The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Mayerling]

Jeff's an historian. He makes connections. No harm in that.

Hi Robert,

I'm flattered by the compliment. Thanks for it.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

This thread does seem to have veered into an off-topic direction over the last couple of days. If we were to discuss all conspiracy theories in existence it would go on forever. Discussion about a sixteenth century rebellion certainly belongs elsewhere. I will try and get this back on topic by summarising where we have got to so far.

It is now over one month since I posted my trilogy and we are approaching 350 posts in this thread with contributions from two of the three authors whose work I have, to use a favourite word in this thread, demolished. Yet, the facts and arguments in my trilogy remain essentially unchallenged. To the limited extent that there have been any challenges, they have all fizzled out very quickly. I am certainly unaware of any significant, substantial or material flaw in any of my three articles.

Simon Wood’s appearance in this thread has been difficult to understand because he does not seem to be here to offer any real defence of his work. On the contrary, in respect of the Jarvis allegations, which are at the heart of his claim that there was official chicanery in England in 1888, he now appears to have resiled from the position he took in both his book and Ripperologist article. At the same time, he is not willing to make any actual concessions nor to explain whether his views have changed in any way as a result of my trilogy. He is certainly not here to engage in any kind of sustained debate or discussion with me and refuses to answer any questions.

Wolf Vanderlinden has made a couple of long posts but has studiously avoided dealing with any of the specific criticisms I made of his arguments. He is far more concerned about my "agenda" even though such an agenda (if I even had one!) can have no possible bearing on the quality of my arguments or on the facts and evidence that I have presented. I have no idea why he has taken it all so personally; anyone who publishes a theory – especially one has controversial as the one he has offered us – should surely expect, and welcome, close scrutiny of their work.

Tom Wescott, when not making false allegations about me or misunderstanding things, has made a half-hearted effort to discuss some of the issues with me but as soon as I respond to one of his posts he moves to another point before coming back to the previous point without giving me the impression that he has taken on board anything I have said to him. For the most part, if not the whole part, he has attempted to argue the unarguable. Yet, like Simon, he never concedes anything. I think he saw the word ‘garbage’ in my article when he first skim-read it and, determined to defend the honour of Simon Wood, about whose work he mistakenly thought I was referring, set off on a fixed course from which he has been unable to depart.

On the Andrews & Tumblety aspect of the trilogy, Mike Hawley tells us that he has found an error in my work – although he is not yet prepared to tell us what that is – but any challenge he eventually makes is doomed to failure because he has confirmed that he has not found any new evidence. The main failing of R.J. Palmer’s trilogy is that he was unable to come up with a single piece of evidence to support the notion that Andrews was doing anything relating to Tumblety in America. Without that evidence, there is only unsupported speculation and theorising. So even if (which I naturally doubt) Mike is able to correct something in my trilogy, it is not going to make any difference to the conclusion that Inspector Andrews went to Toronto to escort Roland Barnett to safe custody and that this was all he did.

Perhaps the most significant new point to emerge in this thread about my trilogy – if I say so myself – is my own point that Jarvis and Andrews might not have been doing anything illegal – or even unlawful - in America had they been searching for evidence to support the Times’ case against Parnell and I am surprised that no-one has had anything to say about this. If it is the case, it doesn’t change any of my conclusions because it would always have been secret work, for which people would have lost their jobs had it been exposed, but I would welcome any informed views anyone has on this subject. I would certainly like to know if there were any laws that they would have broken.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom Wescott, when not making false allegations about me or misunderstanding things, has made a half-hearted effort to discuss some of the issues with me but as soon as I respond to one of his posts he moves to another point before coming back to the previous point without giving me the impression that he has taken on board anything I have said to him. For the most part, if not the whole part, he has attempted to argue the unarguable. Yet, like Simon, he never concedes anything. I think he saw the word ‘garbage’ in my article when he first skim-read it and, determined to defend the honour of Simon Wood, about whose work he mistakenly thought I was referring, set off on a fixed course from which he has been unable to depart.

Far from defending Simon's honor, I've stated countless times that he hasn't convinced me of the guilt of the detectives, just as you haven't convinced me (or anyone other than yourself) of their absolute innocence. How could you? As you said, it's hard if not impossible to prove a negative. The difference is that Simon didn't scream 'I've proved it' while denouncing the work of others and having claimed to have 'demolished' anyone's work. He merely presented concise, well-written, and intriguing chapters and presented his conclusions which may in fact be wrong, but which thus far have not been proved to be wrong.

