The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

Hi David.

Interesting. So you are fascinated with questions regarding Andrews’ trip to Canada enough to do a hell of a lot of impressive research which, obviously, took some time and effort to carry out. You track down various old articles on the subject (mine were published ten years ago) and went through them with a fine-toothed comb. You read Simon’s book. You also troll through posts on Casebook looking for further material. You then write a lengthy three part article on the subject (in which you mention, and deservedly dismiss, Logan’s 1928 statement) but, oddly, leave a huge yawning gap in the written history of this subject: the 1995 publication of Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey’s Tumblety based The Lodger, as well as the 1998 updated reprint?

Odder still, you say that you, apparently, weren’t interested enough to even re-read the book that laid the groundwork for the later theories. And you even fail to mention Stewart’s later thoughts on Inspector Andrews’ trip found in his and Don Rumbelow’s excellent 2006 book Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates?



Since you don’t even bother to mention the Evans/Gainey 1995 (Century Random House U.K. Ltd.)/98 (Kodansha America Inc.) Tumblety theory at all, let alone Evans’ 2006 (Sutton Publishing Ltd.) words, and since these theories differ from Palmer’s (The Casebook Examiner e-zine) then, yes, you have (purposely?) missed arguments and failed to rebut what is the most important and long lasting Andrews/Tumblety theory out there.

As I said, interesting.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf,

The "impressive research" that you say I did was based entirely on primary sources. I wasn't interested in reading ANY secondary works on the subject, other than those I set out to rebut. So your point, which you have developed at remarkable length, fails at the first hurdle.

My trilogy was rebutting - and, I think, demolishing - the arguments in Simon Wood's Ripperologist article (and his book), your arguments in Ripper Notes and R.J. Palmer's arguments in his trilogy. That's it. That was what I was doing. Not a comprehensive discussion of every single work ever written on the subject. And if you are wondering why you were included, as you seem to be, it was essentially because you personally told me on this forum that Andrews' visit to Toronto was part of some kind of convoluted Scotland Yard plot (e.g. "Whatever Andrews WAS doing in Ontario, it seem to have been set up by Anderson using the extradition of Barnett as both a cover and a way of keeping the trip to Canada off the books and out of the public eye" (26.02.15 - 'Andrews was investigating Tumblety' thread) and I wanted to read your published arguments in full and was able to find them on the internet (but I did not, with all due respect, find them at all convincing for the reasons I have stated at length in my trilogy).

I invited you to tell me of any arguments that I have missed and not rebutted which you have failed to do. You say that I have missed the most important one without telling me what it is. Until you do, there is nothing I can say.

And I don't think this line of discussion is interesting at all. It is odd. Weird even. Surely it must be possible to discuss what I have said in my trilogy rather than what I have not said. Or do you accept everything I have written?

If you do have any comments on what I have said in terms of the facts or my interpretation of them please let me know and I will do my best to respond.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Wolf,

The "impressive research" that you say I did was based entirely on primary sources. I wasn't interested in reading ANY secondary works on the subject, other than those I set out to rebut. So your point, which you have developed at remarkable length, fails at the first hurdle.

My trilogy was rebutting - and, I think, demolishing - the arguments in Simon Wood's Ripperologist article (and his book), your arguments in Ripper Notes and R.J. Palmer's arguments in his trilogy. That's it. That was what I was doing.

Hello David,

David..you specifically pointed out to me in your one and only response to my one and only posting that it wasn't about personalities in any way. Seems to me that you had one specific goal..and have continously attacked two of the three mentioned here. And you are..according to your responses..never...ever wrong.
Quite revealing to these eyes.

Seems to me..sitting quietly on the sidelines that your trilogy was..In fact..A deliberate attack on the comprehensive research and writings of the three people you mentioned.
Without pointing out the obvious..you have..In doing so... now revealed the point of your entire argument. Attacking and attempting to "demolish" three specific people's arguments whilst ignoring both the background that laid those counter arguments in the first place. .The Evans and Gainey book being one.
Those works afore any said research by the three above..are not secondary at all. They are. .being the first..primary. The basis for any argument or discussion on the subject MUST include all previous research and material. It cannot be ignored.
So that you can concentrate on attacking three specific people.
Whether any such material is advantageous to your rebuttal and attempted demolition of later material is besides the point.
Avoiding any previous work that may..or may not. .weaken your own argument...well... it is pure spin IMHO.

Sorry David. On this point you have disappointed this reader. Whilst I admired your trilogy for its effort..The lack of consideration afforded any previous material shows me exactly what your true goal is.

