Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[jmenges]

It's for MIKE to tell us who these modern researchers are and not only does HIS silence speak volumes but I note that you haven't even asked him the question as to their identity yourself.

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. 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. But maybe a little nicer.

JM

[mklhawley]

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,

Mike

[David Orsam]

A bit nitpicking isn't it David?

I don't disagree with you at all which is why I phrased one of the alternatives thus: "Alternatively, if his view is that a bounty hunter is the same as a private detective, that he didn't want to accept that his "number" of modern researchers was just two, Riordan and myself."

But Mike did specifically refer in his book to a "private detective" and that is precisely the expression I have used (and only me, it seems). So I think the language is important. If Riordan was in Mike's mind I would have expected him to have said:

"One claim by a number of modern researchers states that this man was an English private detective or bounty hunter hired by the two men who gave the sureties for Tumblety’s bail before he sneaked out of the country."

Ultimately, though, jmenges, there could be a thousand modern researchers who have made the claim but unless Mike knew about them, and they were in his mind when he referred in his book to "a number of modern researchers", it's irrelevant. It's for MIKE to tell us who these modern researchers are and not only does HIS silence speak volumes but I note that you haven't even asked him the question as to their identity yourself.

[David Orsam]

No Herlock, you misunderstand. My point is David's practice of minimalization or act of reductionism. Notice his first post

My first post in this thread was #12 about the deployment of 12 constables to which you've not actually responded other than to refer to an unspecified "source". You've not said anything whatsoever until now about "minimalization" or "reductionism" regarding that particular post and I've actually since prepared and posted transcripts of two highly relevant letters which prove the deployment had nothing to do with Tumblety. So what is Herlock supposed to "Notice" about my first post?

The only issue of alleged "minimalization" that I can recall raised by you was in respect to my second post (#13) in which I correctly stated that,"we are told that it is "certain" that Chief Inspector Littlechild stated that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, with a supporting quote provided in which Littlechild says absolutely no such thing!" The supporting quote you provided in your book did, indeed, say no such thing. Even if you had expanded the minimalized quote you provided in your book all the way until the end of Littlechild's letter it still would have said absolutely no such thing. So where was the "minimalization" or "act of reductionism" on my part?

Of course he's going to "clarify" with additional. . . additional. . . additional. . . posts (ad nauseum), and I'm planning on responding to those once he's written his book.

If I were to simply paste my posts from this thread into a book and make it available on Kindle would you then respond to it Mike? If that's the case, when you think about it, isn't your supposed "strategy" a bit ridiculous? Or is it not "ridiculous" at all but simply a transparent excuse to avoid responding properly and sensibly to my posts in a way that any intelligent member of this forum can understand? And isn't the reason you need such an excuse not to respond properly and sensibly to my posts because it will involve you having to admit to a few errors in your book which appears to be something you are not capable of doing?

[David Orsam]

Oh yes, I do have more, and if anyone wants to know some of it, just contact me privately.

Are you saying you want to respond to my open posts on this forum in private so that you can secretly mislead people – perhaps with the addition of more unsubstantiated smears, false allegations and downright lies - without me having any kind of opportunity to reply?

David, hurry up with your book so that I can present it publicly in a nice review. Or do you now plan to postpone it just because I plan on giving you an honest review?

Three books are already published Mike. The Islington Murder Mystery, The Camden Town Murder Mystery and my new book about Spandau Ballet and the New Romantics. See www.orsam.co.uk for details. All very fine and gripping books. You are free to "review" them all if you like, not that I have ever reviewed any of your books.

I do wonder if you had a dream one night, Mike, in which you dreamt I was writing a book about Francis Tumblety specifically, or Jack the Ripper generally (who knows what you are talking about?), and now can't distinguish the fantasy from reality. If you are licking your lips at this dream of reviewing an imaginary future book of mine about Tumblety or JTR, it isn't ever going to happen in the real world, although if you dream hard enough you might be able to conjure it up in your mind. Perhaps the words "excellent" and "amazing" will pop up in your dream!

[jmenges]

Thank you jmenges, that is interesting and helpful. I haven't read Riordan's book but I've just this minute purchased it as a Kindle version. From a quick search of it, I see that Riordan's suggestion is not quite as you present it, at least not in that version, for what Riordan says is that the man referred to in the New York newspapers might have been 'a bounty hunter' hired by someone stuck with having to cough up the cash for Tumblety's bail. Perhaps in the hardback book, however, he claims it was an English private detective?

