The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[mklhawley]

I also wondered about this: "Those who oppose the notion that Tumblety was even considered by Scotland Yard as being a Jack the Ripper suspect, such as Simon D. Wood and Wolf Vanderlinden,..."

This is something that gets thrown at me from time to time usually by Tumblety supporters. The idea seems to be that if you can label someone so closed minded on the subject of Tumblety that they can't even acknowledge that Tumblety was an actual suspect then anything they say about the good doctor must be taken with a grain of salt. I, however, am not one of those, despite what David claims.

I hope you don't mean me, Wolf. I know darn well you reject Simon's and Trevor's assertion that Tumblety wasn't even a minor suspect. I suspect you and David agree quite closely on this subject.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

It didn't silence me Trevor. Perhaps you are unaware that the relevant thread was locked by Admin on the day I was going to post a response. Then, as I made very clear at the time, I left my response for the article in Ripperologist which Paul Begg invited me to submit. The case of Oscar Wilde doesn't assist you at all for the reasons I have already included in my article.

Au contraire mon ami. The thread was re opened and the silence was deafening. It vindicates my earlier stuff and as stated blows your negating argument out of the water. Its a shame it looks as if I will have to do it all over again

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mayerling]

Good find Robert! I've had a go with an upload.

Looking at the woodcut drawing of Inspector Jarvis, I'm struck at how unlike one's image of a detective from Scotland Yard he looks. With his spectacles and moustace and prominent girth he looks either like a professor or a successful middle class businessman.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Hi Wolf,

An interesting post.

Firstly, let me say in respect of the comment "David's tone towards me" that, as I sit here, I am genuinely not aware of any tone that I adopted towards you in the articles, regardless of how many people have emailed you. If you have any specific examples that you object to please post and I will consider if I have been unfair. It is true that I come down hard on what I believe to be bad arguments but that is all part of my debating technique which could, of course, alienate some readers but it's a risk I take. I would expect my own bad arguments (in the unlikely event I ever put forward any!) to be dismissed in similar fashion if desired. I am not someone who can dish out but not take it. As far as I am concerned, arguments do not have feelings so we should be able to say what we like about them! I also hope that you noted my comments about you to Tom earlier in this thread.

As for my statement about you not being prepared to accept Tumblety as a JTR suspect, your criticism is a fair one and I do apologise for misrepresenting your views in an unthinking manner. I wasn't trying to make any point from this, or even to label you, it was simply a way of writing the introduction to my Third Man article to try and clarify the sides of the argument but you are of course quite right to raise the objection. I have now changed the sentence to read:

"Those who oppose the notion that Tumblety was even considered by Scotland Yard as being a Jack the Ripper suspect, such as Simon D. Wood, and others such as Wolf Vanderlinden, have claimed that the visit of Andrews to Canada was part of the illegal work on behalf of the Times being carried out by Scotland Yard detectives in North America".

I hope that is satisfactory to you but would be happy to amend further if you don't think that quite captures it.

The rest of your comments are very generous and fair but, from our previous discussions on this forum, I expected nothing else from you.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Well, I for one greatly enjoyed David's second article, I only skimmed the first and, having just returned from vacation, haven't had time to read the third. Some amazing research which builds on his earlier amazing efforts here on the Casebook.

I do have some problems, however. A couple of people have e-mailed me about David's tone towards me, so more than just Tom wonders about that. The idea that David is being "dickish," as one person said to me, is out there.

I also wondered about this: "Those who oppose the notion that Tumblety was even considered by Scotland Yard as being a Jack the Ripper suspect, such as Simon D. Wood and Wolf Vanderlinden,..."

This is something that gets thrown at me from time to time usually by Tumblety supporters. The idea seems to be that if you can label someone so closed minded on the subject of Tumblety that they can't even acknowledge that Tumblety was an actual suspect then anything they say about the good doctor must be taken with a grain of salt. I, however, am not one of those, despite what David claims. I would have thought this obvious from my Tumblety posts and articles:

"Francis Tumblety was a suspect in the Whitechapel murders. In the opinion of Chief Inspector John George Littlechild he was even “a likely suspect.” There are two other items which show an interest in the American quack by Scotland Yard. The first is the fact that the British authorities contacted Chief Inspector Byrnes of the New York City Detective Bureau and asked him to keep an eye on the doctor while in the city. There was even reports of an English detective doing the same thing. The second is that when San Francisco Chief of Police Crowley sent a telegram to Scotland Yard stating that he could supply examples of Tumblety’s handwriting, the London police didn’t respond by cabling back the response “Who?” Instead Assistant Commissioner Dr. Robert Anderson, the head of the overall Ripper investigation, himself asked Crowley to send the samples along with any details about Tumblety. It is therefore impossible to refute the fact that Dr. Francis Tumblety was suspected of being Jack the Ripper but what kind of suspect was he?"
On The Trail Of Tumblety? Part 2, Ripper Notes #24, October, 2005.