I have a very odd feeling of someone attacking in the fear that other people's research may have influenced the public too much..and something had to be done. The methodology smacks. .to these eyes...of a spin doctor accusing counter argument before it as spin. That's my honest opinion. As I read it.

Your method of argument devalues the thesis..IMHO.


Phil

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi David.

Nothing to get worked up about.

The "impressive research" that you say I did was based entirely on primary sources. I wasn't interested in reading ANY secondary works on the subject, other than those I set out to rebut.

Which was kinda my point. I didn’t suggest that you should have read Evans and Gainey as part of your research. I’m just curious why, if you are interested in Inspector Andrews’ trip to Southern Ontario, and you were trying to rebut the various theories concerning this trip, you left out what is basically the first, the most documented and thus the most recognized theory out there. As I keep pointing out, you don’t even name Evans and Gainey in your articles, let alone discuss what their theory is. I was curious why. But I see you may have answered this somewhat:

My trilogy was rebutting - and, I think, demolishing - the arguments in Simon Wood's Ripperologist article (and his book), your arguments in Ripper Notes and R.J. Palmer's arguments in his trilogy. That's it. That was what I was doing. Not a comprehensive discussion of every single work ever written on the subject.

So not an actual look at all the theories, or the history of the subject, let alone some context for these chosen theories, just an attempt at “demolishing” those theories which, for some reason, you have decided needed demolishing. This, of course, once more begs the question why, exactly, did you leave out the most famous and recognized theory? And I understand that you don’t find this question interesting but I certainly do. You see, I don’t know you from Adam so I’m trying to figure out what your agenda is here.

And if you are wondering why you were included…

No, not particularly. I understand why I was included, I’m just trying to figure out why certain people were excluded. There is probably some reason behind this, beyond what you have stated above, and I’m just curious what it is.

I invited you to tell me of any arguments that I have missed and not rebutted which you have failed to do. You say that I have missed the most important one without telling me what it is. Until you do, there is nothing I can say.

This surprises me a little. I’m not sure I can be any clearer but I’ll try. Evans/Gainey offer one version of Inspector Andrews trip to Southern Ontario. R.J. Palmer offers a second, different, version. Both are based on Dr. Tumblety but they are not the same theory. On top of this Stewart Evans offered a slightly altered theory in 2006. You looked briefly (in comparison to Simon and myself, that is) at Palmer’s theory, found in a small e-zine, but totally ignored everything ever written on the subject by Evans/Gainey (you don’t even name them) and, later Evans himself. A theory that is almost ubiquitous going by the literature on the subject. Look up Tumblety in books or across the internet and you, nine times out of ten, are going to find mention of the Evans/Gainey Andrews to Southern Ontario theory. This omnipresent theory is the one you have chosen to ignore. You can see, I hope, why your supposed cluelessness regarding this original theory and its importance to the subject at hand, is, to say the least, hard to credit and we are back to wondering about hidden agendas.

If, however, you really are oblivious to exactly what the Evans/Gainey theory is, or how it differs from Palmers’, and you are really asking me to do your research for you, I’m afraid I haven’t the time. Perhaps you could just read the Evans and Gainey’s book which you say you didn’t even bother to re-read when you wrote your articles.

Surely it must be possible to discuss what I have said in my trilogy rather than what I have not said. Or do you accept everything I have written?
If you do have any comments on what I have said in terms of the facts or my interpretation of them please let me know and I will do my best to respond.

Actually, this is what we are doing now. I asked what I thought was a simple question, one which you haven’t really answered so I’m trying, as I said, to figure out your agenda before I move on to other things.

Wolf.

[Abby Normal]

is anyone going to actually debate David on the substance of his articles and his analysis/interpretation of the events or is it just going to be a constant stream of huff and bluff?

I cant help but notice that simon, phil and wolf are avoiding doing so like the plague. Gee I wonder why?


Shame really-would like to see any of these guys put their money where there mouth is.

[David Orsam]

Well, I was pondering how to respond to the extraordinary twin attack from Phil and Wolf and then Abby Normal hits the nail on the head in one sentence. Why is no-one dealing with the substance of the articles? Simon Wood made one abortive attempt then disappeared. Wolf hasn't challenged any of the substance. In two posts, Phil just writes about me. And this obsession with Evans & Gainey. What's that all about?

It's ironic that Wolf is talking about hidden agendas here. I guess it's the way some people view the world. Inspector Andrews accompanied Barnett to Toronto so he must have had a hidden agenda. I write an article about the reason Inspector Andrews accompanied Barnett to Canada so I must have a hidden agenda!

