Tweet
How thick are you? It's not just me he wants to stop the same posting. How many times are you going to post when I told you that I'm not going to play your game. You have a fatal flaw, and if I tell you them, you'll merely change your online article. Honesty, I will reply, but only AFTER you write your David Orsam book. I will love to give you the same treatment you've given other authors, such as Jonathan and Simon. Sooo...
How interesting!
David Barratt changed his online negative article on Jonathan Hainsworth’s book AFTER Jonathan dominated him on Casebook! Now I see what he’s doing. He seems to antagonize the author on the forums until the author is forced to defend his work. It creates a huge thread that no one bothers to read, so no one sees how Barratt’s arguments are an act of minimalizing evidence to the contrary. Barratt then fixes his online article through crafty smoke and mirrors. Sorry, David, I’m not going to play your game.
It is likely why you have not written your book (David Orsam books) yet, since you fear authors will give your book the same treatment. Writing an online article is certainly much safer, since you can edit it immediately. Honestly David, I will give you a thorough and fact-based review of your Tumblety section. When will it come out?
The problem the reader has is, since they are not privy to all the details, your strawman arguments sound convincing. It’s just that they are not valid. Even on this thread, we see Barratt’s minimalizing of the evidence. I’ll give two:
First one: Barratt paraphrases Littlechild’s statement in such a way as to make the reader believe he did not have inside knowledge that Tumblety had escaped to France. Barratt states, “It doesn't then get much better, for in the next sentence 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! All Littlechild says is that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" which is something that the police could have established subsequently. And they could have done so very simply by learning that Tumblety had purchased a ticket, while in England, to travel to Boulogne!”
This is a lie. Littlechild actually stated, "and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne..." The second part does indeed show that Littlechild was privy to something other than purchasing a ticket in England. Besides, he used an alias, Frank Townsend, so how on earth would they have known it was him?
Second one: Barratt minimalized the evidence for an English detective in New York watching Tumblety. Barratt states, “Mike seems to swallow a bartender's story that this English detective told him he was there "to get the Whitechapel Murderer".” First, note how Barratt minimalized the evidence into ONE bartender’s story. 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 and neither could have picked up the other’s story. Evidence for this is that they have different facts. The following events were published in the New York World on 4 December 1888,
. . . It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. . . . He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective . . .
Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm . . .
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying: 'He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothing at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it.'
The World reporter’s impression of the man being an English detective corroborates the barkeeper’s comment that, “he says he wuz an English detective,” and the reporter witnessing the detective staking out Tumblety’s residence corroborates the barkeeper’s comments about him being interested in Tumblety. The barkeeper also brought up Tumblety’s name to the reporter, clearly evidence that he received the information from the detective. There is no reason to assume the barkeeper’s account of the English detective’s Whitechapel murder mission as the product of a barkeeper’s lie. Additional evidence confirming the veracity of the barkeeper’s statement comes from the second, separate eyewitness, a New York Herald reporter:
I found that the Doctor was pretty well known in the neighborhood. The bartenders in McKenna's saloon, at the corner of Tenth street and Fourth avenue, knew him well. And it was here that I discovered an English detective on the track of the suspect. This man wore a dark mustache and side whiskers, a tweed suit, a billycock hat and very thick walking boots. He was of medium height and had very sharp eyes and a rather florid complexion. He had been hanging around the place all day and had posted himself at a window which commanded No. 79. He made some inquiries about Dr. Tumblety of the bartenders, but gave no information about himself, although it appeared he did not know much about New York. It is uncertain whether he came over in the same ship with the suspect. (New York Herald, Dec 4, 1888)
There is even further corroboration from Cincinnati:
It has been known for some days past that the detectives have been quietly tracing the career in this city of Dr. Francis Tumblety, one of the suspects under surveillance by the English authorities, and who was recently followed across the ocean by Scotland Yard's men. From information which leaked out yesterday around police headquarters, the inquiries presented here are not so much in reference to Tumblety himself as to a companion who attracted almost as much attention as the doctor, both on account of oddity of character and the shadow-like persistence with which he followed his employer. The investigation in this city is understood to be under the direction of English officials now in New York, and based upon certain information they have forwarded by mail. One of the officers whom current reports connects with this local investigation is James Jackson, the well-known private detective . . . The officials at police headquarters declined to talk about the matter or to answer any questions bearing on this supposed discovery of 'Jack the Ripper's' identity. (Cincinnati Enquirer, Dec. 14, 1888)
Now, does this sound like my point is supported by just one bartender as Barratt minimalized? Sorry David, this is the last reveal I will give you (and I’m sure you will “edit” your article). I will not play into your hand and give you the other areas of your minimalization, but I will repost this every time you post.
