Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[David Orsam]

And when you finally publish your book loaded with this crap, I will be honored to give you a review.

I've already stated categorically that I won't be publishing any book on Tumblety or Jack the Ripper. Did you not understand that or did you not believe it?

But I'm interested in the use of the expression "this crap". Are you saying, for example, that my analysis of the reasons for the deployment of the 12 constables, which I deal with at length in my article, "The English Detective", is wrong (or "crap")?

[David Orsam]

Honestly. The fact that your signature statement is Orsam Books makes it clear this is your plan. Hurry up!

It's hard to respond to such sloppy thinking, Mike, but you do your credibility and reputation no good with nonsense such as this.

I've published two books on True Crime. I imagine that books on True Crime are of interest to readers of this forum. The link in my signature statement to the Orsam Books website gives more information about those two books. These are: The Islington Murder Mystery and The Camden Town Murder Mystery. They are both gripping and exciting reads about a couple of real murders that occurred in 1915 and 1907 respectively, well worth the small amount of money one needs to pay for them. They are both available in paperback and kindle editions.

Given that most members of this forum probably remember the 1980s and the New Romantic Period and Spandau Ballet they can also find my groundbreaking new book: New Romantics Who Never Were: The Untold Story of Spandau Ballet, with its astonishing revelation of the origin the name "Spandau Ballet", available in paperback with details of where to buy it on my website at the link below.

Mike, thanks for giving me the opportunity once again to advertise my books in a thread about your own book and I'll pop the cheque in the post on Monday!

[David Orsam]

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?

I've already responded to this but let me do it now in a different way.

Mike seems to rely on Littlechild's comments in his letter that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" and that he "shortly left Boulogne" as evidence that it is "certain" that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne although, oddly, in his book he only quotes the part about Tumblety getting away to Boulogne in support of his claim.

But how do such comments even begin to show that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne?

After Tumblety's flight, the police could easily have established from simple enquiries that he left England for Boulogne, and it's Mike's own case that Scotland Yard knew that Tumblety sailed for New York to Le Havre at the end of November 1888 because he thinks a Scotland Yard detective actually pursued him to New York.

So, just from that information alone, it's perfectly obvious that the police could have known that Tumblety arrived in Boulogne and then left it shortly afterwards for Le Havre without having seen him in Boulogne at any time.

As a result, it's not "certain" at all that Littlechild was saying that Tumblety was seen in Boulogne and Mike can't even make up his mind when he was seen. Was it when he arrived or when he left? Were they keeping him under observation? What was a Scotland Yard officer even doing in Boulogne?

Mike is technically wrong to say in his book that "No one in Scotland Yard but a Special Branch detective would have been assigned in France". Officers from Scotland Yard's Section C (Ports section) were assigned at ports in France and other European countries, but not in Boulogne. Special Branch officers in 1888 did not simply hang around in foreign cities hoping to spot people fleeing from justice who they weren't even able to arrest.

[David Orsam]

Let's look at the problem Mike's error gets him into. At another point in his book he says this:

"Littlechild was chief inspector of Special Branch for another five years, yet he had no idea about the history of Tumblety after his men spotted him in Boulogne, France, on November 23, 1888."

You see, he's started to state it as an historical fact that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne by Littlechild's "men", perhaps fooling researchers in the future.

It's just bad history I'm afraid.

It's also baffling how Littlechild could have had "no idea" about what happened to Tumblety after he left Boulogne in November 1888 when it's Mike's own case that a Scotland Yard detective pursued Tumblety to New York in December 1888!!!! What is he saying, that Littlechild's knowledge of the investigation into Tumblety was faulty????

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im sure that i was once told that a poster could expect an infraction for implying that a poster was posting under another name. I think that the phrase in question was ‘sock puppet?’

[Kattrup]

Im sure that i was once told that a poster could expect an infraction for implying that a poster was posting under another name. I think that the phrase in question was ‘sock puppet?’

Correct, it’s rule #4.
I believe a post must be reported before admins decide whether to take action, however (your wording implies that it happens “automatically”)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Correct, it’s rule #4.
I believe a post must be reported before admins decide whether to take action, however (your wording implies that it happens “automatically”)

Thanks for that Kattrup

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have to say that i find this thread rather strange.

Mike has produced a book (which i havent read yet and so i cant make any comment). I take my hat off to anyone who undertakes such a difficult task by the way. On completion an author then takes the plaudits and the criticisms. David has made criticisms of certain parts of the book. I really cant understand Mike’s attitude in response?

Mike, you appear to view David’s criticisms as some kind of personal attack? You also appear to think that David has some kind of bias due to the fact that he’s planning his own JTR book?

Firstly, ive personally suggested to David that he should write such a book more than once (after reading his two excellent true crime books) but he appears to have no interest in doing so. Why do you think he has secret plans?

And finally, the normal response to criticisms should be either a) thank the critic for pointing out the errors or b) respond with evidence to show how you were correct in the first place.

Even someone with little or no knowledge of the subject (me) can see that your response to one of the points does not show that Tumblety was actually spotted in Boulogne? The point that David was making.

Im sorry but by adopting c) accusation and anger you have done yourself no favours.

[David Orsam]

I can only echo Herlock's post. As a matter of plain English, there is nothing in Littlechild's letter which tells us that how it was known that Tumblety passed through Boulogne in November 1888 and, as there are a number of possibilities, nothing can be said to be "certain".

I have no idea why Mike chose this battleground to die on. It was such a simple point I made originally which did not require the type of response it received.

[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.

[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.

[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]

How tall was Edmund Reid?

Are you referring to Edmund Reid of H Division?

[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

[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