The reason for my trilogy is very simple. Earlier this year I read three articles (and one recently published book) for the very first time, two of which were very kindly emailed to me by a member of this forum at my request after I became interested in the subject. I thought they were wrong on the face of them, did the research (on the primary sources) which confirmed my belief and wrote the trilogy. That's it.

I might add that two of the articles (and the book) were peddling some rather extreme conspiracy theories on the basis of no good evidence thus distorting English history and, frankly, deserved to be demolished. That is how scholarship works. I've now read Phil and Wolf's posts a few times and can't see anything sensible in them that I need to respond to, other than to suggest that Phil goes and finds out what a primary source is.

[Phil Carter]

is anyone going to actually debate David on the substance of his articles and his analysis/interpretation of the events or is it just going to be a constant stream of huff and bluff?

I cant help but notice that simon, phil and wolf are avoiding doing so like the plague. Gee I wonder why?


Shame really-would like to see any of these guys put their money where there mouth is.

Hello Abby,

I have made a total of two postings throughout the entire thread. Both are observations referring to presentation style. .which is my specific interest. I an not avoiding anything. I stick to my own field of commentary. Personal opinion based upon presentation. If you or others don't not like those observations..fine. such is freedom of opinion.
What others have done in response is of their choice.
I have the opinion that if other well known writers and historical experts on the subject of political shenanigans had been included..such as Porter for example. .His work too would have been "demolished"...In favour of keeping the Tumblety theory alive and well at all costs. But..as said..It is just a personal opinion of observation. .which means nothing on the long run.
You are entitled to your opinion. I have explained mine. Without pointed bias.


Phil

[David Orsam]

I have the opinion that if other well known writers and historical experts on the subject of political shenanigans had been included..such as Porter for example. .His work too would have been "demolished"...In favour of keeping the Tumblety theory alive and well at all costs.

Phil - I'm not sure what the above means but I hope you are not forgetting that I have put forward a positive case, based on primary documents, as to what Andrews and Jarvis were doing in North America. To that extent, it follows that any other writers that say something different are wrong, in my view, unless they have produced evidence to the contrary of which I am unaware. But if there is any evidence to the contrary, I would have expected it to have been mentioned in one of the 200+ posts in this thread.

I must say, I don't understand your comment about "keeping the Tumblety theory alive and well at all costs". If, by "Tumblety theory", you mean the notion that Inspector Andrews was doing something relating to Tumblety in while in North America, that was also demolished in my trilogy.

[Phil Carter]

Well, I was pondering how to respond to the extraordinary twin attack from Phil and Wolf and then Abby Normal hits the nail on the head in one sentence. Why is no-one dealing with the substance of the articles? Simon Wood made one abortive attempt then disappeared. Wolf hasn't challenged any of the substance. In two posts, Phil just writes about me. And this obsession with Evans & Gainey. What's that all about?
.

Hello David,

I observe another piece of careful spin....false too this time.

Simon made "one abortive attempt and then disappeared"??

Oh dear...oh dear ...oh dear...

Simon Wood has commented 21 times on this thread.
Posts 44, 58, 53, 57, 148, to Tom
Posts 183, 186 and 191 to Jeff
Post 83 to self
Post 91 to Mike
Post 180 to all
And
Posts 60, 66,87,97,99,102,105,108,149, and 152 To you David.
As the posts last to present up in the 200 range in total..that's around 10% of all.posts made. His posts lasted from post 44 to currently his.last, post 191.

Hardly "one abortive attempt then diaappeared".

Your attacking of Simon is factually unsound in your last post.

As far as the rest of your comments. I happen to agree with Simon. They are goading and sneering. I am.not surprised he finds them offensive.

Seems the style "you are happy with" puts your arguments in the shade..because the presentation shows an attitude that is being seen in an unfavourable light.

Sorry if some of us don't agree with your style.


Phil

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

I observe another piece of careful spin....false too this time.

Simon made "one abortive attempt and then disappeared"??

Oh dear...oh dear ...oh dear...

Simon Wood has commented 21 times on this thread.
Posts 44, 58, 53, 57, 148, to Tom
Posts 183, 186 and 191 to Jeff
Post 83 to self
Post 91 to Mike
Post 180 to all
And
Posts 60, 66,87,97,99,102,105,108,149, and 152 To you David.
As the posts last to present up in the 220 range in total..that's around 10% of all.posts made. His posts lasted from post 44 to currently his.last, post 191.

Hardly "one abortive attempt then diaappeared".

Your attacking of Simon is factually unsound in your last post.

As far as the rest of your comments. I happen to agree with Simon. They are goading and sneering. I am.not surprised he finds them offensive.

Seems the style "you are happy with" puts your arguments in a he shade..because the presentation shows an attitude that is being seen in an unfavourable light.

