Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[David Orsam]

Oh by the way, you will not be successful in purchasing David’s Spandau Ballet book,

That's a weird statement. Do you think I am playing a trick on people and pretending that it's available to buy?

And do you think Amazon are in on it? I am personally aware that a number of people have been successful in purchasing my book so your statement is utterly false, not to mention quite ridiculous.

but if you can, you’ll find out he was quite nasty to the band. He’s trying to screw the band’s credibility by claiming that they stole the name.

So you are prepared to comment on a book you haven't read?

Not surprisingly you've got it wrong. I do not claim that the band "stole the name". The band had no role in the creation of the name, which was suggested to them by a friend. As it happens, though, Gary Kemp and Martin Kemp (two of the band members) are captured on film during an interview saying that they "stole the name". It's not something that I claim in the book though. But, of course, you haven't read it, not that this stops you from rushing to judgement.

They just may have, but how interesting that David likes to be nasty in other areas too.

This is the best bit. What Mike is saying, in other words, is that what I say in my book (or what he thinks I am saying) might be perfectly 100% true but I still shouldn't say it!

This is from a person whose entire book - make that two entire books - is devoted to showing that Francis Tumblety was a mass murderer!!! Oh but that's not "nasty" at all. LOL!

[David Orsam]

Ultimately, David’s goal is to win; not seek the truth.

I'm not sure how you can say that with a straight face. I mean, what is "the truth" about the 12 constables?

Isn't that what I've been trying to establish here?

In the case of this thread, I’ve found numerous problems yet have only revealed a few.

Do you mean that you have found various problems with your book? Yes, I have found the same thing Mike.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You just can't stop your incessant posting, eh, David. You hate me so much, you're trying to sabotage it. What is behind David?


So, David and I would both like the reader to revisit David’s attempt to “review” Jonathan Hainsworth’s book.

First, because the Casebook reader likely has not read his book, one cannot see how David uses the lawyer’s trick of paraphrasing, minimalizing evidence to the contrary, and misleading statements.


This creates a strawman argument.


David crafts an inappropriate spin on Jonathan’s explanations and then he bashes his own spin. The result by itself is a convincing “book review,’ especially because David is actually a good researcher. The problem is that he just led the reader down the path of untruth. Why I say it’s a lawyer’s trick is because in David’s paralegal world, the adversarial system of justice forces David’s bosses (the attorneys) to merely argue to win; not argue for truth. It’s the judge’s and jury’s responsibility to weed out the truth from both sides on an argument.


We then see what he does on these threads. Once he’s lured an author into a so-called debate, its death by paraphrasing all over again. In this case, he takes Jonathan’s cogent post and splinters it with about a dozen mini-posts. The effect is to stop the reader from seeing the overall logical path Jonathan was pointing out. Jonathan catches this, but because he does nothing else in life and has the time to live on Casebook, he then posts incessantly until he exhausts the author. Because the author leaves, he then gets the opportunity to spin at the end. He believes he’s won the final round, so he thinks he made his case. He then goes back to his online article, a document that the reader sees no one arguing against, and spins it even more.


Ultimately, David’s goal is to win; not seek the truth. In the case of this thread, I’ve found numerous problems yet have only revealed a few. I am not going to play the game he did with Jonathan. Sorry David. As I said, I’m waiting for that book you claim you’re not writing.

Honestly, if you want to see where David's arguments rot of error, contact me privately, since I am not going to allow him to accomplish his lawyer's trick on me.


Oh by the way, you will not be successful in purchasing David’s Spandau Ballet book, but if you can, you’ll find out he was quite nasty to the band. He’s trying to screw the band’s credibility by claiming that they stole the name. They just may have, but how interesting that David likes to be nasty in other areas too.

Sincerely,
Mike

Here’s a suggestion Mike.

Why not simply debate the points that David has raised? If, as you suggest, he has no basis for these criticisms but just employs fiendish Lawyer’s tricks then his points should be fairly easy for you to rebut.

Just by resorting to personal criticisms achieves nothing apart from, in all honesty, it makes you sound like a conspiract theorist who is hyper-sensitive to criticism. Why not use this Forum for its intended purpose....debate?

[David Orsam]

So, David and I would both like the reader to revisit David’s attempt to “review” Jonathan Hainsworth’s book.

