New Book

[David Orsam]

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.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that point but the variations are not between the historian and the lawyer but between individuals, whether they are historians or lawyers or anything else. A strong argument based on strong evidence will be as strong in a history book as in a court of law and vice versa for a weak argument. In a criminal court, lawyers don't need to convince other lawyers, they need to convince twelve members of the public. In a civil court they need to convince a judge but not as a lawyer on the facts, rather as a rational thinking neutral individual who gives the reasons for his (or her) conclusions. My only point is that the supposed difference between 'historical arguments' and 'arguments in a court of law' is an artificial one that is frequently used as a cop-out by those whose evidence in support of their arguments is not as strong as they would like it to be.

[David Orsam]

Are you saying you added the sentence I'm complaining about after our discussion in June?

Jonathan, I do hope your sudden descent into the use of personal abuse, while revealing that you have supposedly been advised 'to give up', isn't your way of avoiding answering my question (as above). Would you care to answer it?

[Jonathan H]

I guess I will have to come clean at last.

I thought you were a very young person who wrote those articles.

They had all the advantages and disadvantages of youth, e.g. obsessed with the trees to the exclusion of the forest.

You needed encouragement, and you got it. You needed praise and you got it.

I wondered, how you would take having to let you down as gently and as politely as possible that just because you mounted a solid and interesting argument does not mean a person will agree with you or change their minds.

This can be terribly frustrating for young people, a deal-breaker even.

To my great surprise I was informed that I was under a misapprehension; you are a fully grown-up person -- biologically speaking -- and therefore all this tiptoeing around a young and fragile ego was misplaced.

I felt rather embarrassed for myself, but even more embarrassed for you; that a middle-aged person could act like this in a public forum.

I was polite, respectful and objective and your response was to become close minded and narrow-minded.

According to you, you are never wrong and we (by we I am speaking broadly as I have many detractors) are never right.

People who are without fault -- or grace -- are on a crusade. But this seems a very modest thing to be crusading about, or against with such Jesuitical fervour.

That's why I absented myself previously as I could see what you were and where this would go, as it is now.

As for the personal abuse, you started it and like all people who are rude, especially of the passive-aggressive type, you are utterly affronted when anybody gives the same back in return.

For example, you said I claimed to be a serious historian and did not live up to the standard of such a profession.

I am not a professional historian, and have never claimed to be one. My book is by an amateur, and says so.

You have accused me of cowardice; of being fearful of anybody strong and upright like yourself challenging my empty cupboard.

I actually think you have the right to go in boots and all if that is what you really think.

What I find indefensible is that you do not own up to your own abusive attitudes and acts.

Now before the management intervene, I am really going to exit as I did before, and leave you to have the last word. I won't be reading it. I am being implored by several people not to continue because it is pointless debating with another who won't debate rationally.

Or several last words, you know, as you obsessively break up my posts into bits as if you are, again, a very young person who is unused to the cut and thrust of adult debate.

[Hercule Poirot]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that point but the variations are not between the historian and the lawyer but between individuals, whether they are historians or lawyers or anything else. A strong argument based on strong evidence will be as strong in a history book as in a court of law and vice versa for a weak argument. In a criminal court, lawyers don't need to convince other lawyers, they need to convince twelve members of the public. In a civil court they need to convince a judge but not as a lawyer on the facts, rather as a rational thinking neutral individual who gives the reasons for his (or her) conclusions. My only point is that the supposed difference between 'historical arguments' and 'arguments in a court of law' is an artificial one that is frequently used as a cop-out by those whose evidence in support of their arguments is not as strong as they would like it to be.

Globally I agree with you.

I honestly believe that the difference between both resides in facing two different levels of proof in two differnt domains and not necessarily a question of one being artificial while the other is genuine. I could have come out with my old law and history books to better support my point of view but they're somwhere in storage at 'Roswell', Canada while I'm here living in Mexico. I nevertheless found a link offering an interesting set of explanations concerning different levels of legal proof from 'reasonnable suspicion' to 'beyond reasonable doubt' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidenc e).

Sadly, we don't find a comparable series of clear and distinct levels when it comes to history which many times creates a foggy area of research. It's not always a cop-out but comes with the business.

Hell, historians and archeologists are still debating about the proof of the resurrection of Christ. One of the major pieces of evidence is this old latin text 'RESURXITNONESHIC' prior to the Gospel which corresponds to the words 'Resurrexit non est hic'. Back then, Romans didn't use spaces between words. The Catholic church decided at the Council of Trent to put a comma after the word 'Resurexit' while their opponants placed it after the word 'non'. As one can see, you get two different meanings (He did; He did not). As a response and to make things 'clear' the Council re-wrote the sentence this way: "Non est hic, resurrexit" and gave it to Luc (24:5-6). Then we got the 'empty tomb' argument!!! Man, I can't wait to die and see who was right. LOL

Inference vs deduction, primary vs secondary...