Sorry if some of us don't agree with your style.

Phil - you need to read my posts properly and not quote them out of context. Perhaps then you won't misunderstand them.

I said: "Why is no-one dealing with the substance of the articles? Simon Wood made one abortive attempt then disappeared."

In other words, he made one abortive attempt to deal with the substance of my articles. I know how many times he has posted in this thread. That's the tragedy of it. So many posts and so few of them relating to the substance of my articles.

To the extent I ever gave it any consideration, I've now also lost interest in whether you agree with my writing style or not so perhaps you need to think about your own writing style.

[Tom_Wescott]

is anyone going to actually debate David on the substance of his articles and his analysis/interpretation of the events or is it just going to be a constant stream of huff and bluff?

I tried to by pointing out that although David's article promises to prove that there's no chance any of these detectives went to America with a hidden agenda, he failed to do so, because there's still the press reports (and interviews) that say they did, and there's still Labouchere's claims, which were only retracted (and weakly at that) in the case of Jarvis.

David did succeed in making otherwise pretty convincing arguments somewhat less convincing, but we're still left with a big gray area and no hard answers.

Shame really-would like to see any of these guys put their money where there mouth is.

Simon's too busy counting the money he's making from the sale of his book, because I can guarantee the trilogy and this thread have made people curious and as Simon's the only one of this bunch with a saleable book, then...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. The only other person I know who feels it's necessary to 'demolish' the work of others is Ed Stow, for what it's worth.

[David Orsam]

I tried to by pointing out that although David's article promises to prove that there's no chance any of these detectives went to America with a hidden agenda, he failed to do so, because there's still the press reports (and interviews) that say they did, and there's still Labouchere's claims, which were only retracted (and weakly at that) in the case of Jarvis.

Tom, however much you would you like it to be true it is simply false to say that Labouchere's claims were retracted "weakly". This is Simon Wood's fantasy talk. They were retracted completely, in full, with an apology to Jarvis, and in just about the most humiliating way possible for Labouchere. Further, there are no remotely credible press reports or interviews which state that Jarvis went to America with a hidden agenda.

As for Andrews visit to Toronto, in fact, we have not yet discussed this point. You focussed entirely on the Labouchere allegations relating to Jarvis in your previous posts.

David did succeed in making otherwise pretty convincing arguments somewhat less convincing, but we're still left with a big gray area and no hard answers.

It's nice of you to say this on Simon Wood's behalf but there is, in reality, no "big gray area". It exists only in your imagination and in the imagination of anyone who believes in nonsensical conspiracy theories.

Simon's too busy counting the money he's making from the sale of his book, because I can guarantee the trilogy and this thread have made people curious and as Simon's the only one of this bunch with a saleable book, then...

I encourage as many people as possible to buy Simon Wood's book, as I did, because they will see the absence of evidence to support his allegations, if they can even work out what the allegations are, and it will be obvious which one of us is right.

The only other person I know who feels it's necessary to 'demolish' the work of others is Ed Stow, for what it's worth.

If false arguments are being published which distort history then they need to be demolished. If you don't think that is true then you must surely be the only rational person who doesn't.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

If you read my book carefully you will discover that I did not make any allegations about Inspector Jarvis, whose January 1889 perambulations in North America I detailed in reference to the alleged hunt for "Ripper suspect" Dr. Francis Tumblety. I allowed the facts to speak for themselves in order for people to reach their own conclusions about the viability of Tumblety as a suspect.

That you have filled-in hitherto overlooked aspects of Jarvis's itinerary in January 1889 is a credit to you. I doff my cap.

But your conclusion on the basis of the evidence presented in your trilogy that Jarvis, Shore and other Scotland Yard officers [if not Shore, who was the exceedingly well-informed Inspector Soyle?] were not in North America in December 1888 on behalf of The Times is unfounded.

Thus far, your attempted demolition of my work, plus that of Wolf Vanderlinden and Roger Palmer, is proving to be more of a damp squib.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

It's nice of you to say this on Simon Wood's behalf but there is, in reality, no "big gray area". It exists only in your imagination and in the imagination of anyone who believes in nonsensical conspiracy theories.

You keep throwing out 'conspiracy theory' as an insult, but the reality is we're talking about the police here. Anytime they investigate anything they are 'conspiring' to do so if more than one is involved in the investigation, as is usually the case. Therefore, if any investigation regarding Parnell took place, it was as the result of a conspiracy. You also keep suggesting that Simon and Wolf, et al invented the idea that various investigators looked for information regarding Parnell on behalf of the Times. If Simon or Wolf had pulled this out of their butt and put it out there as a theory I'd join you in slamming them down. But all of those accusations were made by contemporaries and are part of the historical record.

