Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Sam Flynn 12 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Robert 9 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 10 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Debra A 10 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 13 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - (16 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (1 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Media > Books > Non-Fiction

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #321  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:15 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
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 what are you telling us that is new?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:16 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
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?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:25 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Three.
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.

That was your big point was it?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:40 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
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?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 08-04-2017, 11:04 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,605
Default

Hi David,

You mean that it wasn't a recorded fact until it's 2002 discovery?

Since my last post, you have reached rock bottom and started to dig.

Try harder.

Regards,

Simon
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 08-04-2017, 11:14 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 08-04-2017, 11:21 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,605
Default

Hi David,

You obviously haven't read my book too closely.

Regards,

Simon
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 08-04-2017, 11:27 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
You obviously haven't read my book too closely.
On the contrary, Simon, I carried out a word search for "Ostrog" in the e-book to ensure I didn't miss anything.

And your feeble response, with its absence of any contradictory information, reassures me that I certainly didn't miss a thing.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 08-04-2017, 11:46 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi Jon,

Three.

Anderson, Macnaghten, Abberline and Littlechild lied.

Regards,

Simon
Hi Simon,

Thanks for reply and clarification!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 08-04-2017, 11:53 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

So Jack the Ripper murdered Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

He did exist after all!

But tell me Simon. I can understand why you might exclude Stride. No mutilations. But why exclude Kelly?

Please tell me it's not because some guy told you it was a Special Branch operation.

You do know he was pulling your leg, right?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.