The 'Suckered!' Trilogy

[David Orsam]

And if you are right—as you appear so utterly convinced to be—I would expect you to lay out your evidence

Well, I have done that Simon. There is evidence all over my trilogy. It is jam packed with evidence. In an earlier post, you even cited the reference number of one of the files in the National Archives from which I pulled out loads of evidence! So the evidence has been laid out in full. As I asked you earlier: where is yours?

[David Orsam]

perhaps be noble in victory

This is an interesting phrase because I was unaware that you had conceded defeat, although I appreciate you are not exactly saying this. Had you done so, however, you would have found me very noble but so far you do not seem to have conceded an inch. If you have conceded anything, though, it would be helpful for me, and I’m sure all readers of this thread, if you set out which parts of my trilogy you now agree with and which parts you disagree with.

[David Orsam]

instead of stooping to childish playground bully tactics and cheap jibes about lunatic conspiracy theories.

I’m certain I have not stooped to “childish playground bully tactics” or made any “cheap jibes”. I have been trying to deal with the evidence and arguments on this issue but where the arguments on one side are in support of conspiracy theories which are so extreme and lacking in any evidential basis - and especially where straightforward and compelling counter-arguments are not absorbed or accepted - then two of the main (legitimate) weapons at my disposal become sarcasm and ridicule which I will not hesitate to deploy. That, you see Simon, is the very real risk any author runs who advances extreme conspiracy theories which attempt to re-write history (I see you that you seem to be saying you are not doing so but I will deal with this separately). Indeed, for the sake of history, it has been essential for me to attempt to knock the ideas that you have been advancing on the head before they gain wider acceptance and transfer from the narrow world of ripperology into mainstream history, thus corrupting history itself.

In any event, I don’t think you are really in any position to give me lectures. Have you forgotten that in another thread on another topic a few months ago, quite inappropriately and unjustifiably, you said to me:

"As it has become patently obvious that you have lost your grasp on reality, I shall leave you to your fantasies."

(Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence, #65, 13 February 2015.)

I have been consciously attempting not to make the same comment about you or your work, which, I think, could be said to be "very noble" of me, but I could quite easily have done so.

[David Orsam]

Let's get one thing straight. I have not accused Inspector Jarvis of being in Kansas City or Del Norte. All I have done in my book is set out the facts of the matter in chronological form. That those facts suggest questionable behaviour on the part of the Metropolitan Police is a matter which requires further enquiry....Your argument about the events of December 1888 and the subsequent events of 1890 is not with me. It is with history.

Hi Simon,

I find myself in the extraordinary position of having to tell an author what he is saying in both his book and his preceding published article. It is perfectly obvious that you have accused Inspector Jarvis of acting illegally and, indeed, of being in Kansas City and Del Norte. You have no doubt heard the expression "man on the Clapham Omnibus", often referred to in libel actions, to establish how a reasonable person would interpret a published work. In your case, Simon, there is no doubt that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would understand that you are making serious allegations against Inspector Jarvis.

Your claim to simply have been setting out "the facts of the matter in chronological form" in your book (and I assume you must include your ripperologist article too) is laughable and does not wash.

Let’s just go through some examples of where you do far more than set out facts.

In Smoke & Mirrors, Ripperologist 106:

"All in all, Barton appears to have been nothing but a convenient cover for Jarvis’s true business in America."

This is your own conclusion. It has nothing to do with setting out "the facts of the matter."

"'I unreservedly withdraw my original statement and offer my apologies to Inspector Jarvis.’ he [Labouchere] added and followed up with a rather pathetic and wholly unconvincing explanation in a letter published in The Times on 23 December 1890.".

The words "pathetic and wholly unconvincing" form a conclusion you bring into your article which is far from setting out the facts.

"At the time nobody was under any illusions about Jarvis’s presence in Colorado. He also appears to have taken the flak for Andrews and Shore, for no criticisms were levelled at their extracurricular activities in America and Canada. And, since Jarvis and his superior, Superintendent Shore, were scheming together in America, the idea that Jarvis was vindicated through some sort of internal disciplinary procedure beggars belief. In my view, this is another instance of the smug, self-righteous Anderson at his dissembling best."

First of all, that passage contains a statement that Jarvis was in Colorado but you told me you were not alleging that he was in Del Norte, Colorado. The only meaning that can be extracted from a reference to "Jarvis’s presence in Colorado" is that you were saying that he was in Del Norte.

