Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[Herlock Sholmes]

Attention Casebook Managers,

This post was initially posted by Steadmund Brand to inform the Casebook community of the publication of my book, Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety. As you can see, there have been over 240 posts.

I want to report that David Barratt has attempted to hijack this post by focusing upon one small section of my book that conflicted with his online article. The biggest issue David has is about the 12 constables. I refuse to argue the case about the 12 constables on this thread because it is an insignificant part of the book, yet he is relentless in bringing it up. It should not be a surprise that I challenge David on his relentless attacks, since this is my book. Why is David so relentless on attempting to embarrass me?

As a matter of fact, notice the posts that David has brought up just the 12 constables issue. It's repeated no less than 30 times:

Posts 12, 39, 41, 47, 63, 67, 81, 82, 88, 89, 90, 95, 105, 109, 115, 116, 121, 138, 147, 166, 179, 222, 223, 224, 225, 236, and
290.

David has also brought up other issues just as incessantly even though I told him I am not going to debate it on this thread.

I am stuck in a situation. I refuse to argue my case to someone who mimics a troll, especially when they have supporters who assist him. The problem is, if I don't, others may get the impression they have the upper hand. This is actually far from the truth.

Just because I refuse to argue with someone, do they really have the right to taunt me and get away with it? This particular venue favors the person who has the time and energy to relentlessly post. I would hate to see even more researchers leave Casebook for this very reason.

Sincerely,

Mike

Ok. This is without a shadow of a doubt the most embarrassing post that ive seen during my time on the Forum. Its basically “mommy, mommy, the nasty men are picking on me!”

It appears that you came on to the Forum to a) promote your book (i have no issue with that) and 2) to receive unqualified praise and respect. I would like to point out that a ‘lack of respect’ is certainly displayed by your persistant mis-spelling of David’s surname.

I would also point out that by your ongoing and very obvious refusal to debate David’s points speak volumes. Again childish “i know a secret but im not telling you.”

Anyone reading this can see that it is not a personal attack. Its neither ‘personal’ nor an ‘attack.’ David has raised points. Something that he does regularly. Posters tend to debate him if they disagree. You try and make it personal as an obvious ploy to deflect attention from your refusal to debate using logic, reason and evidence. The ‘12 constables’ point is not an attempt to embarrss you its the pointing out of an error. Simply saying ‘ok, i made an error’ would have ended it with everyone respecting you for it. To compare David to a Troll is truly bizarre.

Anyone reading this thread will see the truth of the situation Mike. Its transparent.

Inventing untruths about David.
A refusal to debate points presented with evidence.
A lack of respect by an intentional mis-spelling of David’s surname.
Hints at a conspiracy when talking about David’s ‘supporters.’

I could post more but we are clearly ‘flogging a dead horse’ here.

Ill repeat myself
“You have done yourself no favours here Mike. None at all.”

Truly embarrassing.

[David Orsam]

This particular venue favors the person who has the time and energy to relentlessly post. I would hate to see even more researchers leave Casebook for this very reason.

This is a blatant and frankly pathetic attempt by Hawley to try to have me censored on the basis that "even more researchers" will leave Casebook if I am allowed to post about his book in this thread. He seems to have tried every trick in the book....except the normal one of responding in a calm and rational way to my posts.

[David Orsam]

I am stuck in a situation. I refuse to argue my case to someone who mimics a troll, especially when they have supporters who assist him. The problem is, if I don't, others may get the impression they have the upper hand. This is actually far from the truth.

I don't have any "supporters". Hawley is confusing genuine posters who are interested in the subject and who apparently can't understand why he, as the author of the book in question, is not simply answering what are very straightforward questions.

If Hawley is "stuck in a situation", that situation can only be that he has been caught bang to rights, having included misleading information in his book, attempting to trick his readers into thinking that police were being flooded into London Railway Stations to capture Tumblety in November 1888, and he has no idea how to respond to it - but certainly will not admit it that no such thing ever happened.

[David Orsam]

David has also brought up other issues just as incessantly even though I told him I am not going to debate it on this thread.

Hawley doesn't provide examples of him telling me he is not going to debate with me in this thread, no doubt because the reason he usually gave for refusing to respond to my posts was false, namely that I am going to include what he tells me into a future (imaginary) book about Jack the Ripper!!!

[David Orsam]

As a matter of fact, notice the posts that David has brought up just the 12 constables issue. It's repeated no less than 30 times:

Posts 12, 39, 41, 47, 63, 67, 81, 82, 88, 89, 90, 95, 105, 109, 115, 116, 121, 138, 147, 166, 179, 222, 223, 224, 225, 236, and
290.

It's interesting that Hawley includes #39 in this list which was about three issues but included the question:

Why did you include mention of the 12 constables and the 20th November letter in your book?

Then #41 which contained the question:

Do you accept or do you not accept that the proposed deployment of 12 constables at two train stations had absolutely nothing to do with Tumblety?

Then, after Hawley ignored both of the above, I posted in #47:

"I deal with the point about the 12 constables in great detail and demonstrate conclusively that there was no connection between their deployment (in 1889) and Tumblety's flight (or anything to do with Tumblety).

Do you or do you not accept the facts as set out in that article?"

Then (after no response) in #63:

"I'm still waiting for answers to these 3 questions. In response to Q1 there was some mention of a "source" without any further explanation. But what I want to know is what Mike actually believes or understands about why those 12 constables were deployed."

So Hawley is including in his list examples of me pressing him to answer a question which he was simply refusing to answer!!

In #67 I set out the changes on the issue of the 12 constables between Mike's two books showing that he had amended his book in response to my online article.

In #88, in direct response to a false allegation from Hawley that I was likely to amend or delete my online article, I posted the entire section of that article relating to the 12 constables so that I could not now change it.

Subsequent posts in Hawley's list include the full text of correspondence, never previously published by me (or indeed anyone to the best of my knowledge), which prove that the deployment of the 12 constables had nothing to do with Tumblety. The posts are different each time and include new information.

Hawley, on the other hand, seemed to think it was a sensible "strategy" to continually repeat his post #68 despite me having responded to it in detail in #69 #70, #72 and #75 and despite criticism of this behaviour from jmenges.

Thus #68, #71, #76, #79, #83 #91, #100, #117, #182 were substantially the same posts, some with a different introductory paragraph, such as "How thick are you?" in #91.

[David Orsam]

I refuse to argue the case about the 12 constables on this thread because it is an insignificant part of the book, yet he is relentless in bringing it up.

What is there to "argue"? The very fact that Mike thinks there is something to argue about itself justifies my focus on this subject. But does he mean argue about why he gives a false impression about the 12 constables in his book or does he mean that he thinks that the 12 constables might have had something to do with Tumblety? It's simply impossible to know.

Only recently he said there is a "crack" in my argument about these constables. Why does he simply not post to explain what it is? It's baffling.

[David Orsam]

I want to report that David Barratt has attempted to hijack this post by focusing upon one small section of my book that conflicted with his online article.

Mr Hawley says "one small section" but the issues I've raised in this thread relate to a large part of his Chapter 2 entitled "The Whitechapel Investigation and Dr Francis Tumblety" which some might say is a rather important chapter (in a book with 9 chapters).

The issues I've raised in this thread are as follows:

1. What was the correct date of Tumblety's arrest and the interpretation in this respect of the Central Criminal Court Calendar?

2. Was Tumblety in prison during the week leading up to Mary Kelly's murder?

3. What was the date set for Tumblety's trial?

4. Did the Metropolitan Police flood two London railway stations with extra constables in order to try and arrest a fleeing Tumblety on 20 November 1888?

5. Is there evidence that Tumblety was spotted by Scotland Yard detectives (or one of them) while on the run in Boulogne in November 1888?

6. Did a Scotland Yard detective pursue Tumblety across the Atlantic to New York because he was believed to be Jack The Ripper or, alternatively, was there a Scotland Yard detective already in New York following Tumblety, in order to "get" (arrest) Tumblety for the Whitechapel murders?

Collectively, these strike me as important points of an argument that Tumblety was, or is likely have been, Jack the Ripper. They can't, in other words, be belittled or minimalized as "one small section" of the book. They are also very much on topic posts, all relating to the book which is the subject of this thread.

I have, further, raised a much wider issue which affects the entire book, namely this (in#12):

"It's always really important when reading a book that you can be confident that the author is not trying to mislead or trick you"

If I believe that an author is trying to trick or mislead me in a chapter on such important issues relating a suspect, why should I not conclude, or at least worry, that he may be doing this in other chapters?

This is why the issue of the 12 constables is so important. Did Mike know at the time he wrote his book that the 12 constables had nothing to do with Tumblety? He hasn't addressed this.

Mike has had ample opportunity to respond to my posts, and has, indeed, responded to some of them, but has almost entirely ignored others. He gives strange and inconsistent reasons for not responding to my posts. Most days it is because he claims I am trying to extract information from him to include in a purported but imaginary future book, and he doesn't want to assist me in this assumed project, but today it is because the points I have raised "relate to an insignificant part" of his book. This is the first time he has provided such an explanation. I don't accept it is the truth.

[mklhawley]

Attention Casebook Managers,

This post was initially posted by Steadmund Brand to inform the Casebook community of the publication of my book, Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety. As you can see, there have been over 240 posts.

I want to report that David Barratt has attempted to hijack this post by focusing upon one small section of my book that conflicted with his online article. The biggest issue David has is about the 12 constables. I refuse to argue the case about the 12 constables on this thread because it is an insignificant part of the book, yet he is relentless in bringing it up. It should not be a surprise that I challenge David on his relentless attacks, since this is my book. Why is David so relentless on attempting to embarrass me?

As a matter of fact, notice the posts that David has brought up just the 12 constables issue. It's repeated no less than 30 times:

Posts 12, 39, 41, 47, 63, 67, 81, 82, 88, 89, 90, 95, 105, 109, 115, 116, 121, 138, 147, 166, 179, 222, 223, 224, 225, 236, and
290.

David has also brought up other issues just as incessantly even though I told him I am not going to debate it on this thread.

I am stuck in a situation. I refuse to argue my case to someone who mimics a troll, especially when they have supporters who assist him. The problem is, if I don't, others may get the impression they have the upper hand. This is actually far from the truth.

Just because I refuse to argue with someone, do they really have the right to taunt me and get away with it? This particular venue favors the person who has the time and energy to relentlessly post. I would hate to see even more researchers leave Casebook for this very reason.

Sincerely,

Mike

[David Orsam]

One other thing Mike. Herlock has been asking you some perfectly reasonable questions throughout this thread. Why do you keep ignoring him?

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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