I have some other thoughts but let me read the last of David's articles, when I can get around to it, before I comment. However, let me reiterate here how impressive I thought David's work has been. This is truly ground breaking stuff.

Wolf.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

There you go again.

I rest my case.

Your case is about my "sneering, goading tone"??? I thought your case was about Scotland Yard officers committing illegal acts in America and the Commissioner of Police resigning as a result. But perhaps you have now abandoned that case after reading my trilogy?

And one would have thought that you would want to wipe that "sneering, goading tone" off my face (and, yes, I know a tone isn't on a face!) by answering my questions in full, in public, and rebutting the arguments in my trilogy. Was that not why you decided to post in this thread? Instead, you have raised one relatively minor point which I had already dealt with in the trilogy (and then accused me of being patronising when I asked you if you had actually read my trilogy!!!).

As far as I am concerned, Simon, you have no case. You once demonstrated that Stephen Knight's book was elaborate balderdash and I have now demonstrated that your main arguments are elaborate balderdash. Do you remember telling me (on this forum, 26 November 2014) "You're obviously not too attuned to irony."? Well I think that is quite ironic, no?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

There you go again.

I rest my case.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Not at all.

It's because I find your sneering, goading tone offensive.

Please do not bother me again.

Wow! Going from "send me a PM" to "do not bother me again" within 15 minutes. A poor excuse for a refusal to answer questions about your work on a public forum in my opinion. I suspect that what you don't like is that I have demolished all your main arguments in my trilogy. Should I refer to this as a heavy fog of silence? Or is it the heavy fog of denial?

[David Orsam]

I am not going to hi Jack this thread but I am simply going to say that you argument that the likelihood of Tumblety being bailed on Nov 7th was blown out of the water by the case of OscarWilde
Case which silenced you, but it seems you still won't accept it I look forward to reading the article

It didn't silence me Trevor. Perhaps you are unaware that the relevant thread was locked by Admin on the day I was going to post a response. Then, as I made very clear at the time, I left my response for the article in Ripperologist which Paul Begg invited me to submit. The case of Oscar Wilde doesn't assist you at all for the reasons I have already included in my article.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Not at all.

It's because I find your sneering, goading tone offensive.

Please do not bother me again.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

No, I am not.

Why not? Scared?

[Trevor Marriott]

A wholly misguided response, Simon. Not only are you introducing an off-topic subject into this thread but, as your tortuously worded question indicates, I have never advanced a positive case that Tumblety was out of prison on 9 November, only that the legal procedure in 1888 allowed for him to be released from prison on bail the day after his remand hearing on 7 November. This was in the face of a misunderstanding of the legal procedure by Trevor Marriott. The main evidence in support of my (legal) argument has been available for 125 years, in fact since 1848 (and was contained within the Indictable Offences Act), it's just that Trevor failed to spot it and/or understand the significance of it. As it happens, I have discovered new evidence to support my argument and have included it in an article which I have recently submitted to Ripperologist for publication so, if that journal decides to publish it, you will find out about it in due course.

As for the topic of this thread, when you publish an argument in support of an allegation that the Home Secretary, Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner in charge of the C.I.D. all made false statements, and that there was a conspiracy involving Scotland Yard officers to commit illegal acts in a foreign country, you do really need some sort of evidence to back up that argument don't you? My point is that there is absolutely no evidence at all to support it and all you have done is repeat the Labouchere allegations which never had any evidential support in the first place and which even he accepted were false and withdrew.

Are you now going to do the honourable thing and withdraw your own argument?

I am not going to hi Jack this thread but I am simply going to say that you argument that the likelihood of Tumblety being bailed on Nov 7th was blown out of the water by the case of OscarWilde
Case which silenced you, but it seems you still won't accept it I look forward to reading the article

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

No, I am not.

Send me a PM [or an email] and I'll answer your questions.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Send me a PM.

Why Simon? Are you not prepared to answer my questions in a public forum?

[Robert]

That's the one, David. Thanks.