First, because the Casebook reader likely has not read his book, one cannot see how David uses the lawyer’s trick of paraphrasing, minimalizing evidence to the contrary, and misleading statements.

This creates a strawman argument.

David crafts an inappropriate spin on Jonathan’s explanations and then he bashes his own spin. The result by itself is a convincing “book review,’ especially because David is actually a good researcher. The problem is that he just led the reader down the path of untruth. Why I say it’s a lawyer’s trick is because in David’s paralegal world, the adversarial system of justice forces David’s bosses (the attorneys) to merely argue to win; not argue for truth. It’s the judge’s and jury’s responsibility to weed out the truth from both sides on an argument.

We then see what he does on these threads. Once he’s lured an author into a so-called debate, its death by paraphrasing all over again. In this case, he takes Jonathan’s cogent post and splinters it with about a dozen mini-posts. The effect is to stop the reader from seeing the overall logical path Jonathan was pointing out. Jonathan catches this, but because he does nothing else in life and has the time to live on Casebook, he then posts incessantly until he exhausts the author. Because the author leaves, he then gets the opportunity to spin at the end. He believes he’s won the final round, so he thinks he made his case. He then goes back to his online article, a document that the reader sees no one arguing against, and spins it even more.

I don't think you've understood my article "A Bridge Too Far: The Curious Case of Mortemer Slade".

The central thesis of my article (which was not a book review) was very simple. The character of Mortemer Slade in Guy Logan's 1905 book The True Identity of Jack the Ripper is not obviously modelled on Montague Druitt. That was basically it. That's what I was trying to establish and convince my reader of.

In doing so, I made a number of points which were accepted by Jonathan (correcting some of his errors) and which he told me he will be incorporating in the next edition of his book.

Sadly, in the ensuing Casebook discussion, Jonathan failed to engage with me regarding my central point about the connection between Mortemer Slade and Montague Druitt and seemed to prefer to attack me personally, just as you have chosen to do Mike. He seemed to think that I hated him, just like you do, although there was no rational reason for this.

From what you've said, Mike, I very much doubt that you've even read my article about Jonathan's book and, if you have read it, you obviously haven't understood it. Nor did you understand the ensuing Casebook discussion.

I make four further points:

1. I can't see the relevance in respect of my article about JH's book, nor my discussion with him in the forum, to my article about your book or my posts in this forum.

2. There is nothing actually wrong with an adversarial debate. That's how most debates are conducted. One person puts the case for the "prosecution" (if you want to call it that) and the other puts the case for the "defence". The "jury" are the readers of the debate who decide who has put forward the best argument. Another way of viewing it is a debate between two expert witnesses who argue, respectively, for or against a certain proposition. Any intelligent person interested in the subject at hand wants to read the pros and cons put forward calmly and rationally, with supporting evidence, by those who know most about the subject. But, in this instance, Mike, you simply haven't engaged with me, ignoring most of the issues and deciding to attack me personally, in an overly emotional way, which helps no-one get to the truth.

3. JH writes extremely long posts which are very difficult to follow. They are normally quite cogent but, when debating with me for some reason, he seemed to lose the plot and wrote largely incomprehensible nonsense. To try and reply to his long posts in their entirety would create even longer posts which no-one would ever read. The only way to deal with them sensibly was to break them up. It had nothing to do with my trying to "stop the reader from seeing the overall logical path Jonathan was pointing out". It's an utterly absurd suggestion because Jonathan's original posts were there for anyone to read, unchanged. If any reader wanted to see his "overall logical path" they just had to read his posts (but they would do well to find any such "logical path" in any of his posts addressed to me).

4. It is simply untrue and a falsehood to say that I went back to my online article after my debate with JH and made any changes. I really don't know why you have got this idea fixed so firmly into your head. I honestly don't know whether you are lying deliberately or actually think it is true. Have you asked Jonathan whether he thinks this is the case? My article, as it is today, is the same as the one he responded to.

[David Orsam]

You just can't stop your incessant posting, eh, David. You hate me so much, you're trying to sabotage it. What is behind David?

Well, Mike, I've already explained the reason for my "incessant" posting. I'm trying to convince you that the deployment of the 12 constables at London Railway stations, as referred to in Colonel Pearson's letter of 20 November 1888, had absolutely nothing to do with Tumblety.