I'm also unclear how much of the research you're being praised for is original. Much of the source material seems to be in Simon's book. A lot of the superfluous stuff, such as the reams on the Barnett fellow, seem to be original. I'm sold on Barnett being a bad guy. I don't see how that proves that none of these detectives made any inquiries on behalf of the Times as they are alleged to have done by contemporary pressmen and a member of Parliament. It's not terribly difficult to impress pub talkers who seem never to read anything on the Ripper unless it's available for free, or police apologists who will not even briefly consider anything that doesn't fit into their rosy view of how the police operated. The trick is delivering on a promise of proof, which is why I've harped on that throughout the thread. Had all the chest-pounding and name-calling and proof-promising not been included in your articles I probably would have said nothing other than 'great job!' and similar praise.

Let it be known I've taken Simon to task in the past and most likely will in the future if/when the need arises (I still haven't finished his book), and if the roles in this present situation were reversed I'd be saying the same stuff to him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

It is now over one month since I posted my trilogy and we are approaching 350 posts in this thread with contributions from two of the three authors whose work I have, to use a favourite word in this thread, demolished.

Well done. Congratulations. A+. Top of the class. Unbeatable. Historically 100% self assessed as brilliant. Supremely genial in ones own eyes. A tour de force. Not a hint of arrogance either. With that...you can no doubt strive on to better your amazing achievement. .probably defend Sir Robert Anderson and his life story in the force and rubbish more authors and commentators.

But let this observer let you in on one tiny weeny little secret.
you are wrong in much if your last post about the three people you have again..attacked. Simon Wood gave you the reasonable chance to discuss via pm any question. You challenged him to do that in public. He declined. Then..In lightly schoolboy fashion. .you asked him if he was "scared"...He explained that he declined on the basis of your manner.in which he deemed rude. That is a reasonable personal choice David. However..The goading did not stop..and has continued..but now you goad into thin air. Shame. No ring in the playground because Simon isn't willing to stand in the middle. All your repeated mentionings now only show you standing alone calling out for a playground row. Simon isn't giving you the attention you crave. Shame.

Wolf is yet to complete his assessment if your work..and is only two thirds through a reply. He will not..as you have pushed ..be pushed to answer at your beck and call..He will take the time he feels IF he feels it needed..He explained that his life is a busy one. Yet again in your last post..Wolf is attacked..because again. .He has not responded to your demanding to argue the toss. Shame.

Tom We Scott has been incredibly patient with you. .After being told..afters have others..that he misunderstands your work. But Tom is told it often. His patience amazes this observer. He notes too that much of what you have written is already written..In different words..In Simon book. Wolf pointed out the same about one of his previous articles. .and again the similarities. You. ..have told all three here how constantly wrong they are..how they misunderstand you..or your work..and you now are so arrogantly confident that nothing..In essence in your work..is at fault..because THEY are at fault in their assessments of it.

All of this is a response to constant...ever repeated. ..comment by you on how brilliant you are in your work.

I happen to disagree. But refuse to be commanded into further explanation to satisfy your apparent need to demolish anyone's counter comment. You can whistle in the wind and be aware that this observer is frankly sick and tired of the constant overbearingly crowing in being told how wonderful you are in your work.

You won't like this. It's on topic. Because I respond to your style which you are so cocksure of being acceptable to others it isn't Shame


Phil

[mklhawley]

So even if (which I naturally doubt) Mike is able to correct something in my trilogy, it is not going to make any difference to the conclusion that Inspector Andrews went to Toronto to escort Roland Barnett to safe custody and that this was all he did.

Hi David,

Abby Normal considers your trilogy rock solid, so he agrees that I have not found any errors. I will hold you to this Abby.

Within two weeks. I promise.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jonathan H]

The Calvin Trillin article was pertient to this thread, I thought.

David's work is excellent. But has David demolished R. J. Palmer's line of argument too re: Inspector Andrews doing a background check on Dr Tumblety.

Not for me. Simply because if you examine the [admittedly incomplete] record the argument by Palmer--and before him Evans and Gainey--that Walter Andrews was investigating (not chasing) Dr. Tumblety as the Ripper, abroad, still holds, based on the balance of probability of the meaning of limited and contradictory data.

