New Book

[David Orsam]

But to say I claim to be an historian is unfair and inaccurate, and setting up the worst kind of 'straw man' argument.

Jonathan, the extent to which you misrepresent my posts is becoming alarming.

Where have I said that you claim to be a historian?

You were the one who posted that you have put forward: historical arguments

You were the one who started introducing historical topics into this thread, dealt with by historians, such as the first world war.

My point is that historical arguments are the same as arguments in a court room. They have to be based on evidence.

That's all I have said. I have not made any unfair or inaccurate posts about you at all.

[David Orsam]

The immediate cause of WW1 was when Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, together with his pregnant wife, Sophie, were assassinated by a Bosnian revolutionary called Gavrilo Princip.

Phil, I can hardly believe you have wasted your time with that post about the first world war but you are answering a different question. Jonathan asked 'why did the first world war start?' I said because one country invaded another. You are answering the question: 'why did one country invade another?' Or, if you prefer, 'what were the origins of the first world war?'.

An assassination with no invasion = no first world war.

I answered Jonathan's question the way I did to avoid a dull and pointless discussion on a JTR forum about the origins of the first world war, although I had no doubt that someone would be unable to resist arguing the point for some reason.

[David Orsam]

By the way, "shadows" and "footprints" are the surviving documents and other artefacts. What we do not have anymore, brace yourself, are the people of the past -- because they are dead.

If you meant documents why not just say documents? Consult any dictionary you want but 'shadows' and 'footprints' are not defined as documents. And those dead people do on occasion speak to us through their words which can be found in, brace yourself, documents.

[David Orsam]

Actually no, Osrom, that "one country invaded another" is an argument not evidence -- that is. not evidence by your doctrinal standards of what constitutes historical evidence.

You asked me a question, Jonathan, and then you pressed me to answer it. I answered it. I didn't actually answer it with an argument but with a single statement of fact. You didn't ask me for any evidence so I didn't provide any. Now you want to make some kind of incomprehensible point out of that.

I don't care whether the question about the first world war is a very complex knot to untangle or not. The evidence that you need to untangle it is the same used by a historian as in a courtroom.

[David Orsam]

A jury cannot say, well, probably guilty and that be the official verdict. It has to be, in our system, absolutely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,

That is only in criminal courts. In civil courts the test is on the balance of probability.

[David Orsam]

If you think the book is rubbish, then you have every right to that opinion and to express that opinion.

That is kind of you but I want to repeat that I have not said your book is rubbish or anything remotely approaching that opinion and, in fact, I have not offered any opinion on your book at all. I have said that one sentence in the book should not have been written.

That particular sentence does, however, solve one puzzle. I could not understand why, back in June, a hitherto civilised discussion between us descended into acrimony. Looking back, I see the problem occurred after I said that the fact that Walter Dew was probably mistaken "destroys one of the key shaky pillars of your faith". You came back at me saying "You allege that I have a spiritual need, or bias, or both, to have Andrews investigating Tumblety?" I replied that it was not an allegation but "you seem to be very fervent in your beliefs yet don't seem to be offering up any evidence to support them. I'm well aware that Tumblety is not your suspect but the notion that Andrews was researching Tumblety in Canada is clearly not inconsistent with your book and I'm wondering if you like the theory so much because it fits in with what you think the police were doing and thinking, especially in light of the Littlechild letter."

I was certainly puzzled as to why you were so rigid, inflexible and, indeed, doctrinaire, in your insistence that Andrews went to Toronto to investigate Tumblety, given that (as I knew) your suspect was Druitt, but now the answer has become clear to me. You had already written in your book, without any qualification, that Walter Andrews had prepared a report on Tumblety following his visit to Canada. No wonder you became so upset when I repeatedly asked you for evidence to support the notion that Andrews' visit to Canada had anything to do with Tumblety.

[David Orsam]

For anyone who still has difficulty understanding what I am saying, I am making one very simple point.

