The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Tom_Wescott]

At present I am researching a non-fiction account of the 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion

Is that well known somewhere?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Plus I think it'd be nice to get to the bottom of this Andrews/Jarvis business.

So why not ask Simon Wood the questions I suggested you ask him?

Oh sorry, I forgot, he is now too busy to answer them.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm left wondering why isn't Simon fighting his own battles?

If you're suggesting that I'm fighting Simon's battles, you're wrong. I'm just passing a bit of time. Plus I think it'd be nice to get to the bottom of this Andrews/Jarvis business.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

At present I am researching a non-fiction account of the 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion and doing my level best not to completely corrupt history.

Well that is good news.

[mklhawley]

Okay thanks Mike. I wasn't sure if you were going to reveal the point in a future published article or in this thread. But doing it in this thread is good and I look forward to reading whatever you have to say. Good luck with the books!

One point is in the upcoming article, but strangely not for directly supporting the Andrews/Tumblety connection and countering your argument. I have a slightly different agenda, even though both are running parallel in December 1888.

Thanks about the books!

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

"I'm left wondering why isn't Simon fighting his own battles?"

I have better things to do than waste my time with Mr. Awesome.

At present I am researching a non-fiction account of the 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion and doing my level best not to completely corrupt history.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Okay thanks Mike. I wasn't sure if you were going to reveal the point in a future published article or in this thread. But doing it in this thread is good and I look forward to reading whatever you have to say. Good luck with the books!

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike, you'll have to forgive me but I remain sceptical that you (or others) are going to come up with a clear cut correction of any significance to something in my trilogy, although, of course, I'm not saying it's impossible. When are we going to find out what it is?

Hi David,

A personal reason. I had published my third fiction novel last month (Curse of the Bayou Beast), and I just finished my nonfiction ripper book last week (the editing phase). Time to send out a few dozen query letters. Also, I have one more point to research before I posted on it. Lastly, I don't believe you've heard the last of Wolf, so I was going to wait for this part of the debate to wane.

Keep up your skepticism, though, it's a great trilogy.

Mike

[David Orsam]

I would rather know I'm wrong than wonder if I might be right.

That's why I asked the question as to when I'm going to find out what Mike's big point is Tom.

[Wickerman]

I'm left wondering why isn't Simon fighting his own battles?

[David Orsam]

Just to be clear, what you're saying is that you were calling Simon's sources garbage but you consider the conclusions he draws from them to be viable. In other words, the conclusions he draws from them are not garbage and are to be given serious consideration by his readers. If that's what you meant, my apologies for misunderstanding you.

No that's not what I'm saying Tom and your post is just plain silly. What I'm saying is that the Sunday Boston Globe report is garbage and no sensible conclusions can or should be drawn from it. As I mention in the article, Simon Wood himself says, "Parts of the Boston Sunday Globe's chronology are clearly inaccurate". He doesn't tell us which parts he means and he won't answer questions from me. Why don't you take him up on his offer to you from earlier in this thread (#48) to clarify any "sticking points" and ask him? You might also ask him (a) which parts of the surveillance details described in the report are, to use his words, "melodramatic padding" and (b) what he means when he says "cross-checking other non-agency press reports suggests that the events described [by the Boston Sunday Globe] are fundamentally correct". What press reports was he referring to?

And while you are at it, why not also ask him how Labouchere was coerced into a volte-face and who coerced him. This was something you couldn't explain to me when I asked you a similar question so I'm surprised you haven't already asked Simon for assistance on this matter.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mike, you'll have to forgive me but I remain sceptical that you (or others) are going to come up with a clear cut correction of any significance to something in my trilogy, although, of course, I'm not saying it's impossible. When are we going to find out what it is?

I wonder sometimes if I'm not the only Ripper writer who enjoys being proved wrong. Not told I'm wrong, mind you, but actually proved wrong. I would rather know I'm wrong than wonder if I might be right.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I don't have additional evidence, just a clear cut correction and a clarification.

Hi Mike, you'll have to forgive me but I remain sceptical that you (or others) are going to come up with a clear cut correction of any significance to something in my trilogy, although, of course, I'm not saying it's impossible. When are we going to find out what it is?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David,

I don't have additional evidence, just a clear cut correction and a clarification. What I've found certainly helps Roger's claim (and definitely supports Stewart Evans'), but your argument will stand; just not on as solid ground as you want. The only reason I've added my posts (I apologize for them being cryptic for the moment) is because some seem the Andrews/Tumblety connection can now be erased off the list ...at least that's my perception.

Sincerely,

Mike

It seems like the only thing David and Simon agree on is that Andrews hadn't traveled because of Tumblety. I don't think that should be striked from the list just yet though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

I might add that I am very sceptical about Mike's apparent claim that some further evidence exists to challenge this conclusion but, obviously, one can only wait and see what he comes up with.

Hi David,

I don't have additional evidence, just a clear cut correction and a clarification. What I've found certainly helps Roger's claim (and definitely supports Stewart Evans'), but your argument will stand; just not on as solid ground as you want. The only reason I've added my posts (I apologize for them being cryptic for the moment) is because some seem the Andrews/Tumblety connection can now be erased off the list ...at least that's my perception.

Sincerely,

Mike