At least it does for me because of the political/public relations context.

Under great pressure Dr. Robert Anderson was doing his best regarding a prime suspect who had already fled British Commonwealth jurisdiction. Walter Andrews was one of his three field detectives investigating the Whitechapel murders. Why send him to Canada and risk more press crucifixtion over another key police figure being abroad during the Terror? It might be worse if we do not send him.

It was a no-win situation for C.I.D., but since somebody had to take Barnett it might as well be Andrews who can do a little, though not much, to gain some background information on the flim flammer. But not so overt a mission that it could not be denied. Then it became entangled in the Parnell imbroglio. By the time of the Littlechild letter this mission has been completely airbrushed from history (by the much more satisfying finale that Tumblety maybe took his own life in France).

Otherwise we have the coincidence that a Ripper hunter has travelled to the [recent] haunts of a prime Ripper suspect. Conicidences happen, of course, but I do not think this is one of them.

To Mayerling

I subscribe to the theory that Huey Long was, indeed, shot with premeditation by Dr. Carl Austin Weiss, whose motive was deep-fried racism.

[mklhawley]

Hi all,

In scholarly research, credibility arises from peer review, i.e., those so-called experts in that particular area of research review the work for reliability, based upon the evidence. I will be doing this for David, in order for him to rebut my review and ultimately gain additional credibility. This thread is one venue we can use for a peer review model. The goal is getting closer to the truth. So, here goes…

Even with the new discoveries made by David, the evidence we are dealing with is still incomplete, and the evidence he has provided, specific to Andrews involved in the Ripper case, confirms that the official reason for his trip to Canada was the Barnett case …but, we already knew this. Andrews stated he will not divulge the secrets of his office, which means that what you see is not the whole story. Stewart and Roger made cogent arguments that Andrews did indeed come to Toronto – at least in part – for Francis Tumblety, not based upon mere speculation but based upon multiple sources, all in corroboration with each other. There are multiple newspaper reports, Chief Inspector Walter Dew’s comments about Andrews being involved in the Ripper case, and Guy Logan’s statement. David makes two arguments against the Andrews/Ripper connection. First, there is no direct physical evidence, such as an official commission letter, but why should we expect this when Scotland Yard forced Canada to pay for the whole trip? Second, he attacks the credibility of the evidence to the affirmative. The arguments attempting to minimize Walter Dew and Guy Logan will be addressed on a different venue, since David focuses mostly upon the newspaper reports.

Note the warrant David presented (HO 134/25) officially ordering Andrews to ‘receive’ Barnett to Canada states,

To the Governor of H.M. Prison at Holloway
and to Inspector Walter Andrews
of the Metropolitan Police
Whereas Roland Israel Gideon Barnett late of Toronto
Accused of the commission of the crime of fraud as a trustee, and fraudulently converting to his own use available security so as to deprive the owner of the use of the same within the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada was delivered into the custody of you the Governor of H.M. Prison at Holloway, by Warrant dated the sixth day of November 1888 pursuant to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881.
Now I do hereby, in pursuance of the said Act, order you the said Governor to deliver the body of the said Roland Israel Gideon Barnett into the custody of Inspector Walter Andrews of the Metropolitan Police and I command you the said Inspector Walter Andrews to receive the said Roland Israel Gideon Barnett into your custody and to convey him within the jurisdiction of the said Dominion of Canada and there to place him in the custody of any person or persons appointed by the said Dominion to receive him, for which this shall be your Warrant.

Nowhere in these orders does it direct Andrews to escort Barnett to Toronto, just within the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada. In Anderson’s letter to Home Office, however, he informs them that in order for Andrews to escort Barnett all the way to Toronto, it will cost Canada an indemnity of Ł120,

…An indemnity for the expenses of conveying the prisoner to Canada has not been received, and in compliance with the Home Office Instructions dated 4th February 1882, as to the proceedings for the surrender of Fugitive Offenders, I am to request that the Secretary of State may be pleased to ascertain from the Colonial Office whether an indemnity will be obtained in Canada for the expenses which will amount to about Ł120 if an officer of this force is deputed to convey the prisoner to Toronto.

