Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[David Orsam]

Your MO (i.e., what you did with Jonathan) is to offend an author on the boards enough so that they defend themselves and expose the gaps in your articles, present and future. You’ll then amend your online articles.

This is just untrue and, I regret to say this Mike, but you are now lying. I didn't have you down for a liar but that's what you are doing, I'm afraid to say.

To say or suggest that I offended Jonathan Hainsworth enough so that he defended himself and exposed gaps in my article about his book and then subsequently amended my online article about his book is not only untrue (and offensive) but utterly ridiculous on so many levels.

Firstly, Jonathan Hainsworth did not expose ANY gaps in my article about his book. I've posted the links to our debate. If you think he exposed any gaps in my article tell me please what they are (or were).

Secondly, the truth is that I noted several errors in Jonathan's book which he admitted were errors and indicated that he would correct them in his next edition.

Thirdly, my article about Jonathan's book was not offensive in any way and I'm not aware how it can be construed in such a fashion.

Fourthly, my article was not amended in response to my debate with Jonathan Hainsworth. The article is the same as it was when Jonathan and I discussed it. (The only change I do recall making was when Jonathan pointed out some missing dots in a quote which I openly thanked him for mentioning and added them in, a change so trivial as not to be worth mentioning but I did, in fact, mention it on the board.)

Exactly the same is true with any other debate I've had with other authors.

I simply don't know how you have got this notion into your head that I am secretly amending my articles, let alone this nonsense that I'm trying to get people to somehow help me to amend them by offending them!!! I mean, it just makes no sense whatsoever.

Just look at my debate with Jonathan Hainsworth. It's there for all to see. He tells me NOTHING that could possibly have made me (secretly) amend my article. I literally don't know what you are talking about.

[David Orsam]

It’s obvious as to your motive. Your online articles will be chapters in your future David Orsam Book. In view of this, I will illuminate you AFTER publication so that I can return the very same courtesy that you have given other authors on these boards. Don’t be afraid to publish, David. Have some guts. I will take the time out of my busy schedule and give you a thorough review.

It's "obvious" as to my motive is Mike? I'm seriously starting to wonder about your sanity here. No wonder you make so many mistakes about Tumblety!

I literally do not know what "future David Orsam Book" you are talking about. One thing I can absolutely guarantee you is that I will NOT be writing a book about Tumblety nor will I be writing a book about Jack the Ripper - well, not unless I stumble upon the solution to the mystery, which seems very unlikely.

So you will be waiting an absolute eternity to give me a "thorough review" for my book. It simply ain't gonna happen!

[David Orsam]

Recall:

David Pierre Barratt changed his online negative article on Jonathan Hainsworth’s book AFTER Jonathan dominated him on Casebook!

So, once again, ignoring the "Pierre" nonsense, this is a lie.

Jonathan did not dominate me in any way on Casebook. The truth of the matter, for anyone being objective, is that he lost on every single issue in the discussion. And he is supposed to be the Druitt expert! He simply didn't grasp the nettle of my article at all. He barely mentioned its central thesis which is that Mortemer Slade was not obviously based on Montague Druitt. In fact, I'm not even sure he mentioned it all. He waffled on about me a lot, I do remember that. But he just didn't get to grips with the points in my article.

It was a disaster for him. I wasn't dominated, therefore I didn't need to change my article in response to anything he said. (And this is the article, remember, which you earlier claimed had "vanished" even though it's always been at the link which I originally posted!)

As I've mentioned, Mike, you are hallucinating. That must be why you haven't provided a single example of what you are falsely alleging.

[David Orsam]

Well, Mike, the rest of your post is just a childish repeat of what you've already posted multiple times on this forum and to which I have already responded. How sad. Do you realise how bad you are making yourself look? Do you really have any idea at all?

I still have absolutely no idea what you think about the deployment of the 12 constables at St Pancras and Euston train stations. How is it even possible that you have avoided dealing with this subject?

Do you accept that their deployment in 1889 had nothing whatsoever to do with Tumblety?

