New Book

[David Orsam]

If Walter Andrews could be shown -- and I mean shown, not just some Irish-Yank propagandist putting fictitious words into his mouth -- to actually tell Canadian journos that I am here to investigate Dr Tumblety as Jack the Ripper, an extraordinarily stupid thing for such an experienced and wily officer to do, but if he had it would indicate that this really was a cover for digging up dirt on Parnell.

When Inspector Jarvis went to Canada to do some background research into Cream in 1892 - which R.J. Palmer tells us is the equivalent of Andrews' mission - there was no secret at all as to what he was doing. So why would it have been an 'extraordinarily stupid thing' for Andrews to say what he was doing in 1888?

And how could Andrews have carried out his research in secret???? Surely he would have had to have been speaking to people in Toronto and Montreal, asking them about Tumblety. Otherwise what was the purpose of his visit? And if he was asking those questions there would have been no secret in his visit.

But if you are trying to say that, had I found a Canadian newspaper report from December 1888 in which Andrews was quoted as saying, "I am actually here to carry out research into the prime suspect for the Whitechapel Murders, Dr Francis Tumblety", you would have put your hands up and said "Oh well, I'm wrong after all, he wasn't there to do any research into Tumblety and there was no long-lost report" you must think I was born yesterday.

[Phil Carter]

Thanks for the support..

Hello Jonathan,

Ditto from me too.


NB. Nobody forced me to write this message. Neither have I been coerced into such an action. It is a totally arbitrary and individual thought reaction..lol 😉


Phil

[David Orsam]

By the way, because you exhibit a completely black and white and literal view of everything you seem to have no sense of humor, whatsoever. It's a mighty handicap in life. You never know, Mr Barrett, when you are being played for a sucker, mate.

Oh yes Jonathan, your sense of humour is shining through in this thread. A laugh a minute in every post.

[David Orsam]

David,

Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You choose to. You may feel that you have to. But forced? Oh no. Your terminology is wayward.

Nobody is forced to read the stream of responses either. The 10 in a row (I counted them) yesterday must be a record. Nudging onto "flooding" I believe the term is.
I didn't read one..as I am not forced to. I chose not to.
THIS last paragraph today caught my eye however.
Which will give you ample opportunity to ignore THIS post.
Odds are ..going by your previous record.. that you won't.
Please. .For the sake of peace of mind..prove me wrong.
Thank you.

Phil

Always a joy to read the inevitable and unbiased lecture from you, Phil, in a thread in which I'm posting. But I'm very happy with my terminology thanks.

[Abby Normal]

Always a joy to read the inevitable and unbiased lecture from you, Phil, in a thread in which I'm posting. But I'm very happy with my terminology thanks.

I don't know how you do it David but please keep it up. I don't understand what it is about you debating these guys that drives them nuts. I guess they have hard time when faced with hard, unbiased facts, excellent research and a very professional debater.

But I guess when you've got wacky theories and ideas to defend then it's just easier to resort to personal attacks and peripheral nonsense rather then try to debate on the substance of the issues that you bring up.

You are exactly the type of solid researcher and writer this site direly needs and I for one have learned a lot from you and appreciate it.

If you ever get tired of dealing with this nonsense and leave this site, please let me know where I can still read your stuff!

[packers stem]

I don't know how you do it David but please keep it up. I don't understand what it is about you debating these guys that drives them nuts. I guess they have hard time when faced with hard, unbiased facts, excellent research and a very professional debater.

But I guess when you've got wacky theories and ideas to defend then it's just easier to resort to personal attacks and peripheral nonsense rather then try to debate on the substance of the issues that you bring up.

You are exactly the type of solid researcher and writer this site direly needs and I for one have learned a lot from you and appreciate it.

If you ever get tired of dealing with this nonsense and leave this site, please let me know where I can still read your stuff!

His Web address is at the bottom of every post

[Varqm]

Suppositions sink ships. There should be a clear demarcation on which are facts and which are suppositions based on it. If have to,color code it.
Good facts stand by themselves and the writers writing tendencies and temptation to "see the light" based on inadequate material should not stand in the way.
But why spoil the fun?

[David Orsam]

I don't know how you do it David but please keep it up. I don't understand what it is about you debating these guys that drives them nuts. I guess they have hard time when faced with hard, unbiased facts, excellent research and a very professional debater.

But I guess when you've got wacky theories and ideas to defend then it's just easier to resort to personal attacks and peripheral nonsense rather then try to debate on the substance of the issues that you bring up.

You are exactly the type of solid researcher and writer this site direly needs and I for one have learned a lot from you and appreciate it.

If you ever get tired of dealing with this nonsense and leave this site, please let me know where I can still read your stuff!

Thank you Abby. It is knowing that there are people like you out there, who are actually interested in reading serious debates about the facts and the issues involved, that keeps me going.

[Jeff Leahy]

Thank you Abby. It is knowing that there are people like you out there, who are actually interested in reading serious debates about the facts and the issues involved, that keeps me going.

Hi David, I'm afraid I'm rather busy at present with personal issues, but did note your comment on my post.. I apologise if you thought I was criticising you in anyway, infact the exact opposite, Tumbelty is not my area of my knowledge and like Abby I was also enjoying your posts, having had some similar problems to you, with the poster you were addressing...But your posts are most informative and very useful

Many thanks Jeff

[David Orsam]

That's okay Jeff, I was just a bit puzzled by your remark but no worries!

[Jeff Leahy]

That's okay Jeff, I was just a bit puzzled by your remark but no worries!

Thank you David..as explained my partner is current unwell and at Guys H, so I'm spending some time in London... I'm trying to figure out Cox's route...but the photographs should hopefully be of interest to ALL ripperologist's as recent photos of the scene etc

I'm posting on the witness thread...not that they need to be.. but thats where the conversation took place originally and would welcome any comment or opinion

Many thanks again

Yours Jeff