The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

I observe another piece of careful spin....false too this time.

Simon made "one abortive attempt and then disappeared"??

Oh dear...oh dear ...oh dear...

Simon Wood has commented 21 times on this thread.
Posts 44, 58, 53, 57, 148, to Tom
Posts 183, 186 and 191 to Jeff
Post 83 to self
Post 91 to Mike
Post 180 to all
And
Posts 60, 66,87,97,99,102,105,108,149, and 152 To you David.
As the posts last to present up in the 220 range in total..that's around 10% of all.posts made. His posts lasted from post 44 to currently his.last, post 191.

Hardly "one abortive attempt then diaappeared".

Your attacking of Simon is factually unsound in your last post.

As far as the rest of your comments. I happen to agree with Simon. They are goading and sneering. I am.not surprised he finds them offensive.

Seems the style "you are happy with" puts your arguments in a he shade..because the presentation shows an attitude that is being seen in an unfavourable light.

Sorry if some of us don't agree with your style.

Phil - you need to read my posts properly and not quote them out of context. Perhaps then you won't misunderstand them.

I said: "Why is no-one dealing with the substance of the articles? Simon Wood made one abortive attempt then disappeared."

In other words, he made one abortive attempt to deal with the substance of my articles. I know how many times he has posted in this thread. That's the tragedy of it. So many posts and so few of them relating to the substance of my articles.

To the extent I ever gave it any consideration, I've now also lost interest in whether you agree with my writing style or not so perhaps you need to think about your own writing style.

[Phil Carter]

Well, I was pondering how to respond to the extraordinary twin attack from Phil and Wolf and then Abby Normal hits the nail on the head in one sentence. Why is no-one dealing with the substance of the articles? Simon Wood made one abortive attempt then disappeared. Wolf hasn't challenged any of the substance. In two posts, Phil just writes about me. And this obsession with Evans & Gainey. What's that all about?
.

Hello David,

I observe another piece of careful spin....false too this time.

Simon made "one abortive attempt and then disappeared"??

Oh dear...oh dear ...oh dear...

Simon Wood has commented 21 times on this thread.
Posts 44, 58, 53, 57, 148, to Tom
Posts 183, 186 and 191 to Jeff
Post 83 to self
Post 91 to Mike
Post 180 to all
And
Posts 60, 66,87,97,99,102,105,108,149, and 152 To you David.
As the posts last to present up in the 200 range in total..that's around 10% of all.posts made. His posts lasted from post 44 to currently his.last, post 191.

Hardly "one abortive attempt then diaappeared".

Your attacking of Simon is factually unsound in your last post.

As far as the rest of your comments. I happen to agree with Simon. They are goading and sneering. I am.not surprised he finds them offensive.

Seems the style "you are happy with" puts your arguments in the shade..because the presentation shows an attitude that is being seen in an unfavourable light.

Sorry if some of us don't agree with your style.


Phil

[David Orsam]

I have the opinion that if other well known writers and historical experts on the subject of political shenanigans had been included..such as Porter for example. .His work too would have been "demolished"...In favour of keeping the Tumblety theory alive and well at all costs.

Phil - I'm not sure what the above means but I hope you are not forgetting that I have put forward a positive case, based on primary documents, as to what Andrews and Jarvis were doing in North America. To that extent, it follows that any other writers that say something different are wrong, in my view, unless they have produced evidence to the contrary of which I am unaware. But if there is any evidence to the contrary, I would have expected it to have been mentioned in one of the 200+ posts in this thread.

I must say, I don't understand your comment about "keeping the Tumblety theory alive and well at all costs". If, by "Tumblety theory", you mean the notion that Inspector Andrews was doing something relating to Tumblety in while in North America, that was also demolished in my trilogy.

[Phil Carter]

is anyone going to actually debate David on the substance of his articles and his analysis/interpretation of the events or is it just going to be a constant stream of huff and bluff?

I cant help but notice that simon, phil and wolf are avoiding doing so like the plague. Gee I wonder why?


