Why Wasn't Druitt Thanked?

[David Orsam]

I knew, sadly, that this is how it would turn out. I hoped to be proven wrong. No mater how polite and bipartisan and fair you try and be it makes no damn difference with a person who cannot, by temperament, agree to disagree -- who cannot handle any dissent from their opinion (which they think are "facts", rather than an interpretation of incomplete bits and pieces).

...

Not so, thunders David, in all of his critiques! There is only a right way and a wrong way.

When I have brought up examples of other historical works to make this point, David always ignores it. Has he read no history at all That's hardly a crime but a bit rich to set yourself up as omnipotent about the subject.

Jonathan, I'm afraid you've hardly been fair and bipartisan by misrepresenting the content my article as you have done in this thread. I corrected you politely and fairly and that's that.

It's interesting however that your criticism of me in your post seems to be that I don't agree with you! i.e. you claim that I "cannot, by temperament, agree to disagree". Somehow by not agreeing with you I disppoint you because in your mind you have been fair and bipartisan (even though that is not supported by your posts).

In your "bipartisan and fair" way, you make a blatantly false statement about me saying that I have "read no history at all". It's utterly untrue. Why you say such a silly thing is beyond me.

Also in your "bipartisan and fair" way, you twist my statement of the obvious, i.e. that either Mortemer Slade is a based on Montague Druitt or he is not so that one of us is right and one of us is wrong, into some sort of weird general statement which you attribute to me that "There is only a right and a wrong way". But I have never said this.

Nor have I ever set myself up as "omnipotent" about any subject.

Changing and twisting a person's words is hardly fair and bipartisan is it? If you are going to summarize something I have said please do it accurately because, if you don't, it ends up with me having to write long and unnecessary posts correcting you over something that should have been summarized properly, with care, in the first place.

[David Orsam]

The reason I gave David the benefit of the doubt, years ago, that he must be a young person, one with a lot of time on his hands, is because of his woeful ignorance about the things he writes about. Yet he writes with such certainty about historical subjects, about which we can only provide the best argument from limited and contradictory sources.

If I have shown "woeful ignorance" in my article about Mortemer Slade, or any other articles on my website, why have you not provided a single example?

[David Orsam]

When I try and show him that he is way too narrow in his perception of the science of history, this is rejected as "lecturing". This is an extreme form of passive-aggressive behavior because what it attempts to do, whether consciously or not, is to shut down the debate. Shut down the other person's tools of debate. It's intellectually indefensible, though the early years of century are rife with examples right across western culture, so he is hardly alone.

And does David not lecture me in how I should have framed by response and when I should have got out whilst the going was good?

Such rank hypocrisy.

I don't know how it constantly happens that I post something and you translate it into you mind as something completely different then post those completely different words on the forum. Where have I told you should have got out whilst the going was good? I simply haven't said it! Or even anything like it.

Where did I lecture you as to how you should have "framed" your response?

On the basis of things I haven't said you accuse me of rank hypocrisy.

But my favourite part of the above is the first sentence. The patronising: "When I try to show him the way…." And then you complain that I reject such comments as lecturing!!!

[David Orsam]

I am simply defending myself against an amateur writer who has denounced my book as hopeless through and through; essentially a pseudo-novelistic act of creative imagination -- and he, and anybody else, has every right to say exactly that and denounce it as that! But do I not have the same right to defend myself? To try and show him how he is obsessed with trivia and misses the overall. I gave examples of this, as I have before, and it is met with seething resentment, with tantrums about how only one of us can be right (and that ain't gonna ever be me).

Well I note the childish insult of "amateur writer" and you can do this kind of thing all you like but it's hardly a substitute for a considered response to my article is it?

Once again you attribute words to me that I never said. On this occasion I have apparently "denounced" your book as "hopeless through and through" even though I have said no such thing. You have done this exact same thing in past discussions. It's some kind of inexplicable psychological trait whereby I say something like "I think Jonathan is wrong about such and such in his book" and you change that to something like "David has said that my book is utter garbage and the worst thing that's ever been written in the history of the world". Do you even realise that you do this? I find it intriguing from a psychological perspective but please stop doing it because it prolongs a debate that could be much, much, shorter. Please quote me in future when referring to something I have written (or that you think I have written) in order to save all this nonsense.

And now in this latest post I am apparently meeting your responses with "seething resentment" and "tantrums". Where on earth are you imagining this stuff from?

[David Orsam]

David misread (or I put it too obscurely) a central tenet of my thesis and, though I have pointed this out to him here, several times, he has never acknowledged this. Again this is youthful or willful behavior, and there is not much I can do about it.

Well this is at least an on track point but what is the central tenet of your thesis that I have supposedly misread?

You say you have pointed it out to me several times but, well, I must have missed it each time amongst all the irrelevant nonsense (which, I imagine, will explain why I haven't acknowledged it).

Please state what the central tenet of your thesis that I have misread is and I will acknowledge and respond.