When someone says "This argument won't satisfy a court of law" (whether they are agreeing with the argument or opposing it), all they are really trying to say is that there is insufficient evidence to support the argument. But the insufficiency of the evidence is the same whether the argument is being made in a court room, a history/ true crime book or an internet forum. There is no material difference. You can't say that an argument is good in a historical context but not in a court room, unless the point has something to do with admissibility of evidence but, in my experience, it never has anything to do with admissibility, it's all about the strength of the argument.

To put it another way, it is trite and meaningless to say "these are historical arguments, not ones for a courtroom" as if they are somehow different.

[Jonathan H]

So now you know what I had written in my manuscript. Are you looking over my shoulder -- what a thought?

Again, that is a theory, Mr Barrett, based on limited data relying on your premise that I'm a hollow man.

That's very important to you, isn't it? All of us Ripper fantasist-parasites must run in terror from Chief Inspector Orsom. No opinion must be permitted to exist but yours.

Once more, as with your painfully limited understanding of history, historical methodology and the origins of the Great War, you are wrong.

I had in fact included, in the final draft, the various theories and counter-theories about the Andrews' trip. Your attempt to debunk the Palmer/Evans/Gainey theory -- albeit two of those secondary sources went unmentioned -- was very interesting. I enjoyed it, but it did not convince me.

In fact, it was so deterministic and sterile in its literalness about documents being the people of the past. that it persuaded me it was obvious, after all, that Andrews was investigating Tumblety in Canada. Consequently I removed from the proofs what I decided was extraneous material from that section of the book.

Thanks for that.

As for the rest, I would strongly recommend "The Guns of August" by Tuchman, "German War Aims" by Fischer and "The Pity of War" by Ferguson to get you started. But be warned, each historian takes a completely different view of what caused the conflagration and this will put under immense strain your doctrinal sensibility -- and your tart incapacity to agree to disagree.

[David Orsam]

So now you know what I had written in my manuscript. Are you looking over my shoulder -- what a thought?

Again, that is a theory, Mr Barrett, based on limited data relying on your premise that I'm a hollow man.

That's very important to you, isn't it? All of us Ripper fantasist-parasites must run in terror from Chief Inspector Orsom. No opinion must be permitted to exist but yours.

Once more, as with your painfully limited understanding of history, historical methodology and the origins of the Great War, you are wrong.

I had in fact included, in the final draft, the various theories and counter-theories about the Andrews' trip. Your attempt to debunk the Palmer/Evans/Gainey theory -- albeit two of those secondary sources went unmentioned -- was very interesting. I enjoyed it, but it did not convince me.

In fact, it was so deterministic and sterile in its literalness about documents being the people of the past. that it persuaded me it was obvious, after all, that Andrews was investigating Tumblety in Canada. Consequently I removed from the proofs what I decided was extraneous material from that section of the book.

This is not making any sense to me. I don't care what you removed. I'm only talking about what was in your book as at June of this year. Are you saying you added the sentence I'm complaining about after our discussion in June?

[David Orsam]

As for the rest, I would strongly recommend "The Guns of August" by Tuchman, "German War Aims" by Fischer and "The Pity of War" by Ferguson to get you started. But be warned, each historian takes a completely different view of what caused the conflagration and this will put under immense strain your doctrinal sensibility -- and your tart incapacity to agree to disagree.

Your constant attempts to impress upon me that historians disagree about historical events are not only a waste of time but show you still haven't understood what I am saying.

In a nutshell, my point is that you can't properly write a book and say, well I don't have much evidence to support my arguments but, hey, historians disagree all the time, so it simply doesn't matter because evidence isn't important it's all about opinion.

Before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, that's my interpretation of your statement "these are historical arguments, not ones for a courtroom".

[Hercule Poirot]

In my humble opinion, evidence is evidence regardless of the domain using it. It's nature doesn't change whether it's history, law, psychology or any other one. However, what is admissable, credible, reliable, valuable or not often depends on the interpretation offered by someone given the rules and standards of his profession and how he understands them.

On the other hand, if the premises are questionable or if any form of inductive reasoning is used, the conclusion may be true but it can only be considered as such in terms of degrees of probability and not certainty. In other words, what historians often consider as a valid conclusion can be rebuted by lawyers, using the same evidence.