Shame really-would like to see any of these guys put their money where there mouth is.

Hello Abby,

I have made a total of two postings throughout the entire thread. Both are observations referring to presentation style. .which is my specific interest. I an not avoiding anything. I stick to my own field of commentary. Personal opinion based upon presentation. If you or others don't not like those observations..fine. such is freedom of opinion.
What others have done in response is of their choice.
I have the opinion that if other well known writers and historical experts on the subject of political shenanigans had been included..such as Porter for example. .His work too would have been "demolished"...In favour of keeping the Tumblety theory alive and well at all costs. But..as said..It is just a personal opinion of observation. .which means nothing on the long run.
You are entitled to your opinion. I have explained mine. Without pointed bias.


Phil

[David Orsam]

Well, I was pondering how to respond to the extraordinary twin attack from Phil and Wolf and then Abby Normal hits the nail on the head in one sentence. Why is no-one dealing with the substance of the articles? Simon Wood made one abortive attempt then disappeared. Wolf hasn't challenged any of the substance. In two posts, Phil just writes about me. And this obsession with Evans & Gainey. What's that all about?

It's ironic that Wolf is talking about hidden agendas here. I guess it's the way some people view the world. Inspector Andrews accompanied Barnett to Toronto so he must have had a hidden agenda. I write an article about the reason Inspector Andrews accompanied Barnett to Canada so I must have a hidden agenda!

The reason for my trilogy is very simple. Earlier this year I read three articles (and one recently published book) for the very first time, two of which were very kindly emailed to me by a member of this forum at my request after I became interested in the subject. I thought they were wrong on the face of them, did the research (on the primary sources) which confirmed my belief and wrote the trilogy. That's it.

I might add that two of the articles (and the book) were peddling some rather extreme conspiracy theories on the basis of no good evidence thus distorting English history and, frankly, deserved to be demolished. That is how scholarship works. I've now read Phil and Wolf's posts a few times and can't see anything sensible in them that I need to respond to, other than to suggest that Phil goes and finds out what a primary source is.

[Abby Normal]

is anyone going to actually debate David on the substance of his articles and his analysis/interpretation of the events or is it just going to be a constant stream of huff and bluff?

I cant help but notice that simon, phil and wolf are avoiding doing so like the plague. Gee I wonder why?


Shame really-would like to see any of these guys put their money where there mouth is.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi David.

Nothing to get worked up about.

The "impressive research" that you say I did was based entirely on primary sources. I wasn't interested in reading ANY secondary works on the subject, other than those I set out to rebut.

Which was kinda my point. I didn’t suggest that you should have read Evans and Gainey as part of your research. I’m just curious why, if you are interested in Inspector Andrews’ trip to Southern Ontario, and you were trying to rebut the various theories concerning this trip, you left out what is basically the first, the most documented and thus the most recognized theory out there. As I keep pointing out, you don’t even name Evans and Gainey in your articles, let alone discuss what their theory is. I was curious why. But I see you may have answered this somewhat:

My trilogy was rebutting - and, I think, demolishing - the arguments in Simon Wood's Ripperologist article (and his book), your arguments in Ripper Notes and R.J. Palmer's arguments in his trilogy. That's it. That was what I was doing. Not a comprehensive discussion of every single work ever written on the subject.

So not an actual look at all the theories, or the history of the subject, let alone some context for these chosen theories, just an attempt at “demolishing” those theories which, for some reason, you have decided needed demolishing. This, of course, once more begs the question why, exactly, did you leave out the most famous and recognized theory? And I understand that you don’t find this question interesting but I certainly do. You see, I don’t know you from Adam so I’m trying to figure out what your agenda is here.

And if you are wondering why you were included…

No, not particularly. I understand why I was included, I’m just trying to figure out why certain people were excluded. There is probably some reason behind this, beyond what you have stated above, and I’m just curious what it is.

