Macnaghten keep [an unnamed] Ostrog in the frame four years after he had learned he had been in a French prison throughout the autumn of terror?
According to your book, Simon, which is, admittedly not the most reliable document in the world, it wasn't until about 2002 that Philip Sugden made the discovery that Ostrog had been in a French prison during 1888.
So how did Macnaghten learn about it more than 100 years earlier?
All you tell us in your book is that the British police discovered that Ostrog had been in a French prison as at May 1889. But even this was after Macnaghten had completed and filed his 1894 memorandum.
Even if Mac did find out that Ostrog had been in a French prison during 1888, prior to the publication of Major Griffiths' book in 1898, how could Mac conceivably have been said to "keep" him in the frame when he didn't publish anything himself about the murders in that year?
Oh, you think that he is responsible for what Major Griffiths published do you? And he checked every word of his book before it was published did he?
You mean that it wasn't a recorded fact until it's 2002 discovery?
Well Philip Sugden couldn't have found out about it in 2002 if it wasn't a recorded fact. But the question is: did Macnaghten know about this recorded fact at any time prior to 1898, or indeed at any time during his life?
If he did, you don't tell us about it in your book.