Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[David Orsam]

Lots of minimalizing here, but I'll take a bit at a time. When asked if an American detective company was working for Scotland Yard, Andrews himself stated that they could do it themselves, so they would indeed have done just what Andrews stated. The bartender's story was actually bartenders' stories collected from competing New York newspaper reporters independently and on the same day. This is corroboration! These reporters saw the man too. Are they all lying or is David minimalizing because it does not conform to his published article and future book?

You have great faith in a couple of American newspaper reports but how do you know that they didn't come from the same source? How do you know that the bartender's story was truly told by multiple bartenders? Are any of them named? Are the reporters named? How do you know that the whole thing isn't a complete invention?

You simply avoid the central questions which are these:

1. Why would a Scotland Yard detective reveal to a bartender that he was in New York to "get" Tumblety for the Whitechapel murders?

2. You do realise that a Scotland Yard detective had no power of arrest in New York, right? So what was he actually doing there?

[David Orsam]

We have reports that Scotland Yard detectives were in New York City in late 1888 because of the Irish independent issues, so why is it a shock that one of them would have been used to keep an eye on a Jack the Ripper suspect? Not being able to catch the killer was the biggest embarrassment for Scotland Yard in 1888. Sorry David. It does make sense, just not for you.

But those reports were false Mike. There were no Scotland Yard detectives in New York City in late 1888. There might well have been some private detectives employed by the Times Newspaper who were confused with Scotland Yard detectives. There might have been private detectives employed by the British Consul in New York. But there were no Scotland Yard detectives in New York City at that time!

[David Orsam]

I'll answer you Herlock as I guess David has too much of an issue about one small part of the book contradicting his article....

That's nonsense Steadmund. I'm complaining about parts of Mike's book contradicting the facts.

I'm still waiting for Mike to justify the inclusion in his book of the mention of the 20th November 1888 letter about the 12 extra constables.

It was my first post in this thread - and possibly the most important - but no response as yet.

[David Orsam]

I have just been told David Barrat is doing his prepping for his David Orsam books by minimalizing evidence and putting his spin on selected parts of my book. I predicted this. David has a reason for what he’s doing. When i have some time i will respond.

By the way, if someone really has told you this, Mike, which I very much doubt, they were lying to you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll answer you Herlock as I guess David has too much of an issue about one small part of the book contradicting his article....Mike has accumulated a massive amount of new (or I should say newly discovered) material, presented said material and has done a remarkable job of it...and in my opinion, has maintained some skepticism ... this isn't a "case closed" book.. this is a "WOW look at all this evidence, yes much of it circumstantial, but let's all take a closer look"
As someone who has been a life long "Anti-Tumblety" guy I think he has done a remarkable job, with both books, and has even made me rethink all the reasons I had eliminated Tumblety, and take a closer look at this fascinating individual.
And David can now attack me as being biased....I'm ok with that....full disclosure I did help with the research on this book...but specifically because I WAS AN ANTI-TUMBLETY GUY...Hawley wanted people who disagreed with his theory as well, to take a much more scientific approach, peer review kind of thing...and voices who wouldn't allow him to jump to conclusions without proper evidence to back it up...Name another writer in this field who would go out of his way to find someone who disagrees with him to work with just to keep it as balanced as possible....

but that is just my opinion... I would love to hear yours once you read the book

Steadmund Brand

Thanks for the response Stead. I look forward to getting the book as soon as i work my way down my current ‘to read’ pile.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, the book about 80’s pop music that you mentioned to me a few months ago is about Spandau Ballet? Good luck with it David

Apologies for the digression.

[David Orsam]

Ah, the book about 80’s pop music that you mentioned to me a few months ago is about Spandau Ballet? Good luck with it David

Thank you Sherlock, yes this is the case (New Romantics Who Never Were: The Untold Story of Spandau Ballet) but I can assure you that I am not "minimalizing evidence" or "putting my spin" on selected parts of Mike's book as some kind of weird "prepping" for this book, whatever Mike thinks he predicted in his own head.

[mklhawley]

Thank you Sherlock, yes this is the case (New Romantics Who Never Were: The Untold Story of Spandau Ballet) but I can assure you that I am not "minimalizing evidence" or "putting my spin" on selected parts of Mike's book as some kind of weird "prepping" for this book, whatever Mike thinks he predicted in his own head.

I can assure you that David does minimalize. Sorry David; you interpret the facts like everyone else. You can't say you just look at facts.

[David Orsam]

I trust Mike isn't intending to be evasive in his response to my posts so can I put down a marker to three questions that really do require answers:

1. Why did you include mention of the 12 constables and the 20th November letter in your book?

2. 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?

3. Who are the three Scotland Yard officials who named Tumblety as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders after the the Kelly murder?

I'm assuming that Mike has had ample opportunity to answer my question as to where Littlechild said that Tumblety had been spotted in Boulogne but can't do it and that he will respond in due course to my questions as to what purpose a Scotland Yard detective would have had in following Tumblety to and/or in New York and in telling a bartender that he was there to get him for the Whitechapel murders.

[David Orsam]

I can assure you that David does minimalize.

Well you gave a single example of my alleged "minimalizing" and that didn't go too well did it?

[David Orsam]

Sorry David; you interpret the facts like everyone else. You can't say you just look at facts.

Well let's just look at that Mike.

Do you accept or do you not accept that the proposed deployment of 12 constables at two train stations had absolutely nothing to do with Tumblety?

Because I am saying that is nothing to do with interpretation, it's just a fact that there was no connection.

[mklhawley]

Well you gave a single example of my alleged "minimalizing" and that didn't go too well did it?

It did, I just ignored you for this last year. I could have ripped your article apart like Jonathan Hainesworth ripped the review you gave to his book. Interesting how it vanished.

If you want me to show more minimalization, I can.

[David Orsam]

I can assure you that David does minimalize. Sorry David; you interpret the facts like everyone else. You can't say you just look at facts.

I never said, incidentally, that I "just look at facts". This is what I said to Herlock only a short time ago today:

"I'm only interested in the facts and the arguments, Herlock, not the overall nature of the book."

[mklhawley]

Well let's just look at that Mike.

Do you accept or do you not accept that the proposed deployment of 12 constables at two train stations had absolutely nothing to do with Tumblety?

Because I am saying that is nothing to do with interpretation, it's just a fact that there was no connection.

I went by the source I used which certainly conformed, but if you found something which contradicts it, great. There is a ton of new information in this book, and finding corrections is absolutely acceptable. Just because I reject your conclusions as biased, you have attacked my credibility. I did indeed find areas you merely jumped to conclusions and areas where you minimalize (such as the eyewitness testimony of multiple bartenders and the two reporters). Sorry.

[David Orsam]

It did, I just ignored you for this last year. I could have ripped your article apart like Jonathan Hainesworth ripped the review you gave to his book. Interesting how it vanished.

If you want me to show more minimalization, I can.

Feel free to show me as much "minimalization" as you like.

But I fear you are starting to talk nonsense.

My article relating to Jonathan Hainsworth's book has not "vanished", it is here (where it always has been):

http://www.orsam.co.uk/bridgetoofar.htm

If you think that JH "ripped" it apart then you obviously weren't reading our exchange on this forum properly. He didn't lay a finger on it. More than that, he admitted to modifying his book (for a planned future edition) in response to my article. That was at about the same time that he seemed to be having a nervous breakdown responding to it before he simply disappeared from the forum.