I invited you to tell me of any arguments that I have missed and not rebutted which you have failed to do. You say that I have missed the most important one without telling me what it is. Until you do, there is nothing I can say.

This surprises me a little. I’m not sure I can be any clearer but I’ll try. Evans/Gainey offer one version of Inspector Andrews trip to Southern Ontario. R.J. Palmer offers a second, different, version. Both are based on Dr. Tumblety but they are not the same theory. On top of this Stewart Evans offered a slightly altered theory in 2006. You looked briefly (in comparison to Simon and myself, that is) at Palmer’s theory, found in a small e-zine, but totally ignored everything ever written on the subject by Evans/Gainey (you don’t even name them) and, later Evans himself. A theory that is almost ubiquitous going by the literature on the subject. Look up Tumblety in books or across the internet and you, nine times out of ten, are going to find mention of the Evans/Gainey Andrews to Southern Ontario theory. This omnipresent theory is the one you have chosen to ignore. You can see, I hope, why your supposed cluelessness regarding this original theory and its importance to the subject at hand, is, to say the least, hard to credit and we are back to wondering about hidden agendas.

If, however, you really are oblivious to exactly what the Evans/Gainey theory is, or how it differs from Palmers’, and you are really asking me to do your research for you, I’m afraid I haven’t the time. Perhaps you could just read the Evans and Gainey’s book which you say you didn’t even bother to re-read when you wrote your articles.

Surely it must be possible to discuss what I have said in my trilogy rather than what I have not said. Or do you accept everything I have written?
If you do have any comments on what I have said in terms of the facts or my interpretation of them please let me know and I will do my best to respond.

Actually, this is what we are doing now. I asked what I thought was a simple question, one which you haven’t really answered so I’m trying, as I said, to figure out your agenda before I move on to other things.

Wolf.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Wolf,

The "impressive research" that you say I did was based entirely on primary sources. I wasn't interested in reading ANY secondary works on the subject, other than those I set out to rebut. So your point, which you have developed at remarkable length, fails at the first hurdle.

My trilogy was rebutting - and, I think, demolishing - the arguments in Simon Wood's Ripperologist article (and his book), your arguments in Ripper Notes and R.J. Palmer's arguments in his trilogy. That's it. That was what I was doing.

Hello David,

David..you specifically pointed out to me in your one and only response to my one and only posting that it wasn't about personalities in any way. Seems to me that you had one specific goal..and have continously attacked two of the three mentioned here. And you are..according to your responses..never...ever wrong.
Quite revealing to these eyes.

Seems to me..sitting quietly on the sidelines that your trilogy was..In fact..A deliberate attack on the comprehensive research and writings of the three people you mentioned.
Without pointing out the obvious..you have..In doing so... now revealed the point of your entire argument. Attacking and attempting to "demolish" three specific people's arguments whilst ignoring both the background that laid those counter arguments in the first place. .The Evans and Gainey book being one.
Those works afore any said research by the three above..are not secondary at all. They are. .being the first..primary. The basis for any argument or discussion on the subject MUST include all previous research and material. It cannot be ignored.
So that you can concentrate on attacking three specific people.
Whether any such material is advantageous to your rebuttal and attempted demolition of later material is besides the point.
Avoiding any previous work that may..or may not. .weaken your own argument...well... it is pure spin IMHO.

Sorry David. On this point you have disappointed this reader. Whilst I admired your trilogy for its effort..The lack of consideration afforded any previous material shows me exactly what your true goal is.

I have a very odd feeling of someone attacking in the fear that other people's research may have influenced the public too much..and something had to be done. The methodology smacks. .to these eyes...of a spin doctor accusing counter argument before it as spin. That's my honest opinion. As I read it.

Your method of argument devalues the thesis..IMHO.


Phil

[David Orsam]

Hi David.

