Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[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?

[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.

[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)?

[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]

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!

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is almost surreal?

I can see no reason for assuming dishonesty on David’s part on the subject of a book that he’s clearly stated that he isnt writing?

And if you believe that you know of errors that David has made you should have enough confidence in them to post them on the Forum for debate (which is after all the point of the Forum.)

[David Orsam]

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.

"Questioning the validity of the "English detective"" is a different matter. Mike was talking about a specific alternative suggestion to a Scotland Yard detective, being an English private detective.

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.

It's not a question of "as I seem to believe"; he's previously admitted that he was "targeting" me in his 2016 book. See Mike's post at #2 in this thread dated 29 September 2016:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9897

"I actually predicted you would respond to my English detective piece in The Ripper's Haunts because it actually rebutted an earlier argument of yours."

So, you see, he was directly rebutting in his book what I had said to him on this forum. And this is what he had said in his 2016 book:

'Some claim the English detective was a private detective hired by the two bondsmen to recoup their £300 ($1,500) sureties'

That's what he was talking about when he referred to his book having "rebutted" an earlier argument of mine. It's the exact same point!!!

And he even told me that he had predicted my article in response:

"And I actually predicted this rebuttal, as well"

[David Orsam]

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

I think I can limit this response to a single post as all you've done is repeat a strange error that you've made a number of times in this thread.

There will not be a "Jack the Ripper" book from me. I do not consider myself, and never have considered myself, to be a Ripperologist.

Why you believe there will be such a book is impossible for me to comprehend bearing in mind that I have never said, either in public or in private, that I will ever be writing such a book nor have I ever hinted at such a thing.

Presumably it's all a diversionary tactic: a distraction from the questions about your book that I've raised in this thread, you know, the 12 constables and all that kind of relevant stuff.

[mklhawley]

Hey David,

Did you know that we've discovered even more evidence and I'm now in the process of working on yet a third Tumblety book! And there's New York City material! I am being absolutely honest.

Even though you've made an absolute conclusion, you may not want to be so set. Future's bright.

Sincerely,

Mike

[David Orsam]

And if you believe that you know of errors that David has made you should have enough confidence in them to post them on the Forum for debate (which is after all the point of the Forum.)

Back in June 2015, Mike thought he had found an important error in my series of online articles entitled "The Suckered! Trilogy". He told me (and the rest of the forum members) that he was going to post "a clear cut correction". A few days later he finally posted what he thought this "clear cut correction" was.

Unfortunately for Mike, and rather embarrassingly, it transpired that he had misread and misunderstood a key document. The "clear cut correction" turned out to be nothing of the kind. Just a "clear cut mistake" on the part of Mr Hawley.

Our brief discussion on the point concluded with Mike saying:

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

It was, of course, very kind of Mike to scrutinize my entire article and I was very pleased that it stood up to scrutiny.

For anyone wanting to read the above mentioned discussion and see the mistakes made by Mike (for there was actually more than one), it's this thread here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8880

Mike advertises his "clear cut correction" in #310 and then posts what he thinks it is in #352. I put him straight in #362.

[mklhawley]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said you were only going to post once. My bad. I'll wait for your six or eight.