With time being ‘of the essence’ in order to stop Barnett’s application for release, Canada merely acquiesced to the amount. Notice how Anderson stated the sentence, ‘will be obtained in Canada’. The money was not going to be telegraphed to Andrews prior to his trip; it was going to be given to him upon his arrival in Halifax. If he did not receive the Ł120, Andrews would still have satisfied the orders of the warrant, but he would have been under no obligation to escort the prisoner to Toronto.
David points out what Inspector Stark stated to a Toronto Mail reporter specific to Andrews being in charge of the prisoner to Toronto,

Inspector Andrews was in charge of the prisoner, and the bearer of a warrant from the Imperial Government to deliver the prisoner over to the authorities at Toronto. Any person who interfered with him in the discharge of that duty, did so at his peril. (Toronto Daily Mail, Dec 12, 1888)

Stark gave the reporter misinformation. The warrant was for the delivery of the prisoner to the Dominion of Canada, not to authorities at Toronto. Andrews had a mission to Toronto, which had nothing to do with the warrant. So, why did Scotland Yard request an indemnity of Ł120, whereby extending Andrews trip all the way to Toronto, as opposed to just the Dominion of Canada, i.e., Halifax? Toronto sent Detective Stark there, and he taking charge of the prisoner would not have violated the warrant. The official records have no reason, but David surmised it was because Andrews did not believe his duties were complete until Barnett was in custody in Toronto. Even if it was a case of Andrews not trusting Stark to escort Barnett through Canada, Canadian officials – the ones who paid Andrews’ way to Toronto – would have trusted Stark, therefore, they would not have paid the full Ł120. Since Andrews stayed until the committal hearing, David also surmised it was because Canadian officials believed he might be needed to testify about the legality of the London arrest. Interestingly, the Toronto Evening News stated Andrews was in court, but “away over in a corner”, clearly not testifying.

The Toronto Mail had a reason why Andrews extended his trip to Toronto,

Roland Israel Gideon Barnett is now on his way to this country, the period of his respite having expired. He sailed this morning on the steamer Sarnia, of the Dominion line, and provided the trip is a pleasant one the steamer will arrive at Halifax a week from Saturday. As stated exclusively in THE MAIL some days ago, he will be in charge of an officer from Scotland Yard. It appears that one of the members of the staff of Scotland Yard was anxious to take a trip to America and ascertain how they did things in Toronto. On this account the staff kindly and ably seconded the petition for Barnett's extradition a piece of courtesy that the Toronto staff may on some future occasion repay. The prisoner and the officer will be met at Halifax by Inspector Stark, Chief of Detectives, and they will be conducted to this city. As the officer desired to take in the trip to Canada, word was not sent to Colonel Grassett, Chief of Police, until it was too late to think of sending an officer over to England after Barnett, as he will have to be delivered over before the [6th] of December.

David claims the reporter must have made this up, but his statement about ascertaining how they did things in Toronto does explain why he made this later comment to a Montreal Daily Star reporter,

"Regarding the police system the inspector said that in London they did not as yet have the alarm patrol wagon system. He thinks it is the most perfect institution that he ever saw. In London the number of men, 15,000, had to supply the lack of the alarm system. That number, however, he said, was not nearly sufficient for the city. Six thousand more men would be applied for next year.”

So, the reported reason, likely from Stark, was not to have Andrews in court just in case they needed him to testify, but for Andrews to see how they do business. Regardless, Canada clearly paid the full Ł120 and these reasons could easily have been the cover for Andrews coming to Toronto on Tumblety business, especially when this scenario was corroborated by a reporter receiving information at Montreal Police Central Office. Keep in mind, Andrews had a reason to go to Toronto in the Tumblety case. Tumblety had a bank account in Toronto, frequented the city often in the 1880s, and was even there in January 1888, just before he left for England.

Now, Andrews’ extending his trip to Toronto because of Francis Tumblety also cannot be confirmed conclusively. There is no physical evidence, such as an official Scotland Yard order. But, should we really expect this if Scotland Yard just made Canada pay for his relatively expensive trip on their business? There is corroborating evidence from a newspaper reporter and David appropriately challenges the credibility of this evidence in order to bolster his argument. He is, in effect, minimizing the evidence to the affirmative, and maximizing evidence to the contrary. I have two points:

Point 1: The most significant newspaper report connecting Andrews with the search for Jack the Ripper, was Andrews’ visit with Montreal’s Chief of Police as published in the Evening World, December 21, 1888,