Interesting. So you are fascinated with questions regarding Andrews’ trip to Canada enough to do a hell of a lot of impressive research which, obviously, took some time and effort to carry out. You track down various old articles on the subject (mine were published ten years ago) and went through them with a fine-toothed comb. You read Simon’s book. You also troll through posts on Casebook looking for further material. You then write a lengthy three part article on the subject (in which you mention, and deservedly dismiss, Logan’s 1928 statement) but, oddly, leave a huge yawning gap in the written history of this subject: the 1995 publication of Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s Tumblety based The Lodger, as well as the 1998 updated reprint?

Odder still, you say that you, apparently, weren’t interested enough to even re-read the book that laid the groundwork for the later theories. And you even fail to mention Stewart’s later thoughts on Inspector Andrews’ trip found in his and Don Rumbelow’s excellent 2006 book Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates?



Since you don’t even bother to mention the Evans/Gainey 1995 (Century Random House U.K. Ltd.)/98 (Kodansha America Inc.) Tumblety theory at all, let alone Evans’ 2006 (Sutton Publishing Ltd.) words, and since these theories differ from Palmer’s (The Casebook Examiner e-zine) then, yes, you have (purposely?) missed arguments and failed to rebut what is the most important and long lasting Andrews/Tumblety theory out there.

As I said, interesting.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf,

The "impressive research" that you say I did was based entirely on primary sources. I wasn't interested in reading ANY secondary works on the subject, other than those I set out to rebut. So your point, which you have developed at remarkable length, fails at the first hurdle.

My trilogy was rebutting - and, I think, demolishing - the arguments in Simon Wood's Ripperologist article (and his book), your arguments in Ripper Notes and R.J. Palmer's arguments in his trilogy. That's it. That was what I was doing. Not a comprehensive discussion of every single work ever written on the subject. And if you are wondering why you were included, as you seem to be, it was essentially because you personally told me on this forum that Andrews' visit to Toronto was part of some kind of convoluted Scotland Yard plot (e.g. "Whatever Andrews WAS doing in Ontario, it seem to have been set up by Anderson using the extradition of Barnett as both a cover and a way of keeping the trip to Canada off the books and out of the public eye" (26.02.15 - 'Andrews was investigating Tumblety' thread) and I wanted to read your published arguments in full and was able to find them on the internet (but I did not, with all due respect, find them at all convincing for the reasons I have stated at length in my trilogy).

I invited you to tell me of any arguments that I have missed and not rebutted which you have failed to do. You say that I have missed the most important one without telling me what it is. Until you do, there is nothing I can say.

And I don't think this line of discussion is interesting at all. It is odd. Weird even. Surely it must be possible to discuss what I have said in my trilogy rather than what I have not said. Or do you accept everything I have written?

If you do have any comments on what I have said in terms of the facts or my interpretation of them please let me know and I will do my best to respond.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi David.

Interesting. So you are fascinated with questions regarding Andrews’ trip to Canada enough to do a hell of a lot of impressive research which, obviously, took some time and effort to carry out. You track down various old articles on the subject (mine were published ten years ago) and went through them with a fine-toothed comb. You read Simon’s book. You also troll through posts on Casebook looking for further material. You then write a lengthy three part article on the subject (in which you mention, and deservedly dismiss, Logan’s 1928 statement) but, oddly, leave a huge yawning gap in the written history of this subject: the 1995 publication of Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s Tumblety based The Lodger, as well as the 1998 updated reprint?

Odder still, you say that you, apparently, weren’t interested enough to even re-read the book that laid the groundwork for the later theories. And you even fail to mention Stewart’s later thoughts on Inspector Andrews’ trip found in his and Don Rumbelow’s excellent 2006 book Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates?

If, however, you think there is an argument in The Lodger which supports the notion that Andrews was in America on Tumblety related business that I have somehow missed and not rebutted then please do let me know.

Since you don’t even bother to mention the Evans/Gainey 1995 (Century Random House U.K. Ltd.)/98 (Kodansha America Inc.) Tumblety theory at all, let alone Evans’ 2006 (Sutton Publishing Ltd.) words, and since these theories differ from Palmer’s (The Casebook Examiner e-zine) then, yes, you have (purposely?) missed arguments and failed to rebut what is the most important and long lasting Andrews/Tumblety theory out there.

As I said, interesting.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

I had the same thoughts, which is what prompted my earlier observations that Tumblety, over time, has become a minor character in the sagas of Andrews & Co. I'm interested in David's answer as well.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Sorry Tom. Although David's research is excellent, there's actually more to the picture with Tumblety, but it'll have to be a later discussion.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Check out this link to the Parnell Commission.

Hope it helps.

https://archive.org/details/verbatimcopyofpa00grea

Regards,

Simon

Thanks very much Simon. I have put it on my favorites to review at leisure.

Best,

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Busily protecting Anderson's pension, no doubt.

I very much doubt that Simon. Considering that the very next day Churchill made efforts to stop Anderson's pension.

Thus we find in HO 144/926/A49962 the following draft memorandum entitled "Sir Robert Anderson's Pension: Memorandum for the Law Officer and Opinion" dated 15 April 1910 which begins:

"The Secretary of State desires to have the opinion of the Law Officers on the question whether it is possible to take any action with regard to the pension granted to Sir Robert Anderson on his retirement from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police."

And in the passage that you quote, Churchill was simply answering a question asked of him by a member of parliament in response to Anderson's recently published revelations about the Times articles on "Parnellism and Crime". I appreciate that you don't seem to think that any answer provided by Home Secretary in Parliament is genuine and true but perhaps it is time to adopt a different approach to viewing the world.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Check out this link to the Parnell Commission.

Hope it helps.

https://archive.org/details/verbatimcopyofpa00grea

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

One thing that I have wondered about is your lack of any mention of Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s work on the Andrews’ journey. It was their book, The Lodger, the Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper, which started the ball rolling with their claim that the return of R.G.I Barnett to Canada by Andrews was a cover to hide a secret mission to trail and arrest Tumblety. It was even Stewart who suggested, here on the boards if memory serves, that the extradition process was manipulated in order to get Andrews to North America on a free ride from the Canadian authorities, the Whitechapel Murders Investigation being notoriously penny-pinched by the Home Office. The chronology on this subject starts with The Lodger and moves on from there. Arguably, I suppose, you could argue that it was Logan who started it all off, and you briefly mention him, yet, oddly, you make no mention of Evans and Gainey, the modern theorists on this subject, in your three articles. I was just curious why?

There's no mystery to this.

In the first place, R.J. Palmer's trilogy was the latest, up-to-date, work on the subject and, as far as I am aware, the leading argument in favour of Andrews' visit to Canada being connected with Tumblety. I had never read it before it was sent to me a few months ago by a very kind member of this forum. I had been told it was compelling but I just wasn't convinced and it prompted me to find out more.

Secondly, when reviewing all the internet forum postings on the subject I found posts from Stewart Evans saying that when he and Paul Gainey wrote The Lodger all they had to go on was Logan and what they found in the newspapers saying that Andrews, or a Scotland Yard detective, was chasing the Whitechapel murderer in America. He seemed to me to be very frankly and reasonably accepting that he did not have all the available information at that time, and my interpretation of his postings was that he was saying that things had moved on since the publication of his book.

I bought and read the book in the year of its publication but that was 20 years ago. I didn't think there was much point in responding to a 20 year old book in view of the existence of Palmer's more recent trilogy and Stewart Evans' internet posts. It remains in my old room at my parents' house and I didn't even consult it when writing and researching these articles.

I can't help feeling there is a sort of underlying suggestion in your question that I have somehow given Evans & Gainey a free pass but that's not the case at all. If, however, you think there is an argument in The Lodger which supports the notion that Andrews was in America on Tumblety related business that I have somehow missed and not rebutted then please do let me know.

I just want to stress that my attention was not focussed on the personalities involved. The 3 articles to which I was responding could have been written by X, Y and Z. It is the arguments and the evidence which interests me.