A bit nitpicking isn't it David?
In my opinion, a "bounty hunter" isn't quite an accurate description of what he should have been called in Tim's book, and a "private detective" isn't completely right in Mike's either. Its a variation of the two called a "skip tracer". They 'trace' people who have skipped town and jumped bail.
Clearly Tim Riordan is suggesting exactly the type of person you think you're the first to describe.

JM

[David Orsam]

Wow, have I gotten under David's skin!

Might it be that the very reverse is the truth, do you think Mike?

Continuous and incessant posts just on one small portion of the book, the very book that contradicts David's claims.

Had you responded to my four initial posts on 7th May in a reasonable and sensible way, there might have been no need for any further postings. I assume that your mention of "one small portion of the book" is your sub-conscious way of saying that you got a few things wrong but everyone should look at the bigger picture about Tumblety possibly being Jack the Ripper. That would be absolutely fine but where is the actual admission of any error in the "one small portion" of your book to which I was referring? Or do you think you haven't made any errors anywhere in the book?

the very book that contradicts David's claims.

But does your book contradict my claim (#12) that the 12 constables were not deployed at St Pancras and Euston for any purpose relating to Tumblety? We seem to be no nearer to establishing your view on that issue.

How can your book contradict my claim (#13) that it is not "certain" that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne when I only made this claim AFTER reading your book?

How can your book contradict my claim (#15) that Tumblety was not necessarily arrested on 7th November 1888 when I only pointed this out to you AFTER reading your book? And I thought we had established that you failed to understand the meaning of "received into custody" in the Central Criminal Court Calendar, although you've never actually admitted it in terms.

And does your book really contradict the claim in my online article that "Unless a sensible reason for a [Scotland Yard] detective being sent from London to New York can be put forward, the idea of the English detective reported by the New York newspapers cannot be taken seriously"? What is the sensible reason to explain why a Scotland Yard detective from London would have been prowling around outside Tumblety's apartment in New York December 1888 (as asked in #16)?

[David Orsam]

What Mike says in his new book is this:
"One claim by a number of modern researchers states that this man was an English private detective hired by the two men who gave the sureties for Tumblety’s bail before he sneaked out of the country."

See Tim Riordan's 'Prince of Quacks' page 183-4 for an example of a modern researcher making this suggestion.

Thank you jmenges, that is interesting and helpful. I haven't read Riordan's book but I've just this minute purchased it as a Kindle version. From a quick search of it, I see that Riordan's suggestion is not quite as you present it, at least not in that version, for what Riordan says is that the man referred to in the New York newspapers might have been 'a bounty hunter' hired by someone stuck with having to cough up the cash for Tumblety's bail. Perhaps in the hardback book, however, he claims it was an English private detective?

In any event, it's for Mike to tell us what HE means by "a number of modern researchers". I have repeatedly tried to extract that information in this thread. Thus:

#16

Perhaps Mike can name those researchers for us because I'd be interested to know how their arguments are expressed and if they accord with mine.

#39

Who are the "number of modern researchers" who have claimed that the English detective supposedly seen outside Tumblety's apartment in New York was an English private detective hired by two men who gave sureties for Tumblety's bail?

#63

Repeated #39 above.

#81

Repeated #39 above.

Why hasn't he answered?

One possibility is that he wasn't aware of Riordan's argument on the point or had forgotten about it. Alternatively that he knew that Riordan suggested a bounty hunter, not a private detective. Alternatively, if his view is that a bounty hunter is the same as a private detective, that he didn't want to accept that his "number" of modern researchers was just two, Riordan and myself.

I see that he's posted again today and could have cleared this matter up very easily but has chosen not to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mike, what evidence do you have that David is being dishonest when he says that he has no intention of writing a JTR book?

[mklhawley]

Wow, have I gotten under David's skin! Continuous and incessant posts just on one small portion of the book, the very book that contradicts David's claims.

Oh yes, I do have more, and if anyone wants to know some of it, just contact me privately. David, hurry up with your book so that I can present it publicly in a nice review. Or do you now plan to postpone it just because I plan on giving you an honest review?

No Herlock, you misunderstand. My point is David's practice of minimalization or act of reductionism. Notice his first post. Of course he's going to "clarify" with additional. . . additional. . . additional. . . posts (ad nauseum), and I'm planning on responding to those once he's written his book.

Sincerely,

Mike

[jmenges]

So why does Hawley say in his latest book that "a number of modern researchers" claim that the English detective seen in New York outside Tumblety’s apartment in December 1888 was a private detective? To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person who has argued that this is a possibility.