You say there's no 'gray area' but unless I'm mistaken, it has never been proved either way. Thus I say there's a gray area. Even if you're correct about Jarvis (and a forced admission is hardly proof of that), that has no bearing on Andrews, et al. 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?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

You keep throwing out 'conspiracy theory' as an insult

Tom, you have misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory if it is properly researched and based on evidence and, preferably, true. That is not the case here. The point I'm making is that if you want to put forward a conspiracy theory, which by definition makes serious allegations of a conspiracy, it needs to be well founded. If not, you open yourself to a demolition. Stephen Knight's Final Solution was a great read but, as Simon Wood tells us, "elaborate balderdash", just like Simon Wood's own arguments funnily enough.

but the reality is we're talking about the police here. Anytime they investigate anything they are 'conspiring' to do so if more than one is involved in the investigation, as is usually the case.

That is just so wrong it's not even worth me responding to but I guess it explains why you appear to have fallen for all this nonsense. Please look up the word 'conspiracy' in the dictionary Tom.

if any investigation regarding Parnell took place, it was as the result of a conspiracy.

This is true (unless an individual officer was doing it on own accord) but only because an investigation into Parnell on behalf of the Times by Scotland Yard officers in America would have been illegal.

You also keep suggesting that Simon and Wolf, et al invented the idea that various investigators looked for information regarding Parnell on behalf of the Times. If Simon or Wolf had pulled this out of their butt and put it out there as a theory I'd join you in slamming them down. But all of those accusations were made by contemporaries and are part of the historical record.

No such suggestion has been made by me Tom. I couldn't care less if they pulled these theories out of their butt or they were handed down to them by The Archbishop of Canterbury. They published their articles, I read them, realised they were wrong, researched them and demonstrated that they were wrong.

You say there's no 'gray area' but unless I'm mistaken, it has never been proved either way.

I'm saying you are mistaken Tom. It's clear you have read my articles - possibly skimmed them - but not really understood them.

Even if you're correct about Jarvis (and a forced admission is hardly proof of that)

In what way was Labouchere's admission "forced"? Who forced him to make it? It's what I mean about you not understanding. There was nothing forced about it at all. It was made voluntarily. He didn't have to publish his apology in Truth. He could have defended the allegations in court but, of his own free will, he chose not to. There was nothing forced about his letter to the Times. No-one was standing over his shoulder. To say that his admission/retraction was "forced" is, I regret to say, just the type of nonsense I am talking about when I refer to nonsensical conspiracy theories.

that has no bearing on Andrews, et al. 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?

Yes, in my view the fire and the smoke has been put out. I'm not convinced you have read my trilogy properly and with an open mind because if you had done you should see that.

[David Orsam]

Hi Simon,

If you read my book carefully you will discover that I did not make any allegations about Inspector Jarvis

Is this a joke? Or have I woken up this morning in some kind of parallel universe? I appreciate that you generally prefer to insinuate rather than say what you mean but on this point you have got to be kidding. You most certainly do make allegations about Inspector Jarvis. The allegation you make is that he was in North America carrying out investigations on behalf of the Times and not doing what he was supposed to be doing, namely hunting and arresting Thomas Barton. That is the allegation as clear as day. You have even repeated it in your post! Further, you allege that Labouchere's discredited allegations against Jarvis were true.

That you have filled-in hitherto overlooked aspects of Jarvis's itinerary in January 1889 is a credit to you. I doff my cap.

You mean the fact that he was involved in the arrest of Thomas Barton which is what you were saying he had nothing to do with?

But your conclusion on the basis of the evidence presented in your trilogy that Jarvis, Shore and other Scotland Yard officers...were not in North America in December 1888 on behalf of The Times is unfounded.

You are the one making the allegation that they were all there on behalf of the Times and it is for you to prove it, which you have failed to do. I'm saying they were doing normal police work as stated by Home Secretary and the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department. If you want to allege that the A.C.C. was lying then it does need some good evidence to back up that allegation doesn't it?

if not Shore, who was the exceedingly well-informed Inspector Soyle?

I have no idea but it clearly wasn't Superintendent Shore and I might remind you that you are on record as claiming that Shore landed in the United States on 7 December whereas 'Soyle' was obviously there in November.

Thus far, your attempted demolition of my work, plus that of Wolf Vanderlinden and Roger Palmer, is proving to be more of a damp squib.

I'm sure it's comforting for you to say so Simon but I'll tell you what, if you think this discussion is proving to be a damp squib why not liven it up a little bit, and show some courage, by agreeing to publicly answer any questions I have for you.