Then you say, as a purported matter of fact, that "Jarvis and his superior, Superintendent Shore, were scheming together in America". But that is not an established fact at all.

Then you offer what is expressly stated to be your own personal view of Anderson as "smug" and "self-righteous" showing all kinds of unnecessary and unscholarly prejudice against the man.

"Thomson was the private agent mentioned in the House of Commons debate on 6 June 1890. His conduit to Anderson and The Times was William R. Hoare, the British Consul in New York who had sent Inspector Jarvis to Kansas and Colorado."

This, Simon, is a statement of purported fact on your part that Hoare sent Inspector Jarvis to Kansas and Colorado, and thus that Jarvis was in Kansas and Colorado, yet you have told me in your post: "I have not accused Inspector Jarvis of being in Kansas City or Del Norte." How are those two statements consistent with each other?

"There is little doubt in my mind that Labouchere was manoeuvred into a retraction."

This is your personal opinion, with absolutely no evidential support for it, or even explanation, and the only sensible meaning is that Labouchere’s allegations were true but that he retracted those allegations for sinister reasons.

Those quotes are from your published article. I don’t want to reproduce too much from your book but four quotes from it will suffice:

"Evidence would also come to light placing Jarvis, and his superior officer, Superintendent John Shore, over eight hundred miles west at Kansas City during the latter half of December 1888."

This not setting out the facts of the matter in chronological order. This is a factual inaccuracy by you because there is no such evidence.

"We can place him [Jarvis] in the company of Inspector Andrews at the Prospect House Hotel, Niagara, over the weekend of 15th and 16th December."

This is you speaking Simon. And no we can’t.

"On returning to London, Inspector Jarvis continued to dazzle and confuse."

What can you possibly mean by this unless you were saying that Inspector Jarvis was deliberately giving false evidence or information? It is hardly setting out the facts of the matter in chronological order is it?

At the conclusion of your book, you refer to a number of things including "the antics of Scotland Yard detectives in North America" in which you state that "differing measures of official chicanery can be discerned".

This is a clear statement by you that there was "official chicanery" by Scotland Yard detectives and, in the context of your book where the only Scotland Yard detectives said to have been active in North America are Andrews, Jarvis and Shore, this is a clear accusation by you that Jarvis was involved in some sort of chicanery and, in the context of the rest of your book, and your Ripperologist article, the man on the Clapham Omnibus can only conclude that you are saying that Inspector Jarvis was working for the Times in North America and especially in Del Norte.

You really cannot wriggle out of it Simon, although it is interesting that you now seem to want to. But your own words condemn you.

[David Orsam]

Just one more thing Simon.

My question in #242:

How was Labouchere coerced into a volte-face? And who coerced him?

Any chance of an answer? Or are you, in fact, performing your own volte-face and withdrawing the suggestion?

[Simon Wood]

Dear David,

"Indeed, for the sake of history, it has been essential for me to attempt to knock the ideas that you have been advancing on the head before they gain wider acceptance and transfer from the narrow world of ripperology into mainstream history, thus corrupting history itself."

I'm not sure why, but the word arrogant has just popped into my head.

May I remind you once again that it is not me who advanced these ideas. I merely reported them, detailing the accusations and the denials in an even-handed manner. Don't shoot the messenger. At no time have I advanced an extreme conspiracy theory regarding Inspector Jarvis which attempts to re-write history. That is solely a product of your fevered imagination. I am not that ambitious.

However, I shall sleep soundly tonight knowing that history is safe in your hands.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Dear David,

"Indeed, for the sake of history, it has been essential for me to attempt to knock the ideas that you have been advancing on the head before they gain wider acceptance and transfer from the narrow world of ripperology into mainstream history, thus corrupting history itself."

I'm not sure why, but the word arrogant has just popped into my head.

Might it be because you have no respect for history but are quite happy to to advance or (according to you) repeat a distorted version of it?

[David Orsam]

May I remind you once again that it is not me who advanced these ideas. I merely reported them, detailing the accusations and the denials in an even-handed manner. Don't shoot the messenger. At no time have I advanced an extreme conspiracy theory regarding Inspector Jarvis which attempts to re-write history. That is solely a product of your fevered imagination. I am not that ambitious.