[I]ALL THE WAY FROM SCOTLAND YARD.
An English Detective Coming Here in Search of Jack the Ripper.
[SPECIAL TO THE WORLD.]
MONTREAL, Dec. 20 – Inspector Andrews, of Scotland Yard, arrived here to-day from Toronto and left to-night for New York. He tried to evade newspaper men, but incautiously revealed his identity at the Central Office, where he had an interview with Chief of Police Hughes. He refused to answer any questions regarding his mission, but said there were twenty-three detectives, two clerks and one inspector employed on the Whitechapel murder cases, and that the police were without a jot of evidence upon which to arrest anybody.
“How many men have you working in America?”
“Half a dozen.” He replied; then, hesitating, continued: “American detective agencies have offered to find the murderer on salaries and payment of expenses. But we can do that ourselves, you know.”
“Are you one of the half dozen?”
“No, my boy; don’t say anything about that. I meant detective agencies.”
“But what are you here for?”
“I had rather not say, just at present, anyhow.”
Ten days ago Andrews brought Roland Gideon Israel Barnet, charged with helping wreck the Central Bank of Toronto, to this country from England, and since his arrival he has received orders from England which will keep him in America for some time. It was announced at Police Headquarters to-day that Andrews has a commission, in connection with two other Scotland Yard men, to find the murderer in America. His inaction for so long a time, and the fact that a man suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this side three weeks ago, makes the London police believe Jack has left that country for this.
It is said among Irish Nationalists here that they have information that Andrews is remaining in America for the purpose of hunting up certain men and evidence to be used by the London Times in the Parnell case.

The exact article was reported in the St. Louis Republic on December 22, 1888, with the exception of the title, which was rephrased, “AFTER JACK THE RIPPER.” A Scotland Yard Detective Looking for Him in America. It also contained the following line, ‘Special to The Republic’. David discovered a similar article reported in the Montreal Herald on December 21, 1888, but in much less detail,

INSPECTOR Andrews of the Scotland Yard detective force, London, who brought over the celebrated Gideon Barnett, was in the city yesterday on his return to England. At the Central Station, which he visited yesterday morning he met several members of the press, and to their inquiries about the Whitechapel murders, said that so far the force was at sea, having no clue to work upon. They have arrested scores of suspected persons, but were forced to release them for want of sufficient evidence. The search is still kept up and will be until the culprit is captured. Twenty-three detectives, two clerks and an inspector are specially detailed for the Whitechapel affair, and they have received as many as 6,000 letters from police officers and others trying to give clues to the fiend.

David claims that the information absent in the Montreal Herald article demonstrates the New York World reporter in Montreal AND the St. Louis Republic reporter also in Montreal simultaneously added unsubstantiated facts in order to make the reader believe Andrews came to North America for the Ripper murders. First, there was no New York World reporter and St. Louis Republic reporter in Montreal’s Central Office Police Station during the announcement. The respective lines in the World’s and Republic’s articles, ‘Special to the World’ and ‘Special to the Republic’ mean they received the same story over the wire from a partnering newspaper organization out of Montreal.

I found the Montreal Herald article in the December 21, 1888, edition, and it is not a stand-alone story with its own headline. It is under, ‘Local News’, which consists of two columns with thirty three one paragraph stories (most just a few sentences long); including the Inspector Andrews story. So, instead of the World and the St. Louis Republic stories having information added by reporters with an agenda to connect Andrews with the Ripper murders, the Montreal Herald story is merely a condensed version of the larger story.

David argues that the World headline, ‘An English detective Coming Here In Search of Jack the Ripper’, is not supported by the contents of the article then quotes the very first paragraph, which states nothing about searching for the Ripper. The article did indeed discuss the title; David merely quoted the wrong statement in the body,

It was announced at police headquarters today that Andrews has a commission in connection with two other Scotland Yard men to find the murderer in America.

