Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[Phil Carter]

So.. getting back to the thread point. John Kelly isnt a suspect as such.. but his movements are highly suspicious.
He testified that, when asked about his working habits, was regularly working for a fruiteer.
This is at odds with his other testimony.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

And finally..Mr. Simon Wood has shown that the story of the nights before..where Eddowes stayed and for how long before release is pure hokum.

Phil

[David Orsam]

Respectfully David,

Showing continuai argumentation, lack of humilty, giving the distinct impression of always being right, never being wrong, attacking writer after writer, tearing apart theory after theory eith a seeming.to this reader; venom..avoiding attacking anything that is pro police or pro Kosminski/Tumblety, just isnt to my taste. Additionally poor meaning jibes like "Life on Mars" at people give the distinct impression of "bring looked down upon". Which gives the impression of arrogance and a distinct lack of social skills and good manners.

Mellow down a little David. Just a piece of well meaning advice
You are not always right. You do not need to argue your point to get the final word. Then it only gives the impression of excessive interest. Which is why I personally choose other writers on the subject long before you.

Having attacked Bernard Porter, and anyone who has defended or supported something that goes against the "official" police-backed versions of events..in any way, down to the last morsel or word..I fully expect you to take various books of Messrs Begg and Evans apart.
It won't happen. .because that isnt your agenda..is it?

Now. Ive tried to tell you..as politely as I can..of the impression you publically give.
I am sorry. But it becomes..the impression. .of compulsive behaviour.
Id take far more close observation of your written material had you shown a soupcon of humility.

Im just a long time interested party. Nothing special at all. Get masses wrong too. But I try to respect LIVING authors and their works. In your case.. I find that increasingly hard to do.

Respectfully

Isn't that what you would describe as an "attack" on my own work, Phil? The very thing you claim to find distasteful. Ironic and hypocritical at the same time, no?

Your post certainly is full of the most awful, hysterical nonsense so perhaps it is you who needs to "mellow down" a bit.

If you think I "avoid attacking" anything that is pro Tumblety you clearly haven't read my article on Mike Hawley's book, entitled "The English Detective" http://www.orsam.co.uk/theenglishdetective.htm

And I'm reminded of your response in this forum to my Suckered! Plus Quadrilogy in September 2015 when you accused me of frequently quoting and relying on a book by Begg and Skinner, thus showing, according to you, "unadmitted bias" towards their work. Paul Begg had to step in and correct you at the time, saying: "he mentions the book Keith and I wrote back in the mists of time only three times, or maybe only twice, and is critical of what we wrote". Have you simply forgotten that? It's embarrassing isn't it? Given that you completely misunderstood what I was saying about Begg & Skinner's book in my article, perhaps it is not surprising you have put it out of your mind.

Where I disagree with Stewart Evans, or think he has got something wrong, I have actually said so on more than one occasion so I simply don't know what you are talking about.

I have found the writers that you list (Paul Begg, Keith Skinner and Stewart Evans) to be sensible, professional writers and researchers who write considered books based on the evidence, not on pre-conceived notions of conspiracies which involve twisting the evidence to fit those conspiracies. That's not to say that those writers who I have written about are not necessarily sensible or professional but I can't criticise or challenge work if I see nothing to criticise or challenge can I Phil?

In fact, it's ironic that despite expressing your distaste for my "attacking" of other works you seem to be encouraging me to expand my range of "attacks"! Now you want me to "attack" Begg and Evans and anything "pro-kosminski" or "pro-police", apparently. You took the same approach back in September 2015 when you said:

"I now FULLY expect you David to "disembowell" the efforts of Donald Thomas… - Alex Buttertworth…Bernard Porter - …Lindsay Clutterbuck…E. Thomas Wood…and the memoirs of William Melville himself".

But as I explained to you back then, Phil, I can't possibly write and research an article about every single book on every single topic in existence. There isn't time in the world.

