The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[Simon Wood]

Send me a PM.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

In answer to your closing question, no.

You're not going to do the honourable thing? Okay, well that's up to you.

Are you prepared to answer some questions that I have about your work?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I await your article with bated breath.

In answer to your closing question, no.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Ask yourself your own question.

Not a single piece of evidence has emerged over 125 years to suggest that Tumblety was out on bail prior to 16th November, yet you argued black and blue that this did not necessarily mean it wasn't true.

Have I got this right?

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?

[David Orsam]

There is a sketch of Jarvis, "Buckingham Advertiser and North Bucks Free Press" Oct 2nd 1897 (item on his retirement). Bit difficult to upload, though.

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

[mklhawley]

I have kept out of the arguments on this matter because I do not know ebough about what is being talked about to voice ant opinion but seeing as you have chosen to involve me I will say this :

The only sinking ship is yours and when it sinks it will take down with it all those secondary newspaper articles you keep quoting from

A classic line which is appropriate to you and Mr Orsam comes from a famous Tv series Dads Army

Private Jones to Capt Mainwaring "They dont like it up them Capt Mainwaring"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So, you're saying newspaper articles are secondary sources, but the Sir George Arthur incident you believe without question, yet that was the only source. ...and it was the same article that stated Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion.

Hypocracy.

[mklhawley]

If SY had wanted to interview Tumblety about the Whitechapel murders there was ample opportunity for them to do so whilst he was being held on remand.

After Tumblety flew the coop it is patently obvious that SY had no interest in interviewing him.

Sorry Mike.

Regards,

Simon

So, why is it patently obvious when Andrews was quoted in Toronto at saying Scotland Yard still wanted to 'interview him'. This was in December 1888! I didn't say it, Andrews did. Andrews counters you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Those questions weren't for just Simon, but everyone else on Simon's conspiratorial sinking ship. Phil? Tom? Trevor?

I have kept out of the arguments on this matter because I do not know ebough about what is being talked about to voice ant opinion but seeing as you have chosen to involve me I will say this :

The only sinking ship is yours and when it sinks it will take down with it all those secondary newspaper articles you keep quoting from

A classic line which is appropriate to you and Mr Orsam comes from a famous Tv series Dads Army

Private Jones to Capt Mainwaring "They dont like it up them Capt Mainwaring"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

If SY had wanted to interview Tumblety about the Whitechapel murders there was ample opportunity for them to do so whilst he was being held on remand.

After Tumblety flew the coop it is patently obvious that SY had no interest in interviewing him.

Sorry Mike.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Those questions weren't for just Simon, but everyone else on Simon's conspiratorial sinking ship. Phil? Tom? Trevor?

[mklhawley]

Hi David,

Ask yourself your own question.

Not a single piece of evidence has emerged over 125 years to suggest that Tumblety was out on bail prior to 16th November, yet you argued black and blue that this did not necessarily mean it wasn't true.

Have I got this right?

Regards,

Simon

How about three pieces of evidence, or three Scotland Yard officials referring to Francis Tumblety as a Ripper suspect post Kelly murder, yet NONE of them said, 'he was in jail during the Kelly murder so he couldn't have done it." Hmmm.

1. Littlechild stating unequivically Tumblety was, 'amongst the suspects', a man clearly in the know. Why else would Sims ask Littlechild about the Ripper case?
2. Anderson soliciting US chiefs of police on ripper suspect Francis Tumblety.
3. Andrews stating not only that he was very familiar with Tumblety, even when he made a personal opinion that he was not the Whitechapel murderer, the stated Scotland Yard still wanted to interview him POST Kelly murder!

Any reason why they'd want to interview him if he was stuck in jail during the Kelly murder?

Sorry Simon

Sincerely,

Mike

[Robert]

There is a sketch of Jarvis, "Buckingham Advertiser and North Bucks Free Press" Oct 2nd 1897 (item on his retirement). Bit difficult to upload, though.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Ask yourself your own question.

Not a single piece of evidence has emerged over 125 years to suggest that Tumblety was out on bail prior to 16th November, yet you argued black and blue that this did not necessarily mean it wasn't true.

Have I got this right?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Before you check in Simon, can you help me as to whether I've understood you correctly on the allegations against Inspector Jarvis:

Labouchere makes allegations MEANS the allegations are true.

The Home Secretary denies the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.

The Commissioner of Police denies the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.

Inspector Jarvis denies the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.

Labouchere admits the allegations are false MEANS the allegations are true.

Labouchere apologises for the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.

Labouchere pays £100 and Jarvis' legal costs for the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.

And the fact that not a single piece of evidence has emerged after 125 years to support the allegations MEANS the allegations are true.

Have I got this right?

[Phil Carter]

Note to self: Must not forget to book myself into the Aaron Kosminski Wing at Colney Hatch.

Hello Simon,

Careful. Someone will find your book , in 100 years from now with fading scribble saying what you really meant....



Phil