New Book

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

Thanks for the support. How that poster gets away with such vicious yet numskull abuse is the only Jack-the-Ripper mystery here.

To David Barrett

This is classic passive-aggressive harassment, e.g. hey, I have never accused you of such vices but ... you have accused yourself ... ergo this must be what you unconsciously think of yourself, etc. It's the way to undermine a person's ability and dignity even to defend themselves.

It's despicable and indefensible, and also as predictable as clockwork from fanatics.

And David, you do need me, you need me bad. Because without people like me to relentlessly make the same arguments over and over, to prove you are absolutely right and everybody else is absolutely wrong 100% of the time, then what have you got?

And as usual, you are wrong, though you will never admit it.

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.

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.

[David Orsam]

That marvellous quote you found by Andrews denying Dr T as the Ripper. I wish I could have put that in --and I would have properly said you found it and that you did not agree -- as it was the clincher that he was hunting info. on the American suspect. In fact, desperately so. But there was not room.

This is what I mean about you twisting everything to support your theory. If Inspector Andrews says in the plainest terms that Tumbley was NOT the Ripper, you read him as saying that he was!!! You win in every single way because if Andrews had been reported as saying that he had come to Toronto to do some background research into Dr Tumblety, the likelihood of you saying that this would mean your theory was wrong, and that Andrews was lying, is frankly zero, whatever you would like to now persuade yourself. I do find it extraordinary that Andrews saying that Tumblety was not the Ripper is the 'clincher' in your mind that he was hunting information on him. You really do need to step back and ask yourself if that is not an utterly perverse way of looking at things.

[David Orsam]

I sort of agree with you that my defence of his interpretation is not all it could be, as 1) it is second-hand not being original to me, and 2) I am, frankly, not up to it. It is unfair to therefore keep saying that the Palmer argument is demolished because of one perhaps inadequate reader-defender of it.

I have never said that Palmer's argument is demolished because of an inadequate defence by you. I have said that it contains serious deficiencies and errors of fact, regardless of what you might think or say.

[David Orsam]

R. J. Palmer is so much of a greater writer and analyst than I am.

That is hardly me wearing sackcloth and ashes, as I think he is the greatest living writer on this subject.

That may well be but does it not give you some pause for thought that there are so many serious deficiencies and errors in his trilogy, to which I have drawn your attention? I would have thought that anyone genuinely seeking the truth would need to consider this. For example, he speculated about what a letter from Anderson to the Home Office would say, on the basis that he thought this letter was lost, but I found it in the National Archives and it did not, in fact, support his speculation at all. Does that not make you think that his research was not as thorough as it might have been? And when a theory as to the contents of such an important letter is proved wrong don't you think his conclusions might need to be revised?

I did the research and posted my conclusions in order to help people who were potentially going to write on the subject and alert them to what the facts are and what the real position is, so that they don't fall into error themselves. I remind you that you personally urged me to read R.J. Palmer's trilogy earlier this year. I did so then I checked the primary sources and I found his conclusions wanting. This is not to criticise Mr Palmer because no-one is perfect and this is how we gain knowledge, through a process of checking and revision. Everyone makes mistakes and I would expect Mr Palmer, as a fair minded person, to acknowledge them and to at least to consider whether his conclusions need to be revised. Personally, I would be very surprised if he still holds to the views expressed in his trilogy but I haven't heard anything from him in response to the trilogy so who knows.

[David Orsam]

But you need to know when people have reached a point where they are deadlocked in disagreement, and to walk away.

Jonathan, I really don't need advice from you as to how and when I post on an internet forum. I cannot think we are "deadlocked" in disagreement because you have not replied to all my posts and all my points. Once you have done so (if you choose to do so) then, if I decide that there is nothing more to say, I won't post. However, if you are so religiously wedded to your belief about Andrews and Tumblety that nothing, however sensible, will ever convince you that are wrong then perhaps we are "deadlocked" but, for myself, I am always open to hearing a decent argument so please don't think I will refuse to budge.