Hence, both of you can be totally right!!!

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

[David Orsam]

In my humble opinion, evidence is evidence regardless of the domain using it. It's nature doesn't change whether it's history, law, psychology or any other one.

I agree with this statement.

However, what is admissable, credible, reliable, valuable or not often depends on the interpretation offered by someone given the rules and standards of his profession and how he understands them.

Leaving aside the word 'admissible' I completely disagree and, in fact, I think you have actually contradicted your previous point where you said that the nature of evidence - which can be defined as its credibility, reliability and value - does not change across the spectrum

On the other hand, if the premises are questionable or if any form of inductive reasoning is used, the conclusion may be true but it can only be considered as such in terms of degrees of probability and not certainty. In other words, what historians often consider as a valid conclusion can be rebuted by lawyers, using the same evidence.

I disagree that there is any difference between historians and lawyers in this respect. They both understand the difference between proving beyond reasonable doubt and proving on the balance of probabilities; they both understand the differences between being certain, almost certain, fairly sure, unsure or mistaken.

[Jonathan H]

I don't agree Hercule, but that's ok. Maybe you are right after all.

What I cannot get the other poster to understand, and have been advised to give up as he is a fanatic, is that I am not providing evidence of the guilt of Montague Druitt as would be taken to a courtroom.

I am arguing, much as Fido and Begg did about Anderson (and Swanson), that Macnaghten regarded it as solved, and that he can be shown to be a reliable primary source about the posthumous investigation into Mr Druitt. I am trying to peel back layers of data and disinformation to reveal why he, and others, believed what they did. If they can be shown to be credible then they were probably right.

Probably, not absolutely.

I think I have marshalled enormous amounts of evidence for this interpretation of their claims of culpability and their certainty.

That's as close as we can get.

[Hercule Poirot]

I agree with this statement.



Leaving aside the word 'admissible' I completely disagree and, in fact, I think you have actually contradicted your previous point where you said that the nature of evidence - which can be defined as its credibility, reliability and value - does not change across the spectrum



I disagree that there is any difference between historians and lawyers in this respect. They both understand the difference between proving beyond reasonable doubt and proving on the balance of probabilities; they both understand the differences between being certain, almost certain, fairly sure, unsure or mistaken.

What I said concerned the nature of evidence not how it's interpreted. "being certain, almost certain, fairly sure, unsure or mistaken" is essentially subjective and may vary fom one individual to another. This happens in courts most of the time otherwise defense layers and prosecution would logically always come to the same conclusion which is not the case, I believe.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[David Orsam]

What I cannot get the other poster to understand, and have been advised to give up as he is a fanatic, is that I am not providing evidence of the guilt of Montague Druitt as would be taken to a courtroom.

So you are reduced to slipping in some personal abuse now in the guise of 'advice'. A shame because I had thought better of you. It's all rather different to your post in the Suckered! thread on 18 June 2015 when you said of me:

'David has acted with good manners and intellectual integrity.'

and

'David has done incisive, meticulous research and argued his revisionist case with care and aplomb.'

and even

'is David's argument similarly devastating against Palmer's take on Andrews investigating Tumblety? He certainly makes a very good case using new sources.'

That aside, you have totally and completely misunderstood everything I have said in this thread if you think that what I have posted about historical arguments relate in any way to your book about Druitt. I was only making a general point that applies to everyone, any author, any historian, true crime writer or poster on this forum, because I have heard similar things said a number of times (as I said in my first post in this thread).

To be absolutely clear: I have not yet formed any opinion on your book on Druitt and will not do so until I have finished it. I am making no criticisms of your book on Druitt save for the references to Tumblety. Nothing you have said on the Druitt issues in the book are linked to anything I have said in this thread. Further, throughout my posts in this thread I wasn't even thinking of the guilt or otherwise of Druitt.

I repeat, I have only been discussing a general point about history and evidence - because you raised it in this thread - and am not criticising anything you have said about Druitt in your book or anywhere else.