As for the other two questions I've been pressing you to answer, I think it's now obvious that there are no "modern researchers" who have been claiming that the "English detective" was a private detective and you were just referring to me. It's ironically like the way the American newspapers referred to "bartenders" when there was probably only one, if that.

And we all know that three Scotland Yard officials did not name Tumblety as a JTR suspect and that was just bluster on your part.

[mklhawley]

My gosh, it reminds me of a Spandau Ballet hit both you and I love, "Highly Strung." Are you losing it, David?

Here's what you should do. Stop your vindictive agenda.


What do you think?

Mike

[David Orsam]

My gosh, it reminds me of a Spandau Ballet hit both you and I love, "Highly Strung." Are you losing it, David?

Why do you assume that I "love" the track "Highly Strung"? More sloppy thinking there Mike!

Here's what you should do. Stop your vindictive agenda. What do you think?

I don't think a great deal of that suggestion, Mike, because there is no "vindictive agenda". It exists in your mind only.

Can I be so bold as to offer some counter advice? This is to respond directly to the points that I've raised about your book. If you think my criticism is fair and you accept you have made errors, why not simply admit it?

If, however, you think I've got it wrong just tell me calmly why I am wrong.

Forget all this paranoid nonsense about "hidden agendas" and people out to "get" you and just deal with what I'm saying about the factual matters in your book.

You did, I think, accept that you made a mistake in thinking that "received into custody" means "arrested" in the Central Criminal Court Calendar, when it actually means admitted to prison [on remand] and that's fine. You simply made an error which can be corrected. Why is there such a problem in your mind with that?

And one other thing Mike. You might have noticed that I have directly called you a liar in respect of your allegation about my online articles. If someone were to do that to me I would either respond in as much detail as possible to explain why I am not lying or, if I can't do so, withdraw the allegation (as the only honourable alternative). Could I please ask you to do one or the other?

[David Orsam]

History Lesson No.1

The claim has been made in this thread that Jonathan Hainsworth "dominated" me when responding to my article "Bridge Too Far: The Curious Case of Mortimer Slade" and it has been further alleged that, in some unspecified and secret way, I amended my article in response to Hainsworth's points. The truth is the exact opposite.

Here is what Hainsworth posted in response to my article on 30 November 2016:

"Where I agree with David:

1. Macnaghten is demonstrably wrong about the details of other criminal cases with which he was personally involved, therefore so much for Mr. Super-memory. I agree that Mac was quite simply wrong, and does not seem to have been deceitful for propagandist purposes either.

2. As a responsible and canny civil servant, Macnaghten would not have written "said to be a doctor", as I argued in the book, to simply lie outright to the Home Secretary (and his own immediate superiors), and to leave himself so exposed if it all went pear-shaped.

3. I have since learned that the "North Country Vicar" really was a Vicar in the North, whereas I had argued in the book he was Vicar Charles Druitt in the South-west (he wasn't, though the latter took the confession. Since I offer no evidence at this point for this bald assertion, David is well within his rights to accept the first bit and to ignore the second. The new evidence is embargoed by my agent, and that's that for now).

4. Characterizing Sims' 1891 article, taking the coffee-stall owner's story seriously, as a complete reversal from the same writer's previous articles on this titbit, is over-stated by me to the point of distortion. I think Sims always took it seriously but was confirmed in its truth by seeing a picture of Druitt in 1891.

5. I have misread Logan, about Mortemer Slade never having had a patient. It's simply a mistake on my part, pure and simple."

So five admissions of error by Hainsworth that my article had drawn to his attention and that he is obviously going to have to correct in any future edition of his book. So any amendments were going to be made by him, not me!

But that's not all. For in a separate thread started on the same day he thanked me for finding a completely new source which he had missed. Thus, he posted (deliberately misspelling my user name for some weird reason):

"David Orsom has found a new source that is about both Druitt and the Vicar and, in my opinion, it further vindicates my 'case disguised' theory" and "all of the above is beside the point compared to what David has found: a source that arguably backs my theory to the hilt, and I thank him for publishing it."

As I pointed out in response, he had made a dating error which had led him to overstate the importance of the article I had found but, nevertheless, Hainsworth went on to say this:

"The source David found was very important for understanding the "Jack the Ripper" story."