So, the title actually is supported by the contents. David did quote this statement later, but for the purpose of claiming the reporter must have merged an earlier story about Inspector Jarvis and Shore, thereby demonstrating the untrustworthiness of this version of the story. He also claims - without evidence - that the reporter incorporated, “a man suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this dis three weeks ago”. He also comments that stating this makes it seem like Andrews was chasing Tumblety, which we know could not have happened, further corroborating the untrustworthiness of the article. This ‘chasing’ problem is apparently supported by an earlier Chicago Daily Tribune article stating, “the fellow that Scotland Yard detectives followed to New York”. The problem with this challenge is Tumblety was indeed ‘chased’ by an English detective, although it was not Andrews,

…It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. He was a little man with enormous red side whiskers and a smoothly shaven chin. He was dressed in an English tweed suit and wore an enormous pair of boots with soles an inch thick. He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective. If he had been put on a stage just as he paraded up and down Fourth avenue and Tenth street yesterday he would have been called a caricature.
First he would assume his heavy villain appearance. Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm. Then his mood changed. His hat was pushed back in a devil-may-care way and he marched to No. 79 with a swagger, whistling gayly, convinced that his disguise was complete and that no one could possibly recognize him.
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying: "He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothing at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it." (New York World, December 4, 1888)

Since Tumblety arrived in New York only a day or two before this and he’s following Tumblety, once Scotland Yard found out Tumblety was in France, this particular English detective must have been sent; in a sense, chasing him across the Atlantic. Even though the detective was tailing Tumblety on December 3, by the time Andrews made it to Canada on December 9, Tumblety had vanished (Riordan shows evidence he was hiding in New York), and it is logical to assume the English detective with the red side whiskers cabled this to Scotland Yard. When Andrews arrived and received his commission, one of his tasks was to find Tumblety. Tumblety did come back on the scene in January 1889 in order to do a New York World interview, but Andrews had already left.

The English detective in New York with red side whiskers tailing Tumblety could not have been Inspector Jarvis, since the detective stated he just came from England. Jarvis was already in the United States. In view of this, David’s claim that the Scotland Yard men assisting Andrews on the Ripper case is a merging of the Jarvis and Shore story is likely incorrect.

The above corrections and clarifications demonstrates that the report out of Montreal stating Andrews’ commission was on the Ripper case is not littered with mistakes, and is actually filled with correct information.

Point 2: David suggests that the only reason why Andrews took a trip from Toronto to Niagara Falls was to visit the falls and do the tourist thing. This certainly may have been one of the reasons he took the trip, but a comment made by a reporter suggests he did indeed have a meeting in near the US Canadian border,

Then, again, there was his trip to Niagara. When he returned from there he carried a large bundle of papers and books. He said these were photographs. What he could want with an armful of photographs was more than his friends could understand. [Toronto Mail, December 20, 1888]

David mentions this statement, but glosses over it. Andrews brought back much more material than one would generally bring back from a two day trip to Niagara Falls. Keep in mind; he still had to hand-carry this stuff across Canada on a train, then across the Atlantic. It seems a photograph and a pamphlet for tourists would have sufficed.

Although, David’s claim that Andrews came to Toronto merely for the Barnett case is still viable when we evaluate the available evidence, I will argue that he came to Toronto for the politically embarrassing Tumblety mission (at least in part) is just as viable.

Sincerely,
Mike

[David Orsam]

Far from defending Simon's honor, I've stated countless times that he hasn't convinced me of the guilt of the detectives

Tom, the first thing you said about Simon Wood in this thread was that he (like Wolf) had put a lot of time and work into his publication and that it was unfair to call his work "nonsense" and "garbage", which I did not, and that you and others "enjoyed" his "stuff on Andrews" and that you didn't like me insulting him (#22). Then you wanted to make clear that Simon's "Smoke and Mirrors" was "well received" (#23) Then you claimed that Simon was not actually making a positive case but only selling a theory for us to consider. Thus, you said: "You're telling us it is 'fact' that none of these investigators did any work for the Times, etc. Simon is telling us it's 'possible' that they did. So Simon is selling me a theory to consider, but you're forcing your perspective as absolute fact" (#214). Strangely, Simon ended up claiming something similar, a claim which I quickly demolished (#259). But anyway, that is basically what I meant about you coming in here to defend Simon's honour.

