Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can see it now, “Orsam: My Life As A Tibetan Yak Farmer.”

I’d buy it

[David Orsam]

David, are you sure that you are certain of who you are? Might you be mistaken? Perhaps you might find out some more ‘facts’ about youself in the near future which will lead to you discovering your own true identity.

Put it this way, Herlock, let's hope the next "Hawley book" (as I assume he thinks of such things) is not a biography of me!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im learning more and more.

There appears to be developing an entire Orsam (or Barrat) mythology?

You are a retired Paralegal - apparently untue

You are writing a JTR book - apparently untrue

You have a deep-seated hatred of Mike - apparently untrue

David, are you sure that you are certain of who you are? Might you be mistaken? Perhaps you might find out some more ‘facts’ about youself in the near future which will lead to you discovering your own true identity.

[David Orsam]

So, your problem, David, is you hate my guts

Mike, this is completely and utterly untrue and I simply don't know why you think this, other than basic paranoia.

I haven't been impressed with you in this thread at all, it's fair to say, due to the lies you have told about me, but to say I hate your guts is another mistake on your part.

and it's all emotional, thus helplessly connected to bias.

There's no emotion at all in my posts about your book. I've stuck entirely to the facts and the arguments. How can you not see that?

You see, being a retired paralegal,

This isn't true.

you were trained in research

This isn't true.

but your goal was never the truth. It was to win for your client at all costs. It's the adversarial system of justice.

I'm sure you've said this kind of nonsense before, years ago, but it's as untrue now as it was then.

This mixing evidence with reductionist arguments is a lawyer's trick.

Sorry

I'm not a lawyer, sorry.

[mklhawley]

Oops, I was supposed to wait for 5 to 7 more posts. I'll stop for a bit.

[mklhawley]

So, your problem, David, is you hate my guts and it's all emotional, thus helplessly connected to bias.

You see, being a retired paralegal, you were trained in research, but your goal was never the truth. It was to win for your client at all costs. It's the adversarial system of justice.

This mixing evidence with reductionist arguments is a lawyer's trick.

Sorry,

Mike

[David Orsam]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said you were only going to post once.

Er, no I didn't. In fact, I said no such thing. So you thought wrong. What I said was that I would limit myself to one response to your post #143. Which is exactly what I did.

I then responded to a point in Herlock's #145. (Subsequently, but before you posted your #150, I responded to your #148.)

My bad.

Yes it was your bad Mike and is starting to confirm my suspicion that you don't read stuff properly.

[mklhawley]

That's better. Keep 'em coming.

[David Orsam]

Did you know that we've discovered even more evidence and I'm now in the process of working on yet a third Tumblety book! And there's New York City material! I am being absolutely honest.

It's good that you feel the need to confirm that you are "being absolutely honest" because that hasn't been your approach to this thread so far, has it?

But I'm very pleased to hear what you say because it absolutely justifies my attempts to point out to you the mistakes you have made in your first and second books. I'm sure you wouldn't want to repeat them all again in your third book, would you?

Even though you've made an absolute conclusion, you may not want to be so set. Future's bright.

From past experience Mike (see my post above), I've learnt to maintain a healthy scepticism to your bombastic claims. I'll only believe anything you tell me when I actually see it.

[mklhawley]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said you were only going to post once. My bad. I'll wait for your six or eight.

[David Orsam]

And if you believe that you know of errors that David has made you should have enough confidence in them to post them on the Forum for debate (which is after all the point of the Forum.)

Back in June 2015, Mike thought he had found an important error in my series of online articles entitled "The Suckered! Trilogy". He told me (and the rest of the forum members) that he was going to post "a clear cut correction". A few days later he finally posted what he thought this "clear cut correction" was.

Unfortunately for Mike, and rather embarrassingly, it transpired that he had misread and misunderstood a key document. The "clear cut correction" turned out to be nothing of the kind. Just a "clear cut mistake" on the part of Mr Hawley.

Our brief discussion on the point concluded with Mike saying:

"Very appropriate, David. Now, you can say your entire article has been scrutinized."

It was, of course, very kind of Mike to scrutinize my entire article and I was very pleased that it stood up to scrutiny.

For anyone wanting to read the above mentioned discussion and see the mistakes made by Mike (for there was actually more than one), it's this thread here:

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

Mike advertises his "clear cut correction" in #310 and then posts what he thinks it is in #352. I put him straight in #362.

[mklhawley]

Hey David,

Did you know that we've discovered even more evidence and I'm now in the process of working on yet a third Tumblety book! And there's New York City material! I am being absolutely honest.

Even though you've made an absolute conclusion, you may not want to be so set. Future's bright.

Sincerely,

Mike

[David Orsam]

Hey only five posts? I expect more for every one of mine.

No, I'm waiting on your Jack the Ripper book you clearly plan on writing.

As I said, you have serious gaps but I plan on waiting for this most important book. Hurry up!

And yes, if anyone wants to hear about some of his errors, I will let you know privately.

Awaiting six to eight posts, then I'll post again

I think I can limit this response to a single post as all you've done is repeat a strange error that you've made a number of times in this thread.

There will not be a "Jack the Ripper" book from me. I do not consider myself, and never have considered myself, to be a Ripperologist.

Why you believe there will be such a book is impossible for me to comprehend bearing in mind that I have never said, either in public or in private, that I will ever be writing such a book nor have I ever hinted at such a thing.

Presumably it's all a diversionary tactic: a distraction from the questions about your book that I've raised in this thread, you know, the 12 constables and all that kind of relevant stuff.

[David Orsam]

I don't have to ask him who he means since I already know that "modern day researchers" have been questioning the validity of the "English detective" for years. Riordan, AP Wolf, Simon, Wolf V., Dan Norder and I'm sure there's a few others.

"Questioning the validity of the "English detective"" is a different matter. Mike was talking about a specific alternative suggestion to a Scotland Yard detective, being an English private detective.

If I seriously thought that he was targeting me personally, excluding all others, in his book, as you seem to believe, then I would ask him just as you have done.

It's not a question of "as I seem to believe"; he's previously admitted that he was "targeting" me in his 2016 book. See Mike's post at #2 in this thread dated 29 September 2016:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9897

"I actually predicted you would respond to my English detective piece in The Ripper's Haunts because it actually rebutted an earlier argument of yours."

So, you see, he was directly rebutting in his book what I had said to him on this forum. And this is what he had said in his 2016 book:

'Some claim the English detective was a private detective hired by the two bondsmen to recoup their £300 ($1,500) sureties'

That's what he was talking about when he referred to his book having "rebutted" an earlier argument of mine. It's the exact same point!!!

And he even told me that he had predicted my article in response:

"And I actually predicted this rebuttal, as well"

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is almost surreal?

I can see no reason for assuming dishonesty on David’s part on the subject of a book that he’s clearly stated that he isnt writing?

And if you believe that you know of errors that David has made you should have enough confidence in them to post them on the Forum for debate (which is after all the point of the Forum.)