Have you read my post #259 in this thread? I have demonstrated that you have indeed attempted to rewrite history by advancing an extreme conspiracy theory regarding Inspector Jarvis by quoting your own words from your article and book. Or are you saying I have imagined those words?

[David Orsam]

However, I shall sleep soundly tonight knowing that history is safe in your hands.

Excellent Simon. Good night.

[Hunter]

...Indeed, for the sake of history, it has been essential for me to attempt to knock the ideas that you have been advancing on the head before they gain wider acceptance and transfer from the narrow world of ripperology into mainstream history, thus corrupting history itself...

You do realize, David, that this field has little to do with "history" as far as it is applied, except in occasional rare instances which are notable because of their rarity.

It is the nature of the beast.

[Abby Normal]

You do realize, David, that this field has little to do with "history" as far as it is applied, except in occasional rare instances which are notable because of their rarity.

It is the nature of the beast.

Oh. No. This field has everything to do with history. And the interpretation of not only ripper related facts but the history of Victorian era happenings in general.

Which orsam has done in spades.


I think the truth is most important don't you hunter?


Strange posts. Not sure what's going on here?

[Mayerling]

Oh. No. This field has everything to do with history. And the interpretation of not only ripper related facts but the history of Victorian era happenings in general.

Which orsam has done in spades.


I think the truth is most important don't you hunter?


Strange posts. Not sure what's going on here?

Hi Abby,

As a self-important history major I felt like I should give you a lecture on what is considered "important" in history - and as I thought about it I sounded so damned pompous and self-inflated I decided against doing so.

Strange posts indeed.

However, if I may bring something up of interest here - yesterday I made one of my rare book buying visits to the Barnes & Noble store in the Bay Terrace shopping center in Bayside, Queens, NYC. I purchased a book in the "True Crime" area that appears to relate to some of the matter here - the book is "Blood Runs Green: The Murder that Transfixed Gilded Age Chicago". It is by Gillian O'Brien, who happens to be a senior lecturer in history at Liverpool John Moores University. Therefore she presumably is residing closer to our British contingent.

The book is published in Chicago and London by the University of Chicago Press, and has ISBN-13: 978-0-226-24895-0 (cloth) and ISBN-13: 978-0-226-24900-1 (e-book). It is very nicely illustrated.

The subject matter is Clan-na-gael and the murder (in 1889) of Dr. Patrick Cronin. Jack the Ripper is mentioned (according to the index) three times in the text, and I did not see any reference to Inspector Jarvis. It certainly deals with the Fenians and the problems or Anglo-American/Anglo-Irish/Irish-American/and Canadian American relationships. I have only purchased and have not read it but it looks good from what I have seen. It also has very fine and explicit annotations in the back.

It cost me here $25.00. I'm glad I got it. My attempts to find either of David's two books, or Helena's biography on Chapman, or the new book on Cream all flopped - apparently the branch of Barnes & Noble had none listed for the authors or the titles. So I was unable to order them from here.

Interestingly I noted that there seems to be a book on Frances Coles. But I was trying to find the other three authors' works.

Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jeff,

It's 2015. You go to B&N for bestsellers, DVDs vinyl records, and non-digital toys for children. For everything else (including niche books), you go to Amazon.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

Then it moves on to witness statement evidence which is drafted and exchanged shortly before trial.

The likelihood is that it was only when he received a witness statement from Jarvis demonstrating exactly what the inspector had been doing in December 1888 that Labouchere felt that he could not continue to persist with the allegations against him.

In fact, by way of correction, exchange of witness statements prior to trial was only introduced in the twentieth century and would not have applied to an action in 1888. During the nineteenth century, there appears to have been much more importance placed in interrogatories as the means by which parties stated their case, probably by way of affidavit. So I think the basic point remains the same: Labouchere would have been provided with Jarvis' answers to his questions at some point during the proceedings and realised he was mistaken.

[David Orsam]

You do realize, David, that this field has little to do with "history" as far as it is applied, except in occasional rare instances which are notable because of their rarity.

It is the nature of the beast.

Hi Hunter, - I assume by "this field" you mean ripperology but Simon Wood and Wolf Vanderlinden have gone far wider than simply discussing JTR and have moved into an area of history that is not traditionally associated with the Ripper murders.