Also, bearing in mind what you say about being an 'inadequate' defender of R.J. Palmer, instead of coming back at me with long lectures, frequently misrepresenting what I have said to you, why not just say something like "David, you have made some reasonable points which I cannot answer" or something like that, if that is what you truly think?

It doesn't help with the dialogue, incidentally, that you refuse to answer my questions. Can I remind you that you have not answered my question about your book which I asked you three times. Any chance you could actually answer it?

[David Orsam]

You have the right to think it, but you should not be so baffled that I have the equal right to both disagree and to defend myself.

I am not baffled by that. What is baffling me, Jonathan, is that you have not, in fact, disagreed with my posts about Andrews & Tumblety nor defended yourself. You have virtually avoided discussing the subject with me. I resolve the bafflement by thinking that you have no case to make in response. Yet you still religiously cling to your belief that Andrews prepared a report on Tumblety after his visit to Canada. Now that IS baffling.

[David Orsam]

But I am not the intellectual coward you think I am.

Jonathan, if you look back over this thread you will see that you have accused yourself of being a 'coward' and you have accused yourself of having written a 'rotten' book. Those words have never been said by me – or anything like them - but you have repeated them continually. You have also accused yourself of falsely representing yourself as an historian. One does not need to be an expert in psychology to work out what is going on here but could I ask you that, if you wish to accuse me of saying something, you quote my actual words because this constant misrepresentation is a little tiresome. I have continually denied using the words you claim I have used yet you continually accuse me of saying them (or, in this case, thinking them).

[David Orsam]

PS in defence before David attacks me, i'm dyslexic

Jeff, I find this comment – assuming I am the 'David' referred to – utterly bizarre because it assumes I will 'attack' you for making some spelling mistakes, yet in nearly a year's membership of this forum I have never attacked or criticised anyone for making spelling mistakes. As a comment, therefore, it was uncalled for.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

I am certain that your two heroes are proud of the work you're doing on their behalf.

All the best.

Simon

Praise indeed from someone who had so much to say in his book without having anything new to articulate. When it comes to Behemoth's who says size doesn't matter

Yours Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

I am certain that your two heroes are proud of the work you're doing on their behalf.

All the best.

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

In all my years on Casebook I don't think I have ever read such poisonous bile as that in your last few posts.

Regards,

Simon

Its great to hear unbiased, levelled, and objective points of view being raised on casebook

It is so rare

Many thanks

Yours Jx

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

In all my years on Casebook I don't think I have ever read such poisonous bile as that in your last few posts.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

That's the difference between you and I, you poisonous pest. I don't hide behind other people's reviews -- especially ones on Facebook.

I'm not exactly hiding behind anyone... Just pointing out that your book has been 'ridiculed' on face book...largely by posters who also post on Casebook and JtRforums

At least David gives it with both barrels here in public and has actually read it.

Yes I think Davids reviews were excellent, i most enjoyed them

The Anderson-Swanson/Polish-suspect theory, either Fido or Begg, deserves better than the likes of you sabotaging it every time you appear.

As i said if Begg and Fido don't like what I'm saying they are free to say so... But then i'm the one championing their research

You should listen to Karsten and back off.

Its the other way around

Yours Jef

[Jonathan H]

That's the difference between you and I, you poisonous pest. I don't hide behind other people's reviews -- especially ones on Facebook.

At least David gives it with both barrels here in public and has actually read it.

The Anderson-Swanson/Polish-suspect theory, either Fido or Begg, deserves better than the likes of you sabotaging it every time you appear.

You should listen to Karsten and back off.

[Jeff Leahy]

Since you don't take anything I write seriously -- which you have the right not to -- I suggest you check with Paul Begg, and brace yourself for the shock that he agrees with me and not you (re: the 1892 source is capable of different and rival interpretations, both equally valid).

Begg doesn't support you... If he thinks i'm wrong, then he is at liberty to say so...he does after all check these boards daily, as admin are fond of pointing out..

But clearly my work is an expansion of the fundamental differences between my two great hero's on this subject...

Its Begg and Fido who were correct

Yours Jef