He then added (my bold):

"For the reasons I outlined at the beginning of this thread I think it is a major find which supports the 'case disguised' theory, as outlined in my book, "Jack the Ripper-Case Solved, 1891", and will be in the second one (with David Barrett fully credited in the body the text for finding it, plus the disclaimer that he does not agree with my interpretation. His off-track point about the exact date of the Vicar's tale, though it makes no difference whatsoever to its significance for me, will be duly included too so that readers can make up their own minds). "

So there is clear proof that it was Hainsworth proposing to make amendments in his book as a result of my article NOT the other way round.

As for who "dominated" who in the discussion, anyone can make their own minds up and I repeat the links which I already posted to it here:

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

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

Only one other person, Abby Normal, actually commented on the debate at the time. Most of what he said is a bit too juicy for me to quote but this is what he said directly to Hainsworth on 1 December 2016:

"again, cant and wont reply with anything of substance against Davids counterpoints. Instead a general rant. "

That was my own exact impression at the time. Hainsworth simply failed to engage with what I was saying.

I rest my case.

[David Orsam]

History Lesson No.2

Anyone who has read Mike Hawley's posts in this thread who is unfamiliar with the history of this forum may be surprised to learn that, between him and myself, the first person to criticize, or attempt to criticize, the other's work was Mike Hawley criticizing me!!!

Shortly after I posted my Suckered Trilogy between 21-15 May 2015, Mike Hawley posted in this forum on 5 June 2015 to say:

"Although David's research is excellent, there's actually more to the picture with Tumblety."

He had, he announced, found "a clear cut correction" to my article. A fatal flaw, one might say! It eventually transpired that he had done no such thing. He had simply misunderstood and misread some of the documents in the case.

But when posting his purported correction and clarification on 24 June 2015, he said this:

"In scholarly research, credibility arises from peer review, i.e., those so-called experts in that particular area of research review the work for reliability, based upon the evidence. I will be doing this for David, in order for him to rebut my review and ultimately gain additional credibility. This thread is one venue we can use for a peer review model. The goal is getting closer to the truth."

Now, I don't disagree with any of this. I didn't criticize him for one second for attempting to find errors in my article (even though he messed it up), nor did I whinge and whine and throw out accusations of hidden agendas and people out to get me, on the contrary I positively encouraged him to do so. Not, I hasten to add so that I could then amend my article and publish a book!!

After I pointed out to Mike the embarrassing error of his ways and thanked him for engaging with me he concluded:

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

So what perplexes me is why Mike doesn't feel that his book is being "scrutinized" by me in this thread? Why doesn't he regard my comments as "peer review"? Why is the goal today not "getting closer to the truth"?

[David Orsam]

History Lesson No.3

The idea that I wrote my 2016 article about Mike's book in order to induce him into telling me something about Tumblety that he hadn't already included in his book about Tumblety that I can then use in a book of my own, having first amended my online article, is so bizarre that it's not worth discussing. But what is worth discussing is the irony of the fact that it has been MIKE who has been amending his books on Tumblety in response to my own online articles, not the other way round! For, just as Jonathan Hainsworth has corrected his own work on Druitt as a result of my own work, Hawley has done exactly the same regarding Tumblety.

Back in June 2015, Ripperologist published an article by Mike Hawley entitled "Anderson's Furtive Mission in North America" in which Hawley argued that Inspector Andrews went to New York in December 1888, apparently "as part of his Canadian agenda of collecting information" and specifically in order to "retrieve documents collected by other Scotland Yard officials stationed off the east coast". Unfortunately, Mike's article must have been written prior to my Suckered! Trilogy because I found confirmation from no less a source that Robert Anderson, corresponding with the Home Secretary, that Inspector Andrews never went to New York in December 1888.