[David Orsam]

The difference is that Simon didn't scream 'I've proved it'

You have put quotes around a phrase I haven't used. You are the one obsessed with concept of proof and you are the one who has been banging on about incessantly in this thread about it, not me. For example:

"some ideas will be proved wrong and some proved right and others left in that gray area." (#25)

"If you're comfortable with how you portrayed Simon, Wolf, and their work, then who am I to argue, as long as you deliver on your promise to prove them wrong" (#29)

"But when someone is saying that you were somewhere for weeks or months at a time where you were not, that should be extremely easy to prove" (#62)

"David has not proved that Labouchere was wrong" (#128)

"since it hasn't been proved that Labouchere was lying the possibility exists that he wasn't." (#128)

"If Anderson, Monro, etc were indeed doing some sly stuff in support of the Times it provides a context in which the American papers and Labouchere made their accusations and lends some measure of credibility to Labouchere (although would still fall short of proof regarding Jarvis)." (#175)

"You say there's no 'gray area' but unless I'm mistaken, it has never been proved either way" (#208)

"There's an awful lot of smoke, and you might right to say there's no fire, but have you proved it as you say?" (#208)

"Even if you're correct about Jarvis (and a forced admission is hardly proof of that), that has no bearing on Andrews, et al." (#208)

"Claiming that you've proven something is not the same as actually proving it." (#214)

"If someone feels that Simon has proved his case, they're wrong. Same with you." (#223)

"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." (#313)

"The trick is delivering on a promise of proof, which is why I've harped on that throughout the thread" (#348)

"He [Simon Wood] merely presented concise, well-written, and intriguing chapters and presented his conclusions which may in fact be wrong, but which thus far have not been proved to be wrong." (#348)

And, last but not least, (would you believe):

"Regarding Thomas Barton, David has proved (to my satisfaction, at least) that trip regarding him was legit." (#55)

From the above, you seem to have appointed yourself as the sole arbiter of 'proof'. Do we all have to wait for you to pronounce that a matter has been proved?

And what is the test of proof to be applied? Proof on the balance of probability? Proof beyond all reasonable doubt? Absolute scientific proof?

The reason I don't keep screaming about 'proof' as you have imagined me doing (possibly in a dream?) is because I know this is futile. What I have said is that I have put forward a compelling argument based on the facts and the evidence. I have also said that the Labouchere allegations were proved to be false, not by me, but they were proved to be false back in 1888 when Labouchere admitted that they were false. I honestly don't know what 'proof' you want if you refuse to accept that kind of clear evidence of falsity.

I will post more about the facts of the Labouchere allegations once I have completed this long sequence of postings.

[David Orsam]

I'm also unclear how much of the research you're being praised for is original. Much of the source material seems to be in Simon's book.

Are you serious? Even Simon has acknowledged that there is original research in my article: "That you have filled-in hitherto overlooked aspects of Jarvis's itinerary in January 1889 is a credit to you. I doff my cap." (#207)

Then there is the file HO144/478/X27302 which Simon has belatedly referred to in this thread (but not in his article or book) containing the Anderson briefing notes, the request by Jarvis to commence litigation against Labouchere, the internal thinking of the Commissioner and the Home Secretary and more.

Then there is the internal Home Office correspondence demonstrating the efforts being made to hunt down Barton and specifically mentions of Inspector Jarvis being in Canada to do this.

None of this was mentioned by Simon Wood in his article or book.

I might add that almost every post you make in this thread confirms my belief you have not read my trilogy properly. It goes back to your comment to Simon Wood that "I don't remember David's article containing all the Labouchere revelations that I'm reading in your book" (#46) despite me dealing in great detail with all of the Labouchere revelations.

[David Orsam]

(I still haven't finished his book)

Yet, on 16 April, you wrote a five star review of it on Amazon! Amazing.

[David Orsam]

Simon Wood gave you the reasonable chance to discuss via pm any question. You challenged him to do that in public. He declined. Then..In lightly schoolboy fashion. .you asked him if he was "scared"...He explained that he declined on the basis of your manner.in which he deemed rude.

I have no interest in asking Simon any questions privately. I'm not seeking information from him. This is a public thread and there should be a public debate.

Simon Wood's purported justification for refusing to answer my questions in this thread that he finds my "sneering, goading tone offensive" makes no sense whatsoever because, as you have pointed out, he volunteered to answer my questions via PM or email. If the genuine reason for refusing to answer my questions is because he finds my tone offensive then why is he prepared to answer questions in private but not in public? Please tell me.

You refer to my question as to whether he was "scared" as a schoolboy question. It was not schoolboy at all. I happen to think he is scared to debate his arguments with me because he knows he can't justify them. I think he is scared to answer any questions of mine because he fears he will not be able to answer them.

If you genuinely think that is not the case then why not ask Simon the questions I suggested Tom should ask him and see what he says?

You won't like this.