[David Orsam]

For the first time Sims in March 1891 specified a picture of himself as looking like the [alleged] real killer, and this was just days after a toff from Macnaghten's ruling elite had begun telling people in London about Druitt, the very suspect that this chief would go to his grave believing, rightly or wrongly, was the Ripper (and said so, publicly, that he was certain in 1913). In my opinion that's too big a coincidence, because in 1914 Macnaghten says that "some years after" he learned this truth, and "some years after" Sims points to the one picture -- which due to illness he appears unusually gaunt and his hair, just this once, is parted in the dead center -- broadly resembles school pictures of Druitt.

The problem is, Jonathan, that there are two more "coincidences" aren't there at the end of February 1891?

Firstly Sadler was cleared of the Coles murder and then, as a direct result of that, there was a press report that the police knew the identity of the Ripper, being a living man who they had been following for years who frequently visited the continent (who may, as far as anyone knew, have been Sims himself). And, as a direct result of this, Sims "specified a picture of himself looking like the alleged [real] killer" (to use your words).

And these coincidences were much closer in time to Sims' article of 1 March 1891 than your supposed coincidence of a toff (Farquharson) telling people about Druitt (or, more accurately, about an unnamed son of a surgeon). For, while you refer to it as "just days later", that report broke on 11 February 1891 whereas Sims' story was on 1 March so it was really weeks later.

Further, there is no evidence or reason to believe that Macnaghten and thus Sims had any knowledge of the identity of Farquharson's suspect prior to 1 March 1891. You seem to think – or rather imagine – that Macnaghten carried out a unilateral one man inquiry into a newspaper report but surely it is just as likely, if not far more so, that Farquharson responded to the appeal made by the press 4 March 1891, which you refer to in your book, to put his evidence before the police authorities. It is also equally possible, is it not, that Farquaharson subsequently bumped into Mac at a club or social gathering and told him his story then? Or perhaps someone else told Mac about Druitt in 1892 or 1893.

It's also important to get the chronology right because it was not until 1904 that Sims first said that the real Ripper was undoubtedly like him. This does suggest that either he saw a photograph of Druitt or was told by Mac (who himself had seen a photograph of Druitt) that the mad Doctor looked like him. But where does that get us? We know that by 1894 Mac had identified Druitt as the suspect so what's the importance in whether Sims saw his photograph or not by 1904?

If you say the importance is in the description of Mortemer Slade (showing that Sims must have shown the photo to Logan or otherwise described the similarity) then I simply respond that Logan does not describe Slade has having a centre parting or a moustache. Nor is Slade described as "unusually gaunt".

[David Orsam]

That's my take and if people want to dissent from it, fine by me. But to say that I am ignoring the "facts" is ludicrous and misunderstands historical methodology in very depressing ways from a person who is not young at all.

I have not stated that you are "ignoring the facts". Once again you are imagining things being said against you which you have conjured up from your own subconscious in a very Freudian way. What I have said, and continue to say, is that, in your responses to my article, you have ignored a number of the important points I made in my article.

[David Orsam]

When I wrote that I agreed with David in some of his criticism of my book, with one exception all minor complaints, he replied that this was praiseworthy. But my rebuttal also included much more important aspects where we remain in disagreement, and this has not been absorbed -- as to be expected from a black-and-white temperament. Instead the notion of competing theories being allowed to co-exist is anathema to him. Again, this is an error common to youth (or at least it used to be) and not people of mature age who have learned that, God help us, people are messy, life is a mess, people act in paradoxical, self-defeating ways, and so on.

It is really very strange that you say that I have not "absorbed" the areas of disagreement between us. Perhaps you somehow missed my #23 which is a ridiculously long post dealing individually, point by point, with each of the areas of disagreement that you listed in your #20. If you did read the post, however, then I fail to see how it is possible for you to say that I have not "absorbed" those areas of disagreement.

It is also strange that you accuse me of somehow not allowing competing theories to co-exist (as if I had such power!). Do you not agree that some theories are wrong and can be demonstrated to be wrong?

Or is your view that every theory on a historical topic is just as valid as every other theory?

[David Orsam]

If we had a time machine then many competing arguments and interpretations could be absolutely resolved (hey, it was "Kosminski"!). But until then multiple possibilities have to exist, the merits of which are in the eye of the beholder (and not the optic of a single beholder).

Great, but in the case of your theory about the Slade/Druitt connection (and my response to it), the "beholders" are those people who have read your book and my article. Surely you are not suggesting I had no right to make any of the points I have made are you?

This constant and ceaseless moaning by you about the fact that I disagree with some of the things you have written is really quite extraordinary.

[David Orsam]

For example, Simon Wood has just posted on this thread an argument that the "North Country Vicar" is made up. A sort of publicity stunt for Griffiths' book. It's possible, but I think unlikely. Why? Because the story is ruined by the concession that it is partly fictitious (but which parts?). If the whole thing were a put-up job you would hardly admit this in part. Several reproductions of the article at the time do drop this let-down element ("The Illustrated Police News" for one). So, does that disprove Simon's opinion? Not at all. But it is why, until other clarifying sources appear -- as I believe they have but cannot show yet -- I subscribe to the opinion that I have already outlined in my book: the Vicar is real and he is writing about Druitt in disguise (as does Griffiths, Sims and Logan). Despite what I claim to have found, could I still be wrong and Simon correct? Of course, I often am wrong (and have never claimed to be an especially bright or clever person, and certainly not a 'sleuth', but you get up in the morning and you put one sock on at a time, and, you know, get on with it).