What Mike says in his new book is this:
"One claim by a number of modern researchers states that this man was an English private detective hired by the two men who gave the sureties for Tumblety’s bail before he sneaked out of the country."

See Tim Riordan's 'Prince of Quacks' page 183-4 for an example of a modern researcher making this suggestion.

JM

[David Orsam]

How tall was Edmund Reid?

Are you referring to Edmund Reid of H Division?

[Scott Nelson]

As there had been a minimum height requirement for Metropolitan police constables since 1823 to be at least five feet, seven inches, without shoes, and as all known Scotland Yard detectives at the time, with one single exception (Inspector Greenham who was five feet, eight inches, tall) started out as Met police constables, there is no possible way on this planet that any Scotland Yard detective wearing heels an inch thick could have been described as “a little man”. If the detective seen outside Tumblety’s apartment in December 1888 was a little man he was certainly NOT a Scotland Yard detective.

How tall was Edmund Reid?

[David Orsam]

The Case of the Vanishing Little Man

So why does Hawley say in his latest book that "a number of modern researchers" claim that the English detective seen in New York outside Tumblety’s apartment in December 1888 was a private detective? To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person who has argued that this is a possibility.

He could have written something like "It has been suggested that the man might been an English detective" (which is the type of thing he does at other times) so why the need to invent multiple researchers with whom he is arguing?

Well I’ve asked him enough times to explain himself and he’s refused to do so. Consequently, I’m going to draw my own conclusions.

I can’t claim to understand the workings of Hawley's mind but certainly one possibility is that if he narrowed it down to just one person he would have to face up to the fact that this person was me - and if it was me then he would equally have to face up the fact that he hasn’t responded to my detailed argument on the point at all. Instead he has, to use his expression, "cherry picked" those bits of my argument he wants to respond to.

Let me give one important example of the consequence of this. In my online article, "The English Detective", I make the point that one of the reporters who described the English detective (the one from the New York World) described 'a little man', despite the fact that he was wearing 'an enormous pair of boots with soles an inch thick'. As there had been a minimum height requirement for Metropolitan police constables since 1823 to be at least five feet, seven inches, without shoes, and as all known Scotland Yard detectives at the time, with one single exception (Inspector Greenham who was five feet, eight inches, tall) started out as Met police constables, there is no possible way on this planet that any Scotland Yard detective wearing heels an inch thick could have been described as “a little man”. If the detective seen outside Tumblety’s apartment in December 1888 was a little man he was certainly NOT a Scotland Yard detective.

If, however, the reporter was wrong to describe the detective as a little man, because he stood a minimum of five foot eight inches in his heels an inch thick, then it calls into serious question whether that reporter actually saw the English detective. And if he didn’t see him it’s a disaster for Mike because this reporter is supposed to be corroborating the detective’s very existence!

So Mike has a really serious problem with the description of the English detective by this reporter. How does he deal with it in his 2018 book? To ignore it, basically. He doesn’t even include the quote about the English detective being “a little man” in his latest reproduction of the New York World article, an act of omission which I understand is properly described as “minimalisation”.

This may be why he wanted to get away from the notion that I am the person who has argued that the English detective is not a Scotland Yard detective. If a number of modern researchers have made this argument he doesn’t need to respond to any specific one and can ignore the inconvenient fact that the detective was described by one of his two supposedly corroborating reporters as a little fella.

[David Orsam]

I can't help wondering if Hawley's pathological obsession with the imagined editing of my online articles is not some form of projection or transference of the "guilt" that he feels for having done in his book exactly what he is accusing me of doing.

I mean, I've already given examples of how, following my arguments, he has almost entirely removed Inspector Andrews from the picture in his 2018 book, even though he was a central figure in Hawley's previous works about Tumblety, and I might add that Inspector Melville has also been removed.

In his 2016 book, Hawley, apparently believing Melville was involved in some way in spotting or attempting to prevent Tumblety's flight while in France, said that:

"The detective assigned to monitor the French ports in November 1888 was Inspector First Class William Melville."

In response, in my article, "The English Detective" I noted that "as of November 1888, Melville was not a first class inspector, nor was he assigned to monitor the French ports".

Now, in Hawley's 2018 book, Inspector Melville has vanished entirely! Fancy that.

So is Hawley in some way projecting his actions in deleting so much text about Tumblety onto me, someone who has not been doing any such deleting? Food for thought surely.