Sincerely,
Mike
_____
How interesting!
David Barratt changed his online negative article on Jonathan Hainsworth’s book AFTER Jonathan dominated him on Casebook! Now I see what he’s doing. He seems to antagonize the author on the forums until the author is forced to defend his work. It creates a huge thread that no one bothers to read, so no one sees how Barratt’s arguments are an act of minimalizing evidence to the contrary. Barratt then fixes his online article through crafty smoke and mirrors. Sorry, David, I’m not going to play your game.
It is likely why you have not written your book (David Orsam books) yet, since you fear authors will give your book the same treatment. Writing an online article is certainly much safer, since you can edit it immediately. Honestly David, I will give you a thorough and fact-based review of your Tumblety section. When will it come out?
The problem the reader has is, since they are not privy to all the details, your strawman arguments sound convincing. It’s just that they are not valid. Even on this thread, we see Barratt’s minimalizing of the evidence. I’ll give two:
First one: Barratt paraphrases Littlechild’s statement in such a way as to make the reader believe he did not have inside knowledge that Tumblety had escaped to France. Barratt states, “It doesn't then get much better, for in the next sentence 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! All Littlechild says is that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" which is something that the police could have established subsequently. And they could have done so very simply by learning that Tumblety had purchased a ticket, while in England, to travel to Boulogne!”
This is a lie. Littlechild actually stated, "and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne..." The second part does indeed show that Littlechild was privy to something other than purchasing a ticket in England. Besides, he used an alias, Frank Townsend, so how on earth would they have known it was him?
Second one: Barratt minimalized the evidence for an English detective in New York watching Tumblety. Barratt states, “Mike seems to swallow a bartender's story that this English detective told him he was there "to get the Whitechapel Murderer".” First, note how Barratt minimalized the evidence into ONE bartender’s story. 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 and neither could have picked up the other’s story. Evidence for this is that they have different facts. The following events were published in the New York World on 4 December 1888,
. . . It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. . . . He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective . . .
Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm . . .
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying: 'He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothing at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it.'
The World reporter’s impression of the man being an English detective corroborates the barkeeper’s comment that, “he says he wuz an English detective,” and the reporter witnessing the detective staking out Tumblety’s residence corroborates the barkeeper’s comments about him being interested in Tumblety. The barkeeper also brought up Tumblety’s name to the reporter, clearly evidence that he received the information from the detective. There is no reason to assume the barkeeper’s account of the English detective’s Whitechapel murder mission as the product of a barkeeper’s lie. Additional evidence confirming the veracity of the barkeeper’s statement comes from the second, separate eyewitness, a New York Herald reporter:
I found that the Doctor was pretty well known in the neighborhood. The bartenders in McKenna's saloon, at the corner of Tenth street and Fourth avenue, knew him well. And it was here that I discovered an English detective on the track of the suspect. This man wore a dark mustache and side whiskers, a tweed suit, a billycock hat and very thick walking boots. He was of medium height and had very sharp eyes and a rather florid complexion. He had been hanging around the place all day and had posted himself at a window which commanded No. 79. He made some inquiries about Dr. Tumblety of the bartenders, but gave no information about himself, although it appeared he did not know much about New York. It is uncertain whether he came over in the same ship with the suspect. (New York Herald, Dec 4, 1888)
There is even further corroboration from Cincinnati:
It has been known for some days past that the detectives have been quietly tracing the career in this city of Dr. Francis Tumblety, one of the suspects under surveillance by the English authorities, and who was recently followed across the ocean by Scotland Yard's men. From information which leaked out yesterday around police headquarters, the inquiries presented here are not so much in reference to Tumblety himself as to a companion who attracted almost as much attention as the doctor, both on account of oddity of character and the shadow-like persistence with which he followed his employer. The investigation in this city is understood to be under the direction of English officials now in New York, and based upon certain information they have forwarded by mail. One of the officers whom current reports connects with this local investigation is James Jackson, the well-known private detective . . . The officials at police headquarters declined to talk about the matter or to answer any questions bearing on this supposed discovery of 'Jack the Ripper's' identity. (Cincinnati Enquirer, Dec. 14, 1888)
Now, does this sound like my point is supported by just one bartender as Barratt minimalized? Sorry David, this is the last reveal I will give you (and I’m sure you will “edit” your article). I will not play into your hand and give you the other areas of your minimalization, but I will repost this every time you post.
Sincerely,
Mike
_____
Comment