Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[David Orsam]

At this point, all seemed lost for the railway company's proposal. Could it possibly be brought back to life? Or was it dead and buried?

On that thrilling cliffhanger I will pause until the next exciting installment…..

[Steadmund Brand]

On behalf of Mike......Thanks for buying the book David

Steadmund Brand

[mklhawley]

For anyone whose curiosity is whetted by talk of my debate with Jonathan Hainsworth, it can be found here:

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

and it also seemed to metamorphosize into another thread:

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

But I do warn you, the posts were very long!

You just can't stop your incessant posting, eh, David. You hate me so much, you're trying to sabotage it. What is behind David?


So, David and I would both like the reader to revisit David’s attempt to “review” Jonathan Hainsworth’s book.

First, because the Casebook reader likely has not read his book, one cannot see how David uses the lawyer’s trick of paraphrasing, minimalizing evidence to the contrary, and misleading statements.


This creates a strawman argument.


David crafts an inappropriate spin on Jonathan’s explanations and then he bashes his own spin. The result by itself is a convincing “book review,’ especially because David is actually a good researcher. The problem is that he just led the reader down the path of untruth. Why I say it’s a lawyer’s trick is because in David’s paralegal world, the adversarial system of justice forces David’s bosses (the attorneys) to merely argue to win; not argue for truth. It’s the judge’s and jury’s responsibility to weed out the truth from both sides on an argument.


We then see what he does on these threads. Once he’s lured an author into a so-called debate, its death by paraphrasing all over again. In this case, he takes Jonathan’s cogent post and splinters it with about a dozen mini-posts. The effect is to stop the reader from seeing the overall logical path Jonathan was pointing out. Jonathan catches this, but because he does nothing else in life and has the time to live on Casebook, he then posts incessantly until he exhausts the author. Because the author leaves, he then gets the opportunity to spin at the end. He believes he’s won the final round, so he thinks he made his case. He then goes back to his online article, a document that the reader sees no one arguing against, and spins it even more.


Ultimately, David’s goal is to win; not seek the truth. In the case of this thread, I’ve found numerous problems yet have only revealed a few. I am not going to play the game he did with Jonathan. Sorry David. As I said, I’m waiting for that book you claim you’re not writing.

Honestly, if you want to see where David's arguments rot of error, contact me privately, since I am not going to allow him to accomplish his lawyer's trick on me.


Oh by the way, you will not be successful in purchasing David’s Spandau Ballet book, but if you can, you’ll find out he was quite nasty to the band. He’s trying to screw the band’s credibility by claiming that they stole the name. They just may have, but how interesting that David likes to be nasty in other areas too.

Sincerely,
Mike

[David Orsam]

On behalf of Mike......Thanks for buying the book David

Why are you posting on behalf of Mike?

[David Orsam]

You just can't stop your incessant posting, eh, David. You hate me so much, you're trying to sabotage it. What is behind David?

Well, Mike, I've already explained the reason for my "incessant" posting. I'm trying to convince you that the deployment of the 12 constables at London Railway stations, as referred to in Colonel Pearson's letter of 20 November 1888, had absolutely nothing to do with Tumblety.

Do you accept that simple fact?

If you do, then I don't need to post the rest of the correspondence. If you don't accept it, then clearly I do.

[David Orsam]

So, David and I would both like the reader to revisit David’s attempt to “review” Jonathan Hainsworth’s book.

First, because the Casebook reader likely has not read his book, one cannot see how David uses the lawyer’s trick of paraphrasing, minimalizing evidence to the contrary, and misleading statements.

This creates a strawman argument.

David crafts an inappropriate spin on Jonathan’s explanations and then he bashes his own spin. The result by itself is a convincing “book review,’ especially because David is actually a good researcher. The problem is that he just led the reader down the path of untruth. Why I say it’s a lawyer’s trick is because in David’s paralegal world, the adversarial system of justice forces David’s bosses (the attorneys) to merely argue to win; not argue for truth. It’s the judge’s and jury’s responsibility to weed out the truth from both sides on an argument.

