The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

Hi David. Steady on! You say you invite criticism, but that's not the vibe you're sending out.

Like I say Tom, I will always robustly defend my work when appropriate. In this case, I don't accept your characterisation of my comments as 'mean-spirited'. In fact, I feel I was very restrained in my use of language in the trilogy. But I would much prefer to be discussing substance over style. Only the arguments, based on the facts, are important. If you think I have gone wrong somewhere on any material point I do look forward to hearing from you (and feel free to use any language you want about my arguments, including 'nonsense' and 'garbage' if think they are!).

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom!

Smoke and Mirrors was in Rip 106, September 2009, while Rogers three articles were in 2010! Would you like me to find your post?

Mike

Didn't Palmer publish articles in Ripperologist back around the same time Wolf was publishing his in Ripper Notes?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Here you go, Tom:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4713 June 2010 after Casebook 2

Post #5:
Hi Simon. I'm a great admirer of your 'Smoke and Mirrors' piece and it left me jaw-dropped and convinced that there had been no American hunt at all for Tumblety. Your approach in presenting the article by literally letting the reports speak for themselves was a great influence in how I chose to approach my Le Grand article, although you were far more successful in it than my wordy self. However, RJ's new article was so compelling and persuasive that I'm back on the fence. LOL. I'm curious if it made you second-guess any of your conclusions? Obviously, we'll have to wait to see what RJ has to say about the very important point you bring up regarding Andrews not going to New York, but aside from that, were you swayed by anything he had to write?

Mike and Simon,

Would you agree or disagree that, putting everything else aside - all the newspaper reports, etc. - the Littlechild letter by itself is definitive proof that Tumblety was a Ripper suspect?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mike, thanks for posting that. Seems RJ didn't quite convince me away from Simon, but perhaps I should revisit his article to see why I liked it so much. CE 2 is it? Of course, after I finish with Suckered! I might decide to relegate all previous works to the dust bin.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. But wasn't RJ publishing stuff in Ripperologist around the same time as Wolf or am I misremembering that?

[mklhawley]

He wrote a rebuttal to Ivor Edward's Tumblety the Patsy (Feb 2008) biased article.

[Tom_Wescott]

He wrote a rebuttal to Ivor Edward's Tumblety the Patsy biased article.

Was anyone else writing about Andrews' trip in Ripperologist back then? If not, it must have just been Wolf. There was a huge rivalry between Ripper Notes and Ripperologist back in the day (Norder era) and I thought the Andrews thing was in the mix, but perhaps not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Yes, that's right.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, that's right.

Yes what's right? LOL.

I feel like we've hijacked the thread, although by it being active perhaps others will read 'Suckered!'. I daresay I'm surprised we haven't heard from Simon yet.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Good point about hijacking. Sorry David. Tom, I PM'd you.

Mike

[Hunter]

"The dull and boring truth is that things are usually exactly what they seem."

Indeed.
Well researched and written. Its amazing what might be learned when one doesn't start out with assumptions but actually lets the research lead to the conclusion instead.

A breath of fresh air in this field to be sure.

Congratulations David!

[mklhawley]

"The dull and boring truth is that things are usually exactly what they seem."

Indeed.
Well researched and written. Its amazing what might be learned when one doesn't start out with assumptions but actually lets the research lead to the conclusion instead.

A breath of fresh air in this field to be sure.

Congratulations David!

Hi Hunter,

I hope you're not stating someone like Roger Palmer has a biased article, because of his preconceived notions. The beauty of scholarly peer review is experts can now review the research and identify the cracks. David has now presented his article for review. I have found a couple of errors in David's article not because I am biased but because I've researched this area. Although I do consider you an expert in the Ripperology field, I'm also convinced you would never have found these errrors because of their uniqueness.


Sincerely,

Mike

[Robert]

I haven't read David's essays yet but I intend to.

Briefly on Tom's whisky and milk query :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_punch

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Robert. So it seems Andrews like his hot Irish drinks and pretty Canadian women. So much for the image of the stodgy old policeman!

I stayed up late last night reading Simon's chapters relating to Jarvis and surrounding issues. I probably should have read those just before reading 'Suckered!' which in part is an answer to Simon's book. NOW I'll need to go back and look at part 1 of Suckered again.

Once upon a time the big question was 'Were these men going North to look into Tumblety?' But now the question is 'Were these men going North to look into Parnell?'

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Thanks.

Discussing David Orsam's article without first having read my book is a fairly redundant exercise.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Thanks.

Discussing David Orsam's article without first having read my book is a fairly redundant exercise.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon, I would agree. That's why I've discussed his style more than his substance up to this point. And why I've been reading your book before finishing 'Suckered!' I don't remember David's article containing all the Labouchere revelations that I'm reading in your book, but I'll go back over his stuff soon. That's a huge piece of the puzzle, I'd say. After I've read both I suppose I should be able to satisfy myself to a reasonable degree as to if there was any police involvement with the Times over the Parnell business. .

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott