The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Your crystal is slightly opaque. David has clarified the research a bit. There is more.

Sincerely,

Mike

Not what I meant, but okay.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DJA]

I am sorry to all but I do have another pair of minor questions to ask - they are linked.

1) When was the legal idea of "workers compensation" adopted in the United Kingdom?

2) If I am right in my timing and the U.K. began using workers compensation in the 1880s, when was it begun for the British police, in particular Scotland Yard.

Jeff

You probably seek the 1880 and 1897 Acts.

Technically,English Police still do not have "compo".

Over here,I have a niece (Academy Instructor/First Line of Response) and a cousin who died in the Line of Duty.
Very different.

[Mayerling]

You probably seek the 1880 and 1897 Acts.

Technically,English Police still do not have "compo".

Over here,I have a niece (Academy Instructor/First Line of Response) and a cousin who died in the Line of Duty.
Very different.

Thanks DJA, and I am sorry about your niece.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

You mean because I think that Wolf's and Simon's perspective on the present matter shouldn't be dismissed off hand as conspiracist fantasies just because it poses a problem to police apologists?

No Tom, I was actually thinking of the following:

1. #22 - You accused me of calling Simon Wood's work "garbage" when I had done no such thing (and you have still never retracted this or apologised for it).

2. #50 – You wrongly claimed that "official persons" have suggested or outrightly stated that Jarvis was in the States digging up Parnell material.

3. #208 – You referred to Labouchere's admission that he was mistaken as a "forced admission" but then could not justify that unqualified statement.

4. #241 – You stated, without any supporting evidence, that "80%" of what officials say or do is face-saving and pandering, the implication being that 80% of official statements are untrue.

You're the only one screaming that you have proof! proof! proof! that will demolish his opponent

I have not been "screaming that I have proof! proof! proof!" so you have got that wrong too. I am claiming, and have claimed throughout, that I have found compelling evidence in the primary documents which demolishes the arguments of Simon Wood and Wolf Vanderlinden. You might have noticed, Tom, that Simon Wood has conspicuously failed to answer the questions I asked of him in this thread. In fact, he has point blank refused to answer any questions at all that I might have for him in a public forum. Doesn't that set your finely tuned alarm bells ringing? Wolf Vanderlinden's post to me yesterday completely ignored the specific criticisms I made about his article in the trilogy - but let's see if he rises to the challenge and answers the questions I have asked him. Because I am sure that what members of this forum who are following this thread want to read is a serious debate on the substance of the matter and the only way that can happen is if Simon and Wolf respond directly to my posts as I have attempted to do to all of theirs.

[David Orsam]

Thank you for the answers to my question - I really thought Lewis & Lewis were not Labouchere's solicitors (being that Sir George Lewis, despite his impeccable reputation as a solicitor for the wealthy and powerful happened to be Jewish - and we know what Labouchere thought of Jews).

Lewis & Lewis certainly acted for Labouchere in other libel actions so whatever prejudices he had did not, it seems, extend to the religion of his lawyer.

As for your other questions, I have absolutely no idea and can't add to what DJA has posted.

[David Orsam]

He certainly makes a very good case using new sources, and has found a doozy -- a Canadian newspaper quoting Andrews to the effect that he is not after Tumblety and saying that the latter is not a Ripper suspect.

Hi Jonathan, by way of clarification it might be helpful if I mention that, while I was pleased to find the newspaper interview with Andrews, which is both interesting and consistent with my case, it forms no part of my case. I don't rely on it at all and don't refer to it in my conclusions.

The simple reason for this is that if Andrews was in Toronto on Tumblety business, due to Tumblety being the prime suspect for the JTR murders, I wouldn't necessarily expect him to tell the truth to a reporter (although, of course, I do think he was telling the truth in this instance).