We then see what he does on these threads. Once he’s lured an author into a so-called debate, its death by paraphrasing all over again. In this case, he takes Jonathan’s cogent post and splinters it with about a dozen mini-posts. The effect is to stop the reader from seeing the overall logical path Jonathan was pointing out. Jonathan catches this, but because he does nothing else in life and has the time to live on Casebook, he then posts incessantly until he exhausts the author. Because the author leaves, he then gets the opportunity to spin at the end. He believes he’s won the final round, so he thinks he made his case. He then goes back to his online article, a document that the reader sees no one arguing against, and spins it even more.

I don't think you've understood my article "A Bridge Too Far: The Curious Case of Mortemer Slade".

The central thesis of my article (which was not a book review) was very simple. The character of Mortemer Slade in Guy Logan's 1905 book The True Identity of Jack the Ripper is not obviously modelled on Montague Druitt. That was basically it. That's what I was trying to establish and convince my reader of.

In doing so, I made a number of points which were accepted by Jonathan (correcting some of his errors) and which he told me he will be incorporating in the next edition of his book.

Sadly, in the ensuing Casebook discussion, Jonathan failed to engage with me regarding my central point about the connection between Mortemer Slade and Montague Druitt and seemed to prefer to attack me personally, just as you have chosen to do Mike. He seemed to think that I hated him, just like you do, although there was no rational reason for this.

From what you've said, Mike, I very much doubt that you've even read my article about Jonathan's book and, if you have read it, you obviously haven't understood it. Nor did you understand the ensuing Casebook discussion.

I make four further points:

1. I can't see the relevance in respect of my article about JH's book, nor my discussion with him in the forum, to my article about your book or my posts in this forum.

2. There is nothing actually wrong with an adversarial debate. That's how most debates are conducted. One person puts the case for the "prosecution" (if you want to call it that) and the other puts the case for the "defence". The "jury" are the readers of the debate who decide who has put forward the best argument. Another way of viewing it is a debate between two expert witnesses who argue, respectively, for or against a certain proposition. Any intelligent person interested in the subject at hand wants to read the pros and cons put forward calmly and rationally, with supporting evidence, by those who know most about the subject. But, in this instance, Mike, you simply haven't engaged with me, ignoring most of the issues and deciding to attack me personally, in an overly emotional way, which helps no-one get to the truth.

3. JH writes extremely long posts which are very difficult to follow. They are normally quite cogent but, when debating with me for some reason, he seemed to lose the plot and wrote largely incomprehensible nonsense. To try and reply to his long posts in their entirety would create even longer posts which no-one would ever read. The only way to deal with them sensibly was to break them up. It had nothing to do with my trying to "stop the reader from seeing the overall logical path Jonathan was pointing out". It's an utterly absurd suggestion because Jonathan's original posts were there for anyone to read, unchanged. If any reader wanted to see his "overall logical path" they just had to read his posts (but they would do well to find any such "logical path" in any of his posts addressed to me).

4. It is simply untrue and a falsehood to say that I went back to my online article after my debate with JH and made any changes. I really don't know why you have got this idea fixed so firmly into your head. I honestly don't know whether you are lying deliberately or actually think it is true. Have you asked Jonathan whether he thinks this is the case? My article, as it is today, is the same as the one he responded to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You just can't stop your incessant posting, eh, David. You hate me so much, you're trying to sabotage it. What is behind David?


So, David and I would both like the reader to revisit David’s attempt to “review” Jonathan Hainsworth’s book.

First, because the Casebook reader likely has not read his book, one cannot see how David uses the lawyer’s trick of paraphrasing, minimalizing evidence to the contrary, and misleading statements.


This creates a strawman argument.


David crafts an inappropriate spin on Jonathan’s explanations and then he bashes his own spin. The result by itself is a convincing “book review,’ especially because David is actually a good researcher. The problem is that he just led the reader down the path of untruth. Why I say it’s a lawyer’s trick is because in David’s paralegal world, the adversarial system of justice forces David’s bosses (the attorneys) to merely argue to win; not argue for truth. It’s the judge’s and jury’s responsibility to weed out the truth from both sides on an argument.