My articles have been responses to books or articles that I have read but where haven't been convinced that everything in them has been accurate or compelling. My responses have been based on research that I have carried out. Why you have a problem with this I simply do not know although I fully appreciate that you seem to get remarkably upset whenever I criticise, challenge or contradict anything written by Simon Wood.

Funnily enough, that very same Simon Wood boasts of attacking (to use your word) Stephen Knight's Final Solution in the mid-1970s when he found it to be "elaborate balderdash" and tried to interest newspapers in his findings, despite Knight being very much alive at the time. I don't recall seeing any criticism from you ever about this but please correct me if I am wrong.

I've never claimed to be always right, Phil, so whatever impression you have picked up about me is based on an evident misunderstanding on your part.

If I'm wrong about something in my articles go ahead and post the reasons to show that I'm wrong and I'll deal with it. That's how it works. Perhaps you are just frustrated that can't do it, and no-one else has either, so you attribute to me feelings of superiority or lack of humility which I don't possess.

It seems to me that you simply don't understand the principle of scholarship. Work has to be critically assessed (regardless of whether a writer is living or dead) not unthinkingly accepted.

Your attitude, whereby you can't seem to accept or even read criticism of a work that you like or admire, shows that you are unwilling or incapable of challenging your own assumptions. I guess you are happy to read untrue stories that uphold what you would like to think happened in 1888 rather than the real facts.

Anyway, regarding the actual purpose for which I was posting in this thread. The reference to "Life or Mars" was a perfectly proper reference to illustrate a point which I will repeat. It's no good asking a police officer who served in the 1970s for any information about the police in the 1880s. It requires research into the period for a proper knowledge of this. So you are deluding yourself if you think you have obtained anything useful from your discussions with your friend.

[David Orsam]

And finally..Mr. Simon Wood has shown that the story of the nights before..where Eddowes stayed and for how long before release is pure hokum.

Where has Simon Wood shown this?

[Abby Normal]

No conspiracy theory... no theory at sll.
Shame..but thats how it is.

What I do say is simple.
There were things going on in the area of very serious importance. To ignore it as unconnected is foolish. For it may be.

Phil

ahh I see. no theory at all. not even any ideas how these might have been connected to the ripper crimes. brilliant.

To ignore it as unconnected is foolish. For it may be.

so not only no conspiracy theory. only a "may be" connected cryptic.
Not even a wisp of a wisp.

The mists of the barrow downs have more substance.

Shame..

yes it is

[Phil Carter]

ahh I see. no theory at all. not even any ideas how these might have been connected to the ripper crimes. brilliant.



so not only no conspiracy theory. only a "may be" connected cryptic.
Not even a wisp of a wisp.

The mists of the barrow downs have more substance.



yes it is

The point, you may have noticed, is that no matter how hard you try to plant a "name" against a poster.. you cannot.
. I DO not HAVE to have a theory just because you want me to have one.
That way my options are open and flexible.
I am yet to see your good self present a long, in depth theory of the scenario.
just an awful lot of comments upon others and their postings.

At least I ask pertinent questions that make people think a little...so I have been widely told.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Where has Simon Wood shown this?

Why don't you ask him? Depending on if he could be bothered to reply to you of course..having already attacked his book from start to finish.

Otherwise.. its on here.. somewhere amongst his nearly 4,000 posts


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Isn't that what you would describe as an "attack" on my own work, Phil? The very thing you claim to find distasteful. Ironic and hypocritical at the same time, no?

Your post certainly is full of the most awful, hysterical nonsense so perhaps it is you who needs to "mellow down" a bit.

If you think I "avoid attacking" anything that is pro Tumblety you clearly haven't read my article on Mike Hawley's book, entitled "The English Detective" http://www.orsam.co.uk/theenglishdetective.htm

And I'm reminded of your response in this forum to my Suckered! Plus Quadrilogy in September 2015 when you accused me of frequently quoting and relying on a book by Begg and Skinner, thus showing, according to you, "unadmitted bias" towards their work. Paul Begg had to step in and correct you at the time, saying: "he mentions the book Keith and I wrote back in the mists of time only three times, or maybe only twice, and is critical of what we wrote". Have you simply forgotten that? It's embarrassing isn't it? Given that you completely misunderstood what I was saying about Begg & Skinner's book in my article, perhaps it is not surprising you have put it out of your mind.