Sorry if you feel I have lectured at you, Simon.

I simply can' t understand why any of this is included in a post addressed to me (or, more accurately, I regret to say, about me). I don't need any lessons on how to develop and present an argument but I can't help feeling that you might need some lessons on how to respond to criticism.

[David Orsam]

David's manic debunking of myself, Simon, Wolf, Michael and Roger Palmer (who's next?) and the inappropriate and creepy use of message board comments has an extremely youthful pathology to it (the very title of one of his pieces, "The Suckered Trilogy", is particularly juvenile) but we all seem to have been attacked in the same way (very personally, e.g. as Don Quixote-style fools) but from the margins rather than at the center. Oh well, any over-excited pup can nip at your heels, it's not a big deal.

In your list you have missed out my article about Bruce Robinson's book ("They All Love Bruce").

Obviously "manic debunking" is your silly expression. I think my articles speak for themselves for anyone who reads them.

If it somehow makes you feel better to mention that I have written articles challenging the work of other authors then that's great. You have obviously never strongly criticised Wolf Vanderlinden's writings yourself have you? Erm, just a quick search (using my creepy FBI google skills) finds this post, addressed to Wolf, that you wrote on JTR Forums on 13 April 2015:

"Wolf, are you familiar with the psychological phenomenon of projection?

I stand by everything I wrote. I find your arguments repetitive and abusive, as do others.

You never deal with what I write--you just pretend to. When you find yourself cornered you call me idiotic, or words to that effect. Whereas you are The Truth, The Way & The Light and anybody who interprets limited and contradictory material differently to you is a F...ing Idiot (and you think you are paying them a compliment, because you are not calling them a liar). It is very childish and very arrogant. Besides, arguing with me is done by loads of people, some quite politely and a few, well, not so much. Dear, oh dear, you really have tickets on yourself as a ... self-appointed expert."

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=21162&page=6

If it makes you feel better to call "The Suckered Trilogy" a juvenile title (and I have absolutely no idea why you do so) knock yourself out. But here's the funny thing. It's rather a contrast to what you said when I published that trilogy back in May 2015. You were actually the first to respond to part 1 of that series of articles in my Suckered Trilogy thread on this forum on 21 May 2015 at #2. Here's what you said then:

"Dear David

What a fasntastic piece! Congratulations! So beautifullyl written--puts my efforts to shame. I can't wait for the other two parts."

You posted again in response to part 2 on 23 May 2015 (#8) when you said:

"Congratulations!

Another meticulous and brilliantly written piece, David, this time [partly] taking on R. J. Palmer's thesis--an interpretation that I for one subscribe to--that Inspector Walter Andrews was escorting a prisoner as an excuse to investigate Ripper suspect Dr. Tumblety.

What tremendous new sources you have found, and your thoughtful and thought-provoking revisionist take, against two competing interpretations, is very entertaining and very interesting."

I would urge anybody fascinated by the complex jigsaw that is this subject to give these essays a thorough go."

You then very kindly posted again once more at the conclusion of the trilogy, on 25 May 2015 (#13), when you said:

"Dear David

Congratulations. A very interesting and very well written finale!"

You were back on 18 June 2015 at post #296. Here's what you said then:

"David has acted with good manners and intellectual integrity.

The response from some quarters is, predictably, snide and infantile.

David has done incisive, meticulous research and argued his revisionist case with care and aplomb.

The onus is on some people to respond either as mature people who can honestly and robustly debate the meaning of ambiguous and incomplete sources or be revealed as simply buffs who are, consequently and tiresomely, doctrinaire, rude and petty (did I spell that correctly?)"

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8880

Now consider that everything I have done in my "Bridge Too Far" article, and the way I have done it, is the same as my "Suckered Trilogy" article. Try to use a bit of objectivity and you would see that what you wrote about my Suckered article might also apply to my Bridge Too Far article.

[David Orsam]

In his previous post David writes that he is not criticizing my work, just my arguments. First of all he can criticize my book all he likes. Secondly the book is an argument.

Life is short and the world can be very beautiful.

Yes, but I was not criticizing, or rather challenging, ALL the arguments in your book Jonathan. It was not an article about your book, hence, for example, I did not deal with the issue about Inspector Andrews and his supposed report re. Tumblety about which, as you are well aware, I strongly disagree with you.

Life is indeed short and the world can indeed be beautiful so may I respectfully and humbly suggest that you stop taking criticism so damn personally?

[David Orsam]

again, cant and wont reply with anything of substance against Davids counterpoints. Instead a general rant.

I have to say, I entirely agree with Abby's analysis of Jonathan's posts.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam:
In your list you have missed out my article about Bruce Robinson's book ("They All Love Bruce").

Deputising Freudian fun!

[David Orsam]

David Orsam:
In your list you have missed out my article about Bruce Robinson's book ("They All Love Bruce").

Deputising Freudian fun!

What does that mean Fisherman?