We then see what he does on these threads. Once he’s lured an author into a so-called debate, its death by paraphrasing all over again. In this case, he takes Jonathan’s cogent post and splinters it with about a dozen mini-posts. The effect is to stop the reader from seeing the overall logical path Jonathan was pointing out. Jonathan catches this, but because he does nothing else in life and has the time to live on Casebook, he then posts incessantly until he exhausts the author. Because the author leaves, he then gets the opportunity to spin at the end. He believes he’s won the final round, so he thinks he made his case. He then goes back to his online article, a document that the reader sees no one arguing against, and spins it even more.


Ultimately, David’s goal is to win; not seek the truth. In the case of this thread, I’ve found numerous problems yet have only revealed a few. I am not going to play the game he did with Jonathan. Sorry David. As I said, I’m waiting for that book you claim you’re not writing.

Honestly, if you want to see where David's arguments rot of error, contact me privately, since I am not going to allow him to accomplish his lawyer's trick on me.


Oh by the way, you will not be successful in purchasing David’s Spandau Ballet book, but if you can, you’ll find out he was quite nasty to the band. He’s trying to screw the band’s credibility by claiming that they stole the name. They just may have, but how interesting that David likes to be nasty in other areas too.

Sincerely,
Mike

Here’s a suggestion Mike.

Why not simply debate the points that David has raised? If, as you suggest, he has no basis for these criticisms but just employs fiendish Lawyer’s tricks then his points should be fairly easy for you to rebut.

Just by resorting to personal criticisms achieves nothing apart from, in all honesty, it makes you sound like a conspiract theorist who is hyper-sensitive to criticism. Why not use this Forum for its intended purpose....debate?

[David Orsam]

Ultimately, David’s goal is to win; not seek the truth.

I'm not sure how you can say that with a straight face. I mean, what is "the truth" about the 12 constables?

Isn't that what I've been trying to establish here?

In the case of this thread, I’ve found numerous problems yet have only revealed a few.

Do you mean that you have found various problems with your book? Yes, I have found the same thing Mike.

[David Orsam]

Oh by the way, you will not be successful in purchasing David’s Spandau Ballet book,

That's a weird statement. Do you think I am playing a trick on people and pretending that it's available to buy?

And do you think Amazon are in on it? I am personally aware that a number of people have been successful in purchasing my book so your statement is utterly false, not to mention quite ridiculous.

but if you can, you’ll find out he was quite nasty to the band. He’s trying to screw the band’s credibility by claiming that they stole the name.

So you are prepared to comment on a book you haven't read?

Not surprisingly you've got it wrong. I do not claim that the band "stole the name". The band had no role in the creation of the name, which was suggested to them by a friend. As it happens, though, Gary Kemp and Martin Kemp (two of the band members) are captured on film during an interview saying that they "stole the name". It's not something that I claim in the book though. But, of course, you haven't read it, not that this stops you from rushing to judgement.

They just may have, but how interesting that David likes to be nasty in other areas too.

This is the best bit. What Mike is saying, in other words, is that what I say in my book (or what he thinks I am saying) might be perfectly 100% true but I still shouldn't say it!

This is from a person whose entire book - make that two entire books - is devoted to showing that Francis Tumblety was a mass murderer!!! Oh but that's not "nasty" at all. LOL!

[mklhawley]

David,

Just because I completely ignored your article when I wrote my book, your anger has now created a massive thread. Your article is littered with bias, David! Check it out, you're dissecting my post just like you did to Jonathan when he dominated you. Again, readers, check out how David floundered, so he posts and posts and posts and posts.

Keep on posting the same ol, same ol 10 police constables red herring argument. You seem to think you found a gotcha argument, but I've actually found a crack in it. I'm not going to comment on it for two reasons. First, it is an absolute red herring, and second, I'm waiting for his book. Oh yah David, I think I scared you into not writing one now.