In a nutshell, my case against the argument that Tumblety was in Toronto on Tumblety business is as follows: It does not make any sense, there is no evidence to support it and all the documentary evidence shows that Andrews' mission in November/December 1888 was to safely escort an extradited prisoner to the judicial authorities in Toronto. It would be exactly the same with or without the Andrews newspaper interview.

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.

Many thanks, incidentally, for your other comments in your post about my trilogy.

[Tom_Wescott]

1. #22 - You accused me of calling Simon Wood's work "garbage" when I had done no such thing (and you have still never retracted this or apologised for it).

First of all, asking someone to apologize is really lame. Second, here's what you say in Part 2: According to Wood, 'cross-checking other non-agency press reports suggests that the events described are fundamentally correct' but, as he does not let us know what those other reports are, or how they can possibly corroborate the fantastic yarn spun by the Boston Globe, the entire thing should be consigned to the garbage.

In my opinion, when you say something can be 'consigned to the garbage', you are in effect calling it garbage, because garbage is what one tends to consign to the garbage. My point - which I barely remember because it was made so long ago, but which you're choosing to hang onto - was that it's rude to mention an author's name in the same context as 'garbage'. if you want to call someone's book garbage, write a damn book review, but it shouldn't be in something passing as an objective scholarly study.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

First of all, asking someone to apologize is really lame.

Well, that may or may not be, but I have never asked you to apologize! I pointed out that you have never retracted or apologized for what you said.

Here is what you said in #22:

"They [Wood and Vanderlinden] also put a lot of time and work into their publications, so for you to come along later and call their work 'nonsense' and 'garbage' because in 2015 you have new material and resources is unfair and undermines your own work."

My response in #24 was:

"I did not call Simon Wood's or Wolf Vanderlinden's work 'garbage'. I said of the (clearly false) Boston Sunday Globe report of 23 December 1888 that 'the entire thing should be consigned to the garbage'."

Until today you have never even acknowledged my response to you in #24. For that reason I had no idea if you absorbed or understood what I said and did not know if it was a reason for your continued inaccurate comments in this thread. As far as I am concerned, your initial claim, made without reading my article properly, was poisonous and, as you have never retracted the claim or apologized for making it, quite possibly misled others into thinking I had described the work of the two named authors as "garbage" when I had done no such thing"

In my opinion, when you say something can be 'consigned to the garbage', you are in effect calling it garbage, because garbage is what one tends to consign to the garbage.

That is absolutely true but I was talking about the Boston Sunday Globe report of 23 December 1888. Here is the full paragraph of which you have quoted only a part:

"Despite the obvious implausibility of the story, Simon D. Wood does not describe it as 'hokum' (one of this favourite words), which is what he usually says about newspaper reports containing blatant inaccuracies, but accepts it as basically genuine. According to Wood, 'cross-checking other non-agency press reports suggests that the events described are fundamentally correct' but, as he does not let us know what those other reports are, or how they can possibly corroborate the fantastic yarn spun by the Boston Globe, the entire thing should be consigned to the garbage".

So the paragraph starts off by talking about "the story", which is the Boston Sunday Globe story, and is in the context of a detailed discussion of the Boston Sunday Globe story, and concludes by saying that the "entire thing should be consigned to the garbage". If you misunderstood what I was saying then fine but if you now read that paragraph again you should appreciate that I am clearly talking about the newspaper report not the work of Simon Wood or Wolf Vanderlinden.

it's rude to mention an author's name in the same context as 'garbage'.

Come off it Tom, that is ridiculous. I was referring to the Sunday Boston Globe report as garbage. To say that I can't do that within 20 words of Simon Wood's hallowed name, or whatever you are saying, is bizarre.

if you want to call someone's book garbage, write a damn book review, but it shouldn't be in something passing as an objective scholarly study.

And here we have it. You have still misunderstood, despite my clear explanation in #24 a number of weeks ago! I was not calling Simon Wood's book garbage. How many times do I have to say this before you absorb it?

[Tom_Wescott]

David,

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.

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

[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

[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 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]

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.

[Wickerman]

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