I would however recommand not refering to civil court rules of evidence a) because they are a bit less demanding than those of a criminal court, b) we are concerned with a criminal case. Then again, if someone wants to file a civil lawsuit against John Doe (alias JTR), no judge would probably care if the knife cuts or not!! LOL

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Mayerling]

Hell, historians and archeologists are still debating about the proof of the resurrection of Christ. One of the major pieces of evidence is this old latin text 'RESURXITNONESHIC' prior to the Gospel which corresponds to the words 'Resurrexit non est hic'. Back then, Romans didn't use spaces between words. The Catholic church decided at the Council of Trent to put a comma after the word 'Resurexit' while their opponants placed it after the word 'non'. As one can see, you get two different meanings (He did; He did not). As a response and to make things 'clear' the Council re-wrote the sentence this way: "Non est hic, resurrexit" and gave it to Luc (24:5-6). Then we got the 'empty tomb' argument!!! Man, I can't wait to die and see who was right. LOL

Inference vs deduction, primary vs secondary...

I would however recommand not refering to civil court rules of evidence a) because they are a bit less demanding than those of a criminal court, b) we are concerned with a criminal case. Then again, if someone wants to file a civil lawsuit against John Doe (alias JTR), no judge would probably care if the
Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

knife cuts or not!! LOL


Reading about the latin conundrum you pointed out that was sought of settled at the Counsel of Trent I wondered if such language "pilpul" was worth an iota. Then I remembered that the "iota" controversy had been settled by the long previous Counsel of Nicea.

Best wishes.

Jeff

[Hercule Poirot]

knife cuts or not!! LOL


Reading about the latin conundrum you pointed out that was sought of settled at the Counsel of Trent I wondered if such language "pilpul" was worth an iota. Then I remembered that the "iota" controversy had been settled by the long previous Counsel of Nicea.

Best wishes.

Jeff

At Nicea, they basically defined Jesus as being of the same substance as God (consubstantiality) hence declaring heritics all those rejecting this affirmation. They also came out with the creed (Credo) which says that Jesus resurrected since many of the first gospels had mentioned this event. At Nicea, they also decided which gospels should be accepted as the 'canonical' ones, the four ones we know. They were considered canonical before that but the Church had not given it's approbation yet. Many versions of these gospels were however circulating and contained transcription errors. It wasn't until Trent did the Church decide to re-write them and produce the Church's official version. They also decided to include the Book of Deuteronomy.

Man, are we well away from JTR? Sorry about that.

Cheers,

Hercule Poirot

[Hercule Poirot]

At Nicea, they basically defined Jesus as being of the same substance as God (consubstantiality) hence declaring heritics all those rejecting this affirmation. They also came out with the creed (Credo) which says that Jesus resurrected since many of the first gospels had mentioned this event. At Nicea, they also decided which gospels should be accepted as the 'canonical' ones, the four ones we know. They were considered canonical before that but the Church had not given it's approbation yet. Many versions of these gospels were however circulating and contained transcription errors. It wasn't until Trent did the Church decide to re-write them and produce the Church's official version. They also decided to include the Book of Deuteronomy.

Man, are we well away from JTR? Sorry about that.

Cheers,

Hercule Poirot

I should have started by saying that it did indeed resolve the iota contreversy but not all the issues related to the canonical and apocryphal gospels, greek versus latin versions of many texts causing some serious philological problems supporters of Arianism would use.

[David Orsam]

I would however recommand not refering to civil court rules of evidence a) because they are a bit less demanding than those of a criminal court, b) we are concerned with a criminal case.

This may be where you are misunderstanding me. No-one is literally on trial within a work of history or true crime so we don't need to apply the rules of criminal law. I am arguing against the claim that historical arguments are different from those of a court room, but in a civil case in England the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, no more than 51% probability will win the case. This is what many people fail to appreciate. My point is not related to guilt or innocence, which is a criminal test. It is only about evidence in a historical context. If you want to argue whether an individual would have been convicted of a particular crime in a court of law then of course you need to consider the rules of evidence under criminal law but that is the only reason it ever needs to be considered.

[David Orsam]

I was polite, respectful and objective and your response was to become close minded and narrow-minded.

This is statement is false.

According to you, you are never wrong and we (by we I am speaking broadly as I have many detractors) are never right.

This statement is false (and nonsense)

As for the personal abuse, you started it and like all people who are rude, especially of the passive-aggressive type, you are utterly affronted when anybody gives the same back in return.