Sorry,

Mike

[David Orsam]

Just because I completely ignored your article when I wrote my book, your anger has now created a massive thread.

In the first place, Mike, it's simply not true to say you "ignored" my article when you wrote your book. I have already provided a number of clear examples of you changing your book in response to my article. This includes the very topic at hand regarding the 12 constables where you have, in fact, modified your book to reduce the emphasis on those 12 constables (as I previously demonstrated) but, bafflingly, have kept them in the book with the hint that they might have something to do with Tumblety after all.

Secondly, I don't care if you ignore my article or not, it's up to you. Either way, it doesn't stop me pointing out where you have gone wrong, if I see that you have gone wrong. Previously I just left it in my article and said almost nothing on the forum. But as you don't seem to have absorbed many of the points in my article, I have brought it into the forum where you have clearly demonstrated your failures of understanding better than I could ever have done myself.

Thirdly, the only person obviously angry in this thread is you. From the start you've let your emotions get the better of you. It's not a scholarly or sensible way to behave. As far as I am concerned, it shows a breathtaking lack of judgement on your part.

[David Orsam]

Your article is littered with bias, David! Check it out,

I'm well aware of what is in my article Mike. If you have some examples of "bias" then just post them and I'll deal with them. If you fail to do so, then I will have no idea what you are talking about and nor, I imagine, will anyone else.

[David Orsam]

you're dissecting my post just like you did to Jonathan when he dominated you.

I literally cannot conceive why it is so important to you to keep saying in almost every post that Jonathan "dominated" me. It's way beyond my understanding of psychology. Even if it were true, so what? What can it possibly have to do with my article about your book or my posts in this forum?

For the record, though, I'm quite certain he didn't dominate me; that was far from my own impression of the debate, where I would have to say that, if anything, the very reverse was true, and we now have two independent members of this forum who don't agree with you. Abby Normal posted in the middle of that very debate to criticise the way Jonathan was responding (or, rather, not responding) to me at the time and Herlock Sholmes has posted in this thread to say, "ive just read the debate between David and Jonathon and if you feel that thats an example of David being dominated you have a different interpretation of the word than me."

But if you think I've been "dominated" why don't you give some examples, either here or more appropriately in the thread where the debate was being conducted? I'm sure you won't because I am as certain as I can be that you didn't understand a word of that debate.

And I'd love to know what you think the difference is between "dissecting" a post and responding to the all points in it.

[David Orsam]

Again, readers, check out how David floundered, so he posts and posts and posts and posts.

Can we have some post numbers of the posts in which you say I "floundered"?

I don't remember floundering at any time and am positively certain I did not.

[David Orsam]

Keep on posting the same ol, same ol 10 police constables red herring argument.

Well, we have a little problem there because it's 12 police constables. Are you actually reading any of the posts in this thread?

You seem to think you found a gotcha argument, but I've actually found a crack in it.

I'll tell you what I think Mike. I think that I have already conclusively and comprehensively demonstrated, with an extraordinary abundance of solid evidence, that the deployment of the 12 constables had nothing to do with Tumblety whatsoever. I mean, they weren't even deployed at any time that Tumblety was in the UK!!! It's an absolute slam dunk of argument. I doubt if it's possible to prove a fact more clearly than I have done with this one. Even the claim that the world is round has less certain proof than my claim that these constables were totally unrelated to Tumblety. So, no Mike, you haven't found a "crack" in my argument. Given your track record so far in this thread, you are probably lying but if you truly think you have found a crack you are simply mistaken.

I'm not going to comment on it for two reasons. First, it is an absolute red herring, and second, I'm waiting for his book. Oh yah David, I think I scared you into not writing one now.

No Mike, the reason you are not going to comment is because you know you are wrong and for psychological reasons of your own, simply cannot admit it.

But you don't need to wait for any book (which isn't coming anyway). All the evidence about the 12 constables will be posted in this thread. And then everyone will see that you just misunderstood their purpose, as did Andrew Cook.