On the contrary, Phil, I was amused the whole way through – and it is good of you to answer for Simon, Wolf and Tom - but there was only one point I felt the need to respond to from your post (as above) and, bearing in mind the criticisms you have made in thread of my writing style, you might want to ponder on why that might be.

[David Orsam]

Simply because if you examine the [admittedly incomplete] record the argument by Palmer--and before him Evans and Gainey--that Walter Andrews was investigating (not chasing) Dr. Tumblety as the Ripper, abroad, still holds, based on the balance of probability of the meaning of limited and contradictory data.

What data?

Walter Andrews was one of his three field detectives investigating the Whitechapel murders. Why send him to Canada and risk more press crucifixtion over another key police figure being abroad during the Terror?...It was a no-win situation for C.I.D.

But Andrews was not a key public figure or known to the public to be one of three field detectives investigation the Whitechapel murders. Not a single press report mentioning Andrews in this context has been located. There was, thus, no possible risk of crucifixion for Anderson and, indeed, there was not a single criticism of Anderson in the British press for sending Andrews to Canada during the Terror. So there was no question of a "no-win" situation for C.I.D. at all. Further, as Andrews told the Canadian journalists in Montreal, there were "23 detectives, two clerks and an inspector" specially detailed for the Whitechapel Affair. Note the reference to one inspector. Scotland Yard had plenty of detectives and lots of inspectors. There was not going to be any issue about one of them going to Canada on important police business.

Otherwise we have the coincidence that a Ripper hunter has travelled to the [recent] haunts of a prime Ripper suspect. Conicidences happen, of course, but I do not think this is one of them.

Or we have the oddity that a "Ripper hunter" has gone to a city in which the prime Ripper suspect is not to be found. Tumblety travelled around a lot so there were plenty of cities in the world that would have thrown up such a coincidence; Boston, Hamilton, Montreal, Quebec, Buffalo, St. John, New York, Washington, Baltimore, Liverpool, Missouri, Cincinnati, San Francisco, Vallejo etc. We know that Andrews was tasked with taking Roland Barnett back to Toronto, his extradition having been specifically requested by the Toronto police – the timing being explained by extradition law – and that Andrews had arrested Barnett in London some months earlier. So of course it was a coincidence.

[Phil Carter]

I have no interest in asking Simon any questions privately. I'm not seeking information from him. This is a public thread and there should be a public debate.

Simon Wood's purported justification for refusing to answer my questions in this thread that he finds my "sneering, goading tone offensive" makes no sense whatsoever because, as you have pointed out, he volunteered to answer my questions via PM or email. If the genuine reason for refusing to answer my questions is because he finds my tone offensive then why is he prepared to answer questions in private but not in public? Please tell me.

You refer to my question as to whether he was "scared" as a schoolboy question. It was not schoolboy at all. I happen to think he is scared to debate his arguments with me because he knows he can't justify them. I think he is scared to answer any questions of mine because he fears he will not be able to answer them.

If you genuinely think that is not the case then why not ask Simon the questions I suggested Tom should ask him and see what he says?



On the contrary, Phil, I was amused the whole way through – and it is good of you to answer for Simon, Wolf and Tom - but there was only one point I felt the need to respond to from your post (as above) and, bearing in mind the criticisms you have made in thread of my writing style, you might want to ponder on why that might be.

David,

I have only one thought to add.
I am reminded of Shakespeare. William.
I am reminded of The Merchant of Venice.
I am reminded of Shylock.
I am reminded of the need for the "pound of flesh"
I am also reminded of the response. .that you may have your pound of flesh..but not one drop of blood must you spill whilst acquiring it.
Simon offered you your pound of flesh on his terms..not yours. You can't get it without spilling a drop of blood..In other words..In a pm. You turned it down. So Shylock does not get his pound of flesh he publically craves.

You end up barking to the moon..because goading Simon didn't work. You failed totally on your attempt to cajole, goad and insinuate a response. Your methodology is clearly therefore a failure.

revenge is a dish best served cold David. You present it boiling hot.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

...and it is good of you to answer for Simon, Wolf and Tom - but there was only one point I felt the need to respond to from your post (as above) and, bearing in mind the criticisms you have made in thread of my writing style, you might want to ponder on why that might be.

Oh and David..just so you know...I don't answer for anyone. I answer from my own observations. .and would not presume to do such a thing.
As to the 2nd point. I honestly have no interest in your reasons.


Phil