Where I disagree with Stewart Evans, or think he has got something wrong, I have actually said so on more than one occasion so I simply don't know what you are talking about.

I have found the writers that you list (Paul Begg, Keith Skinner and Stewart Evans) to be sensible, professional writers and researchers who write considered books based on the evidence, not on pre-conceived notions of conspiracies which involve twisting the evidence to fit those conspiracies. That's not to say that those writers who I have written about are not necessarily sensible or professional but I can't criticise or challenge work if I see nothing to criticise or challenge can I Phil?

In fact, it's ironic that despite expressing your distaste for my "attacking" of other works you seem to be encouraging me to expand my range of "attacks"! Now you want me to "attack" Begg and Evans and anything "pro-kosminski" or "pro-police", apparently. You took the same approach back in September 2015 when you said:

"I now FULLY expect you David to "disembowell" the efforts of Donald Thomas… - Alex Buttertworth…Bernard Porter - …Lindsay Clutterbuck…E. Thomas Wood…and the memoirs of William Melville himself".

But as I explained to you back then, Phil, I can't possibly write and research an article about every single book on every single topic in existence. There isn't time in the world.

My articles have been responses to books or articles that I have read but where haven't been convinced that everything in them has been accurate or compelling. My responses have been based on research that I have carried out. Why you have a problem with this I simply do not know although I fully appreciate that you seem to get remarkably upset whenever I criticise, challenge or contradict anything written by Simon Wood.

Funnily enough, that very same Simon Wood boasts of attacking (to use your word) Stephen Knight's Final Solution in the mid-1970s when he found it to be "elaborate balderdash" and tried to interest newspapers in his findings, despite Knight being very much alive at the time. I don't recall seeing any criticism from you ever about this but please correct me if I am wrong.

I've never claimed to be always right, Phil, so whatever impression you have picked up about me is based on an evident misunderstanding on your part.

If I'm wrong about something in my articles go ahead and post the reasons to show that I'm wrong and I'll deal with it. That's how it works. Perhaps you are just frustrated that can't do it, and no-one else has either, so you attribute to me feelings of superiority or lack of humility which I don't possess.

It seems to me that you simply don't understand the principle of scholarship. Work has to be critically assessed (regardless of whether a writer is living or dead) not unthinkingly accepted.

Your attitude, whereby you can't seem to accept or even read criticism of a work that you like or admire, shows that you are unwilling or incapable of challenging your own assumptions. I guess you are happy to read untrue stories that uphold what you would like to think happened in 1888 rather than the real facts.

Anyway, regarding the actual purpose for which I was posting in this thread. The reference to "Life or Mars" was a perfectly proper reference to illustrate a point which I will repeat. It's no good asking a police officer who served in the 1970s for any information about the police in the 1880s. It requires research into the period for a proper knowledge of this. So you are deluding yourself if you think you have obtained anything useful from your discussions with your friend.

Yup.

You are correct. You do not indeed posess humility.
None whatsoever.





Phil

[David Orsam]

Why don't you ask him? Depending on if he could be bothered to reply to you of course..having already attacked his book from start to finish.

Otherwise.. its on here.. somewhere amongst his nearly 4,000 posts

I very much doubt it Phil.

Your response strikes me as another, sadly typical, exercise in evasion.

[David Orsam]

Yup.

You are correct. You do not indeed posess humility.
None whatsoever.

Compulsive.

I do appreciate the message coming out loud and clear in all your posts aimed at me on this subject, Phil:

You don't like me contradicting Simon Wood.

I hear you.

But you'll just have to suck it up I'm afraid.