Nevertheless, Mike believed, based on misinformation published by Simon Wood about snowstorms in Montreal delaying trains and a false newspaper report, that there were two missing days in Andrews' North American itinerary between 22nd and 24th December 1888 which could have involved him doing some kind of investigation involving Tumblety on the US border. Even back in July 2015 I was suggesting that there were no missing days and that Andrews probably caught the Sarnia back to England on 22nd December, not the Peruvian on the 24th, as both Wood and Hawley believed. Thankfully, I subsequently found confirmation that Andrews did, after all, return home on the Sarnia on 22nd December, which confirmation was posted in my "Reconstructing Jack" article on 22 March 2016.

A modified version of Mike's 2015 thesis appeared on his 2016 Ripper's Haunts book but now, in his 2018 book, the role of Inspector Andrews in investigating Tumblety during his Canadian journey, and any mention of the two missing days, has entirely disappeared.

All that remains in respect of Andrews is the mention of the Canadian newspaper report, discovered my me and first published in my Suckered! Trilogy in May 2015, in which Inspector Andrews denies that he thinks Tumblety was Jack the Ripper (something which has been used to suggest that he nevertheless thought he might have been!).

Now, one thing I want to stress is that it was perfectly legitimate for Mike to make use of this newspaper report and indeed for him to amend his thinking about the role of Inspector Andrews in response to my articles. Furthermore, Mike does kindly acknowledge my role in finding new material in both his books and I make absolutely no complaint or criticism of him for any of this.

As it happens, I have posted loads of new information about Tumblety on this forum, including important documents from the National Archives from 1888 and important reports from newspapers in 1888, not to mention information in my online articles (which are free for anyone to read). When I discovered an entire cache of correspondence in the National Archives from Tumblety and his lawyers requesting compensation from the British government for an allegedly false arrest in 1865 I passed a transcript, which I had taken the time to make, of the entire correspondence on to Joe Chetcuti for him to pass on to other researchers and to post extracts on this forum (and I see that this correspondence has been used by Mike in his latest book). Does this sound like the action of someone preparing his own book on Tumblety? No it does not because I am doing no such thing!

My only point in this post, however, is that it is so far from the truth to say that I have any interest in amending my online articles or including information in a book in response to anything that Mike Hawley has to say, or thinks he has to say, when what has happened is that Mike has used information found by me in his books and amended his book in response to my own online articles.

[David Orsam]

Had I been writing a book about Francis Tumblety and I learnt from the work of another author, such as Andrew Cook, that there was a letter written by a senior Scotland Yard official on 20 November 1888 referring to the deployment of 12 constables at London train stations I would not only have wanted to have seen that letter for myself but would have wanted to know everything about it, the entire background of that letter and why it was written. I would also have wanted to know what the response to that letter was and what actually happened next. I would, in other words, have researched the life out of it. It is, of course, exactly what I did do in writing my article "The English Detective". No way would I want to rely on another author and simply repeat what could easily be, and did in fact turn out to be, a basic and embarrassing error which was easily revealed by the actual wording of Colonel Pearson's letter.

Furthermore, if I had nevertheless decided to accept Cook's word and had written a book relying on the 20th November letter as evidence that 12 constables had been deployed specifically to catch Tumblety, but had then read an online article in which the full history of the 20th November letter had been set out, demonstrating conclusively that the 20th November letter had nothing whatsoever to do with Tumblety, then, when writing a second book on Tumblety, I would have made damn sure that I didn't mention one word about that 20th November letter in order to avoid misleading my readers into thinking it did.

Equally, if I was considering whether a couple of reports in American newspapers referring to an English detective stalking Tumblety in New York could possibly have been referring a Scotland Yard detective I would have put in every human effort to interrogate the Metropolitan Police and Home Office files, and any other conceivable files, in the National Archives or elsewhere to find some actual evidence of such a detective being despatched to New York or some kind of confirmation that such a thing was even remotely plausible. No way would I simply rely on such newspaper reports from 19th century America as telling the truth, or being accurate, bearing in mind how common it is to find errors and exaggerations and even downright lies in such reports.

Also, if I was relying on Littlechild's letter to Sims as evidence that it was "certain" that Tumblety had been spotted in Boulogne, I would want to read that letter properly to ensure that it actually did what I was saying it was "certain" it did.