Do you accept that simple fact?

If you do, then I don't need to post the rest of the correspondence. If you don't accept it, then clearly I do.

[David Orsam]

On behalf of Mike......Thanks for buying the book David

Why are you posting on behalf of Mike?

[mklhawley]

For anyone whose curiosity is whetted by talk of my debate with Jonathan Hainsworth, it can be found here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=401951&highlight=Mortemer#post401951

and it also seemed to metamorphosize into another thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=402148&highlight=Mortemer#post402148

But I do warn you, the posts were very long!

You just can't stop your incessant posting, eh, David. You hate me so much, you're trying to sabotage it. What is behind David?


So, David and I would both like the reader to revisit David’s attempt to “review” Jonathan Hainsworth’s book.

First, because the Casebook reader likely has not read his book, one cannot see how David uses the lawyer’s trick of paraphrasing, minimalizing evidence to the contrary, and misleading statements.


This creates a strawman argument.


David crafts an inappropriate spin on Jonathan’s explanations and then he bashes his own spin. The result by itself is a convincing “book review,’ especially because David is actually a good researcher. The problem is that he just led the reader down the path of untruth. Why I say it’s a lawyer’s trick is because in David’s paralegal world, the adversarial system of justice forces David’s bosses (the attorneys) to merely argue to win; not argue for truth. It’s the judge’s and jury’s responsibility to weed out the truth from both sides on an argument.


We then see what he does on these threads. Once he’s lured an author into a so-called debate, its death by paraphrasing all over again. In this case, he takes Jonathan’s cogent post and splinters it with about a dozen mini-posts. The effect is to stop the reader from seeing the overall logical path Jonathan was pointing out. Jonathan catches this, but because he does nothing else in life and has the time to live on Casebook, he then posts incessantly until he exhausts the author. Because the author leaves, he then gets the opportunity to spin at the end. He believes he’s won the final round, so he thinks he made his case. He then goes back to his online article, a document that the reader sees no one arguing against, and spins it even more.


Ultimately, David’s goal is to win; not seek the truth. In the case of this thread, I’ve found numerous problems yet have only revealed a few. I am not going to play the game he did with Jonathan. Sorry David. As I said, I’m waiting for that book you claim you’re not writing.

Honestly, if you want to see where David's arguments rot of error, contact me privately, since I am not going to allow him to accomplish his lawyer's trick on me.


Oh by the way, you will not be successful in purchasing David’s Spandau Ballet book, but if you can, you’ll find out he was quite nasty to the band. He’s trying to screw the band’s credibility by claiming that they stole the name. They just may have, but how interesting that David likes to be nasty in other areas too.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Steadmund Brand]

On behalf of Mike......Thanks for buying the book David

Steadmund Brand

[David Orsam]

At this point, all seemed lost for the railway company's proposal. Could it possibly be brought back to life? Or was it dead and buried?

On that thrilling cliffhanger I will pause until the next exciting installment…..

[David Orsam]

Following receipt of the negative letter from the Home Office of 20 April, Richard Prowse of the Board of Customs wrote to the General Manager of the London & North Western Railway at Euston Station on 24 April 1888 as follows:

Sir,

With reference to the letter from this Department of the 22nd ultimo and previous correspondence on the subject of the proposal of the London and North Western Railway Company to establish a system of through conveyance of baggage from the United States and Canada to London via Liverpool, I am directed by the Board of Customs to acquaint you that they deemed it necessary to consult the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the proposed change and that they have now received a reply to the effect that strong objections to the arrangement are entertained by the Chief Officers of the Detective Police. Under these circumstances no further steps can be taken in this matter.

I am,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

[Signed: R.T. Prowse]

[David Orsam]

Following Monro's rejection of the idea, on 20 April 1888 Edward Leigh Pemberton at the Home Office wrote to the Secretary of the Board of Customs as follows:

Sir,

I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that he has had under his careful consideration your letter of the 22nd ultimo, No. 8484, as to the application for the examination at London of the baggage of passengers arriving at Liverpool from America and proceeding by the London and North Western Railway to the Euston Square terminus; and that having conferred with Mr. Monro on the subject he sees strong objections to the arrangement proposed by the Railway Company.