[Abby Normal]

The point, you may have noticed, is that no matter how hard you try to plant a "name" against a poster.. you cannot.
. I DO not HAVE to have a theory just because you want me to have one.
That way my options are open and flexible.
I am yet to see your good self present a long, in depth theory of the scenario.
just an awful lot of comments upon others and their postings.

At least I ask pertinent questions that make people think a little...so I have been widely told.


Phil

You said that there could be a connection. I'm just curious to know what the possible connection could be. Its frustrating to just see nebulous innuendo.

on another thread this came up and I asked to other posters what their ideas were on a connection and they graciously expounded on their ideas.

I don't necessarily agree, but at least they have ideas and aren't afraid to say what they are. its hard to discuss, probe, learn and debate when all that someone will say is just rumors of rumors.

[Phil Carter]

You said that there could be a connection. I'm just curious to know what the possible connection could be. Its frustrating to just see nebulous innuendo.

on another thread this came up and I asked to other posters what their ideas were on a connection and they graciously expounded on their ideas.

I don't necessarily agree, but at least they have ideas and aren't afraid to say what they are. its hard to discuss, probe, learn and debate when all that someone will say is just rumors of rumors.

First of all, when you automatically label people as conspiracy theorists..when they aren't..its quite rude.
Next, if I don't have a particular set theory. .however wierd to the majority or not..I am hardly likely to pander to anybody's whim to give them yet more ammunition to label then further.
I have ideas. I have poignant questions. I see possibles. And if I choose to mention one..like..for example Kelly making up stories and the police being inept left right and centre about the Eddowes murder, then prove them with known fact..all one gets is silence. Because it ruins the JTR story for the masses.

So after the silence..then comes the labelling.
Some people are here to deliberately wind up others. They get a kick out of it. Im far too long in the tooth to laugh.
This is a social history site. Not a game for modernistic wannabes. Therefore..on me..I disappoint people by not giving them the pleasure of drawing me in. Shame.

When...and only when...serious students of the case start to realise just how much they..we. .you...me..have been force fed total offal down the years..many times by the Met policemen themselves...then...things more abstract can be discussed seriously.
Thats my view. Take it or leave it. .its fine by me. Just cut out the labelling. If you are SERIOUSLY interested in the case..then ALL interpretations should be carefully considered before jumping in the deep end of name calling.


Phil.

[Phil Carter]

I do appreciate the message coming out loud and clear in all your posts aimed at me on this subject, Phil:

You don't like me contradicting Simon Wood.

I hear you.

But you'll just have to suck it up I'm afraid.

You hear what YOU think is right.
As it is MY wording..I happen to know you are 100% totally wrong. Hope you hear that loud and clear?... doubt it.

But being David "I think Im so awesone I will use a play on the word awesome in my name"...you obviously think you are not wrong. You know how we all think. .time and time again you tell us how wrong we are and then invent a reason for why we disagree with you.

Humilty? Self confessed absent.


Phil

[David Orsam]

You hear what YOU think is right.
As it is MY wording..I happen to know you are 100% totally wrong. Hope you hear that loud and clear?... doubt it.

But being David "I think Im so awesone I will use a play on the word awesome in my name"...you obviously think you are not wrong. You know how we all think. .time and time again you tell us how wrong we are and then invent a reason for why we disagree with you.

Humilty? Self confessed absent.

So I'm "100% totally wrong" that you don't like me contradicting Simon Wood am I, Phil? I don't think so somehow. I guess you are unaware of the impression you make with your moaning about my lack of respect of the work of "LIVING" authors and your silly (untrue) comments, such as "All you seem to do is attack other people's work".

As for my username, not that it's got anything to do with you, Orsam Books is the name of the imprint for my books and when I came to think up a username for this forum, not liking to use my real name on internet forums, I plumped for "Orsam", being the first thing I could think of. Amazing how it seems to irritate certain people like yourself but rather than post anything of substance in response to me you prefer to obsess over such childish little things.