[David Orsam]

My only point in this post, however, is that it is so far from the truth to say that I have any interest in amending my online articles or including information in a book in response to anything that Mike Hawley has to say, or thinks he has to say, when what has happened is that Mike has used information found by me in his books and amended his book in response to my own online articles.

Not to forget, of course, that Mike also amended his section about the 12 constables in his latest book in response to my 2016 article, deleting a whole chunk about it, as I've already demonstrated in this thread, and adding in the word "Coincidentally".

But what I simply cannot understand, and perhaps Mike can assist, is why there remains any mention of the 12 constables and the 20th November 1888 letter in his current book, after having read all the facts I set out in my online article. It truly baffles me.

[mklhawley]

Pierre... Oh, I’m sorry, David Orsam... Oh, I’m sorry, David Barratt!

More mass posting! I must be getting to you. I return to Christopher Morley’s excellent insight into your incessant barking:


Truth, like milk, arrives in the dark
But even so, wise dogs don’t bar.
Only mongrels make it hard
For the milkman to come up the yard.



Well, I have to fess up to something. Since it’s your MO to respond to a single post with 6 or 8 posts of strawman arguments loaded with your mixture of paraphrasing, minimalizing, and mischaracterization, I purposely egged you on for the last few pages. In so doing, I have been collecting mistakes each and every time. Thank you for that, David! Of course I don’t want to reveal, yet, since you’ll just re-edit your online articles.

And when you finally publish your book loaded with this crap, I will be honored to give you a review. Honestly. The fact that your signature statement is Orsam Books makes it clear this is your plan. Hurry up!


I have revealed two cracks in your argument, so it’s time to see them again:


First one: Pierre 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.

Looking forward to more mistakes!


Sincerely,

Mike

[David Orsam]

Pierre... Oh, I’m sorry, David Orsam... Oh, I’m sorry, David Barratt!

Not even correct at the third attempt, Mike. My surname is spelt "Barrat". You did manage to get it right in your 2016 book, "The Ripper's Haunts":

"In 2015, researcher David Barrat discovered an article in the Toronto World, December 12, 1888, edition, where Scotland Yard Inspector Walter Andrews discussed Whitechapel murder suspect “Dr. Tumblety” while in Toronto in December 1888."

AND

"Barrat discovered a similar article reported in the Montreal Herald on December 21, 1888, but in much less detail:"

AND

"David Barrat went to the British Library and found a follow-up report to the December 21, 1888, World article in the December 31, 1888, issue of the Daily Telegraph."

In the Acknowledgments section, however, you gave your appreciation to "David Barratt".

In your 2018 book, I see that you refer to having taken of some "outstanding researchers" including one "David Barrett".

As for the mention of "Pierre", I'm afraid I'm still not sure if this is being used as a term of abuse, to try and label me as a "Pierre" type character, or you actually really do think I am the person who posted as "Pierre" on this forum. Either way it seems a bit mad.

[David Orsam]

Since it’s your MO to respond to a single post with 6 or 8 posts of strawman arguments loaded with your mixture of paraphrasing, minimalizing, and mischaracterization, I purposely egged you on for the last few pages.

What you are saying, in other words, is that you had a hidden agenda?

Funny 'cos that's exactly what you (falsely) accused me of having and now YOU admit to having one!!!

Again, I have to comment that's it's all a bit, well, mad isn't it?

[David Orsam]

have been collecting mistakes each and every time. Thank you for that, David! Of course I don’t want to reveal, yet, since you’ll just re-edit your online articles.

Good luck with your little collection of "mistakes" there Mike. A sort of similar way that Tumblety collected female organs I assume. You sit at home, do you, surrounded by your precious collection of imaginary mistakes that you never reveal?

I should remind you that I posted my entire article "The English Detective" on this forum so it would be impossible for me to edit that. In which case, any editing I did make to the online article would be easily identified and obvious to anyone.

To the extent that I were to openly edit my article to improve it for any future readers, and correct any errors, I fail to see what possible problem there could be with that and why you think there would be. I don't ask anyone to pay for reading those articles and gain no benefit from them whatsoever. So what possible issue do you have with me potentially editing it?