I am,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

[Signed: E. Leigh Pemberton]

[David Orsam]

The letter from the Board of Customs of 22 March was forwarded by the Home Office to Assistant Commissioner James Monro at Scotland Yard who wrote to the Under Secretary of State at the Home Office on 2 April 1888 as follows (the square brackets are in the original):

Sir,

With reference to your Correspondence No. A48584 herewith returned, - I have the honour to acquaint you in reply, that so far as Police action in connection with the importation of Explosives is concerned, I hardly think the system would be worth the expense to which it would lead. If it was considered necessary that Police should be present [as in the case of the Continental Trains] - at the examination of baggage, this could not be effected without employing a considerable number of Constables owing to the large passenger traffic at different railway termini.

I do not think that the results likely to follow from the adoption of the system would justify me in recommending such expense to be incurred.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

[Signed: J. Monro]

[David Orsam]

As I still don't know Mr Hawley's opinion regarding the proposed deployment of 12 constables at two London railway stations and its connection with Tumblety, and, as he is apparently planning a third book about Tumblety, I feel it necessary to go right back to the beginning, in order to try and convince him that the idea was initially raised long before the Ripper murders and the arrest of Tumblety, starting with the full text of the letter from Richard Prowse, Secretary of the Board of Customs, to the Home Office dated 22 March 1888. This is that letter (with some minor transcript corrections against the extract previously posted):

Sir,

I am desired to acquaint you, for the information of Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the Board of Customs have under their consideration an application from the London and North Western Railway Company requesting that the Baggage of Passengers arriving at Liverpool from America and proceeding over that company's line to London may, if registered for London, be sent thither from Liverpool, in locked vans and undergo the requisite customs examination at the Euston Square Terminus in London; and that there is reason to believe that an application to the same effect will be received from the Midland Railway Company with respect to the Baggage of Passengers from America who may come to London by that company's line to St Pancras Terminus.

So far as this Department is concerned, the Board think it may be possible to meet the wishes of these companies, under arrangements similar to those by which the examination of registered Baggage from the continent, via Folkestone and Dover, is now, and has for many years been, allowed to be examined at the Charing Cross and Victoria Termini, in place of at the Ports of arrival, but before giving a definite reply to that effect the Board think it right to consult the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject, in view of the frequent correspondence (of which the letters from this Department of the 13th ultimo No.2732/1888 and the 17th instant No. 8294/1888, are recent instances) between the Home Office and the Customs, as to the possibility of the introduction into the United Kingdom by means of Passengers’ Baggage, and especially of the Baggage of Passengers from America, of articles of a dangerous or explosive character.

I am to add that the measure of the degree of risk on these accounts, as between Baggage from the near Continental Ports under present arrangements, and that from American Ports under proposed arrangements, would appear to turn:

(1) On the greater length of the Railway journey from Liverpool to London as compared with the journey from Folkestone or Dover to London.

(2) On the probability that Passengers from America would bring a larger number of packages, per Passenger, than those coming from the near Continental Ports.

I am,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

[Signed R.T. Prowse]

[David Orsam]

Very nice songs, David.

Thank you very much Robert.

[Steadmund Brand]

I look forward to reading the Mikes book on this fascinating individual. I have also been meaning to read Prince of Quacks, which as I understand it is the essential book on Tumblety??

I have always considered T as a viable ripper suspect but only slightly.

IMHO he was way too ostentatious and dosnt fit any of the witness descriptions (some of whom I'm sure saw the ripper).

Plus he was gay correct? if that's an undisputed fact than hes probably out in my view.

that being said I understand there are some new significant finds by Mike, including evidence of knives and surgical tools owned by T, which is pretty big IMHO.

congrats on your research and book Mike.

Well, Prince of Quacks WAS the essential book on Tumblety, until Mike wrote The Ripper Haunts and now Jack The Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety...Prince was a great starting point, but so much has been uncovered since then (and several things in Prince proven to be not true, in my opinion in no fault of the author, just additional info has surfaced since it was written).

As far as Tumblety being homosexual...yes (and no, you have to read the book to understand....but we can say he only liked sex with men). and also, his sexuality only excludes him if these were sexually motivated crimes (where Mike makes the argument that they were not....I didn't buy into that when I first heard it either but digging more deep, I believe he is correct.. you have to read it!)

Steadmund Brand