The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Wickerman]

I wasn't referring to hecklers.

David has challenged the arguments of others in his trilogy.
There doesn't appear to be a queue lining up to challenge the evidence provided by David.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Thus far you have offered no evidence that Scotland Yard officers were not working on behalf of The Times in America. All you have managed to cobble together [and I, too, have all the documentation from HO144/478/X27302] is a litany of denial—Jarvis, Anderson, Monro and Matthews all singing the same lyrics, with the cautionary counterpoint of Godfrey Lushington in the background. Now there was a civil servant with his head screwed on, no illusions about police tactics but eager to avoid trouble.

What astounds me about your take on this whole shenanigans is that you express no surprise that nobody at the time asked the most fundamental question of all, namely: if Inspector Jarvis was not in Kansas City or Del Norte on the dates in question [around Christmas 1888], where was he? Did he, perchance, on those dates send cables to Scotland Yard from, say, Winnipeg?

It should have been an easy matter to settle, but the best we get by way of an answer is from Robert Anderson who said that Jarvis departed for Canada on 7th December, stopping off en route for a day in Chicago. "He was at no time west of Chicago & has never been in Kansas City in his life."

Where is the evidence in support of Inspector Jarvis being elsewhere at these times?

What also astounds me is that you didn't bat an eyelid at Henry Matthews' refusal to sanction the payment of Jarvis's libel action, which he described as "likely to result in failure."

Scotland Yard and the Home Office were trembling at the prospect of what a court action might uncover.

I actually took the time and trouble to provide documentary evidence that the core story behind Stephen Knight's book was 'elaborate balderdash'. I suggest you try doing the same in addressing the matter of Scotland Yard operating illegally in America instead of simply insisting that you're right.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Just so we're clear, David's the one doing the dishing. I don't recall Wolf's articles or Simon's book casting any aspersions on David.

Excellent point Tom. There is one possible explanation though: absence of a time machine.

[Tom_Wescott]

Casebook can be a pretty rough place and I have see all these guys be brutally condescending, rude and dismissive to other posters who they deem not worthy of their ken. Except, Phil Carter, of course, who, shall we say, has a more "subtle" approach.

Except Phil Carter! And who (besides Trevor and Robert Linford) on this thread is 'brutally condescending, rude, and dismissive' of 'noobs', or whoever it is that's suppose to not be worthy?

I guess they can dish it out, but cant take it.

Just so we're clear, David's the one doing the dishing. I don't recall Wolf's articles or Simon's book casting any aspersions on David.

It will be interesting to see if any of them steps up to the plate and really wants to go toe to toe with you on the substance of your article-we might learn something new!!

Simon and Wolf have done so. In my own minor way I believe I have as well by pointing out that his claims of 'proof' haven't materialized. If there's confusion on what constitutes 'proof' I'd be happy to expound.

Anyway-keep up the good work and I look forward to more of your work in the future. like I said before-your a breath of fresh air to this field and this noob has learned a lot from you already.

You're not alone. Works like David's (both here and on Nichols) are in large quite healthy and welcome. My only real complaint were his personal attacks (which you oddly commend right before admonishing the rest of us for the same) on Simon and Wolf and (to a lesser extent) RJ Palmer, and the overstating of his case. This approach is never recommended and serves no purpose other than perhaps as a catharsis for David, but he could come on here and call everyone hacks and then write a more even-tempered article. That's assuming he plans to publish. Blog posts, perhaps, are not subject to such manners. But this reads more like a series or articles than blog posts so that's how I see it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David, I saw Wickerman's post but wasn't sure what he meant. There doesn't seem to be a queue of any sort - praise or criticism - relating to the trilogy. But if one or two more people offer praise it will become about an equal balance.

I'd be curious to know what Abby and Wick's opinions are on Simon's book and Wolf's articles. If your work is a 'breath of fresh air' on the subject of Parnell and the North American trips, then I'm assuming they didn't care for the earlier works. Either that or they haven't read them, in which case...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Tom, I think the floor is open to challenge what David has written.
There doesn't appear to be a queue.

Bumping this for you Tom.

[David Orsam]

Hi David. Semantics are what one resorts to when they're on the losing end of an argument. Your last couple of posts to me have been quite semantical in nature.

Very amusing Tom for someone who first picked up on, and misunderstood, my use of Simon Wood's phrase 'elaborate balderdash' and then purported to translate one of my posts into a meaning it did not bear. The introduction of semantics into the discussion was all by you!

[David Orsam]

We each have to decide for ourselves which is more likely.

Right, so when are you going to do it?

