The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

Your silence on the material matters in hand could have been broken by replying by saying "Yes Trevor you are right, Tumblety could not have got bail on Nov 7th, and that it was not automatic that bail was granted following committal, as the Oscar Wilde case clearly shows"

Had I said that Trevor it would have been untrue. Which explains why I didn't.

[Trevor Marriott]

Had I said that Trevor it would have been untrue. Which explains why I didn't.

Well you keep believing that its untrue because so far you have not produced one scrap of evidence to support your suggestion.

I wait with baited breath for you to come up with some wacky explanation as to how the Oscar Wilde case differed from Tumbletys.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

Well you keep believing that its untrue because so far you have not produced one scrap of evidence to support your suggestion.

I wait with baited breath for you to come up with some wacky explanation as to how the Oscar Wilde case differed from Tumbletys.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As I am waiting with 'bated' breath for you to explain away your hypocrisy. You claim articles are secondary sources, therefore unreliable, yet you wholeheartedly accept the Sir George Arthur arrest story even though the November 17, 1888 NY World article by London correspondent E. Tracy Greaves is the ONLY source. YET, this is the very same article that first claimed Tumblety was initially arrested on suspicion - something you wholeheartedly reject!

Hmmm.

[Trevor Marriott]

As I am waiting with 'bated' breath for you to explain away your hypocrisy. You claim articles are secondary sources, therefore unreliable, yet you wholeheartedly accept the Sir George Arthur arrest story even though the November 17, 1888 NY World article by London correspondent E. Tracy Greaves is the ONLY source. YET, this is the very same article that first claimed Tumblety was initially arrested on suspicion - something you wholeheartedly reject!

Hmmm.

There is no hypocrisy

You clearly put too much faith in the accuracy of newspapers articles. Sir George Arthur was arrested on suspicion of being the Ripper, that is not in dispute, and it seem the newspapers made a great play of that fact being a peer of the realm.

Tumblety wasn't arrested for being the Ripper he was arrested for Gross indecency, that's the difference. Now I hope you will stop banging on about Sir George Arthur and stop citing secondary newspaper articles.

[mklhawley]

Sir George Arthur was arrested on suspicion of being the Ripper, that is not in dispute,

But therein lies your problem, why is it not in dispute in your mind since its only source is a newspaper clipping also stating Tumblety was arrested on suspicion.

[David Orsam]

There is no hypocrisy

You clearly put too much faith in the accuracy of newspapers articles. Sir George Arthur was arrested on suspicion of being the Ripper, that is not in dispute, and it seem the newspapers made a great play of that fact being a peer of the realm.

Tumblety wasn't arrested for being the Ripper he was arrested for Gross indecency, that's the difference. Now I hope you will stop banging on about Sir George Arthur and stop citing secondary newspaper articles.

While this is all completely off-topic, it is fair to point out that your answer here, Trevor, makes no sense at all in a way that is almost alarming.

[David Orsam]

Well you keep believing that its untrue because so far you have not produced one scrap of evidence to support your suggestion.

I wait with baited breath for you to come up with some wacky explanation as to how the Oscar Wilde case differed from Tumbletys.

With all this tremendous advance publicity, and people waiting with bated breath for my article, I do hope Ripperologist decide to publish it. Assuming they do, Trevor, I look forward to discussing the point with you again then, if you are able to emerge from the deep hole that you have dug for yourself in this thread.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

How did I make this list? Because I observed (quite accurately) that the Andrews escapade to North America started out as solely about Tumblety and is now about Parnell with Tumblety mentioned only as a side note by authors?

As for the David vs Simon argument, both of them make valid points. David has not proved that Labouchere was wrong, but then perhaps the burden should fall on the accuser, and in this case I don't recall any actual evidence supporting Labouchere's accusations. Even another MP or PI or investigator corroborating him would have gone a long way. Labouchere makes enticing claims of absolute proof and witnesses and this and that, but where the hell is it and who the hell are they? Without that stuff this is all truly a he said/she said thing. So I'm not yet convinced either way. The idea of some members of the police force supporting the Times is absolutely plausible and probably did happen, but without some kind of evidence, to say it did is just an idea. But I can't say I agree with David's pollyanna view of the police, and since it hasn't been proved that Labouchere was lying the possibility exists that he wasn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Good to have Wolf with us, but just for clarity I'll mention that I'm not among those who've e-mailed Wolf. Anything I've had to say about David's tone has been said publicly on this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

How did I make this list? Because I observed (quite accurately) that the Andrews escapade to North America started out as solely about Tumblety and is now about Parnell with Tumblety mentioned only as a side note by authors?

As for the David vs Simon argument, both of them make valid points. David has not proved that Labouchere was wrong, but then perhaps the burden should fall on the accuser, and in this case I don't recall any actual evidence supporting Labouchere's accusations. Even another MP or PI or investigator corroborating him would have gone a long way. Labouchere makes enticing claims of absolute proof and witnesses and this and that, but where the hell is it and who the hell are they? Without that stuff this is all truly a he said/she said thing. So I'm not yet convinced either way. The idea of some members of the police force supporting the Times is absolutely plausible and probably did happen, but without some kind of evidence, to say it did is just an idea. But I can't say I agree with David's pollyanna view of the police, and since it hasn't been proved that Labouchere was lying the possibility exists that he wasn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You made the list because you never replied to my PM. Quite revealing. You forgot that Simon's outdated 'Smoke and Mirrors' article was before Roger's. There's actually more to the story and for you to make a conclusion, stand by.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

You made the list because you never replied to my PM. Quite revealing. You forgot that Simon's outdated 'Smoke and Mirrors' article was before Roger's. There's actually more to the story and for you to make a conclusion, stand by.

Mike

So I'm put on a list with Trevor Marriott because I forgot which Tumblety article came first? As for the PM, that was merely an oversight on my part. I read your PM in an e-mail sent to me and forgot to reply next time I logged on to Casebook. I don't get on CB much any more in case you didn't notice and when I do I'm not on for terribly long. If you look at my last post to this thread prior to today, that was the last time I was on. Also, your PM (which I just read for the second time) was more of a statement than something begging for a response.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

David has not proved that Labouchere was wrong

I'm kind of blown away by this statement Tom. I appreciate you have said that the burden of proof is on Simon Wood to prove Labouchere's allegations were true but still, I'm amazed you feel you can say this. Labouchere admitted he was wrong. He admitted the allegations were false. I don't need to prove a single thing but, in any event, all the known evidence shows that Jarvis was in Canada chasing Barton in December 1888. It is, without doubt, case closed.

[Trevor Marriott]

While this is all completely off-topic, it is fair to point out that your answer here, Trevor, makes no sense at all in a way that is almost alarming.

Then it is line with what you keep writing

[Trevor Marriott]

With all this tremendous advance publicity, and people waiting with bated breath for my article, I do hope Ripperologist decide to publish it. Assuming they do, Trevor, I look forward to discussing the point with you again then, if you are able to emerge from the deep hole that you have dug for yourself in this thread.

Well to the victor the spoils

[Trevor Marriott]

So I'm put on a list with Trevor Marriott because I forgot which Tumblety article came first? As for the PM, that was merely an oversight on my part. I read your PM in an e-mail sent to me and forgot to reply next time I logged on to Casebook. I don't get on CB much any more in case you didn't notice and when I do I'm not on for terribly long. If you look at my last post to this thread prior to today, that was the last time I was on. Also, your PM (which I just read for the second time) was more of a statement than something begging for a response.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

At least you are on a winning list !