Yes, the most significant part, where you say you have proved that these detectives did no extra work while in America. That just doesn't jive in all the cases with how long they spent there and what was reported in the American press at the time. Even if 95% of the press reports were wrong, that 5% means you're wrong as well.

Leaving aside your curiously meaningless mathematics, Inspector Andrews spent a mere week in Toronto, until Barnett was committed for trial, and I have fully explained, step by step, why Inspector Jarvis needed to spend four months or so in America, first to locate the elusive Thomas Barton and then to attend the extradition proceedings and bring him back to England. While Superintendent Shore was never even there in the first place! What more could you possibly want from me?

p.s. any chance of some answers to my questions?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi David. Semantics are what one resorts to when they're on the losing end of an argument. Your last couple of posts to me have been quite semantical in nature.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I'll second that!
It is refreshing to read such a well presented analysis.

Thank you Jon, it is very encouraging that so many people have felt this way.

[Wickerman]

Translated: Thank you for reading my essays but not the works I'm 'demolishing' and taking my word for it that they're full of bunkum.

Tom, I think the floor is open to challenge what David has written.
There doesn't appear to be a queue.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, a general response before I do the very dull point by point reply thing.

I'm fully aware of what you are saying and have said in just about every post so far. It is that on the one side there are some arguments and on the other side there are some counter arguments and, that being so, it is simply impossible to decide where the truth lies. Well, Tom, the thing about being human is that we have judgement and sometimes we need to use it to make decisions based on evidence. I believe I have put forward a compelling case that Inspector Andrews was in Toronto to bring Roland Barnett to justice and Inspector Jarvis was in the U.S. and Canada to bring Thomas Barton to justice and that this is all they were doing.

This is the most even-handed thing you've said. If your essay had been written in this tempered tone it would have been more successful.

If you do not find it compelling that is fine and up to you but if the only point you want to make is that you cannot decide between the two arguments then I think I've got it, and probably everyone else has do.

That's the point is that an open-minded person would have to say it's not a closed matter. If someone feels that Simon has proved his case, they're wrong. Same with you. We each have to decide for ourselves which is more likely. Your essays have a huge amount of fat that could be trimmed and then more easily digested. Once that's done you might just sway me. Simon's is an easier read and there's certainly nothing novel about the concept of these cops doing something they shouldn't to suit their own ends (look at the Cleveland Street scandal).

That being so, are there any specific points in my trilogy that you want to challenge?

Yes, the most significant part, where you say you have proved that these detectives did no extra work while in America. That just doesn't jive in all the cases with how long they spent there and what was reported in the American press at the time. Even if 95% of the press reports were wrong, that 5% means you're wrong as well.

Also, the 'I HATE SIMON' T-shirt you sent me shrunk in the washer. I want a refund.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Translated: Thank you for reading my essays but not the works I'm 'demolishing' and taking my word for it that they're full of bunkum.

That can't be the correct translation Tom because only yesterday I wrote:

"I encourage as many people as possible to buy Simon Wood's book, as I did, because they will see the absence of evidence to support his allegations, if they can even work out what the allegations are, and it will be obvious which one of us is right."

Perhaps you missed it.

[David Orsam]

David continuously compares Simon's chapters on this to Stephen Knight's book, which is built largely on fabricated 'facts' and the statements of a non-contemporary. I don't see the comparison, unless David is suggesting Simon fabricated some of the information he's using to build his case.

I'm not going to argue whether Knight's book was built "largely" on fabricated facts nor am I going to argue whether the Labouchere allegations against Jarvis, which Wood relies on, were fabricated or just mistaken but either way he should never have relied on them. And let's check the dictionary:

Elaborate - Highly developed or complicated.

Balderdash - Jumble of words, nonsense.

So Wood's criticism of Knight's book as 'elaborate balderdash' does not imply that fabricated evidence was used, nor does my criticism of Wood's arguments as 'elaborate balderdash' carry any such implication.

[Wickerman]

Hi David
Seems like no one has the stomach to want to debate you on the substance of your article.

And IMHO your style is fine and par for the course (and minus the personal stuff, which I commend you). Nothing wrong with being confident in your work and challenging people to prove you wrong.

Casebook can be a pretty rough place and I have see all these guys be brutally condescending, rude and dismissive to other posters who they deem not worthy of their ken. Except, Phil Carter, of course, who, shall we say, has a more "subtle" approach.

I guess they can dish it out, but cant take it. It will be interesting to see if any of them steps up to the plate and really wants to go toe to toe with you on the substance of your article-we might learn something new!!

Anyway-keep up the good work and I look forward to more of your work in the future. like I said before-your a breath of fresh air to this field and this noob has learned a lot from you already.

I'll second that!
It is refreshing to read such a well presented analysis.