This statement is false (and insulting).

For example, you said I claimed to be a serious historian and did not live up to the standard of such a profession.

This statement is false.

You have accused me of cowardice; of being fearful of anybody strong and upright like yourself challenging my empty cupboard.

This statement is false.

you do not own up to your own abusive attitudes and acts.

This statement is false (and offensive)

Conclusion

Jonathan says he will not read my posts so I will address the board.

I don't know why a post has been made by Jonathan containing so many palpably false statements about me and things I have (not) said. I can only assume it is an attempt to deflect attention from his failure to answer my question about the Tumblety sentence in his book.

[Hercule Poirot]

This may be where you are misunderstanding me. No-one is literally on trial within a work of history or true crime so we don't need to apply the rules of criminal law. I am arguing against the claim that historical arguments are different from those of a court room, but in a civil case in England the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, no more than 51% probability will win the case. This is what many people fail to appreciate. My point is not related to guilt or innocence, which is a criminal test. It is only about evidence in a historical context. If you want to argue whether an individual would have been convicted of a particular crime in a court of law then of course you need to consider the rules of evidence under criminal law but that is the only reason it ever needs to be considered.

Thank you for taking the time to patiently respond to my posts. It helped me understand your position which I know completely share.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[David Orsam]

I guess I will have to come clean at last.

I thought you were a very young person who wrote those articles.

They had all the advantages and disadvantages of youth, e.g. obsessed with the trees to the exclusion of the forest.

You needed encouragement, and you got it. You needed praise and you got it.

I wondered, how you would take having to let you down as gently and as politely as possible that just because you mounted a solid and interesting argument does not mean a person will agree with you or change their minds.

This can be terribly frustrating for young people, a deal-breaker even.

This is laughable.

Jonathan's praise of me on 18 June was not only genuine but was presumably written for the benefit of his arch enemy, Wolf Vanderlinden, because in my Suckered! trilogy I had demolished the notion that Inspector Andrews was in Canada on Parnell related business. Praising me to the skies was clearly his way of rubbing it in for Wolf.

At this time, my relations with Jonathan were perfectly civil but he decided to say this in my Suckered! thread on 23 June 2015 (#351):

'David's work is excellent. But has David demolished R. J. Palmer's line of argument too re: Inspector Andrews doing a background check on Dr Tumblety. Not for me…. because if you examine the [admittedly incomplete] record the argument by Palmer--and before him Evans and Gainey--that Walter Andrews was investigating (not chasing) Dr. Tumblety as the Ripper, abroad, still holds, based on the balance of probability of the meaning of limited and contradictory data.'

So he posted in my thread, challenging my conclusions on Andrews and Tumblety. He must have known I would respond robustly to defend my work as I had done with everyone else.

In my response, I asked him to tell me what 'data' he was referring to. He responded by referring vaguely to 'sources' (sound familiar?) or 'material/information' without ever specifying what he was talking about.

I pressed him a number of times but the fact was and remains that there is no 'contradictory data' on the point at all. There is no 'data' which supports Palmer's argument that Inspector Andrews was doing a background check on Tumblety in Canada. None at all. Whereas there are official documents in the Home Office and Colonial Office files which demonstrate that Inspector Andrews went to Canada to escort the fugitive Roland Barnett into custody in Toronto.

For anyone interested I can only suggest you read the exchanges between myself and Jonathan in the Suckered! Trilogy thread in the 'Police Officials and Procedures' board between 18 June and 28 June 2015.

By way of illustration, during those exchanges Jonathan asked me:

'Do you consider your trilogy to be a provisional case, or a straight-forward replication of the facts and thus one blessedly free from any bias, from any or preconceptions and/or misconceptions?'

I thought that was a bit rich coming from someone who was arguing a position for which there was not one iota of evidence. So I asked him a question in return:

'Are you sure you are not attracted to the Andrews-researching-Tumblety-in-Canada claim because you find it a beautiful theory which fits in perfectly with your view of what Scotland Yard believed and thus accept it wholeheartedly? Further, are you sure that your belief in the theory is not a religious one which does not require any evidence to support it?'

He clearly didn't like this and stopped talking to me shortly thereafter but I was a bit puzzled as to why Jonathan (whose candidate was Druitt) was so wedded to a theory about Tumblety for which there was no evidence in support.

I now realise that he must already have committed himself in the final proof of his book to saying as a matter of ascertained fact that Inspector Andrews had written an official report into his Tumblety investigations in December 1888. His book had already been due for publication in March 2015 so it's clear that by June he was stuck with this statement. He could not shift from his position regardless of the absence of any evidence to support it, even if he had wanted to.

I doubt that he would ever accept this but his refusal to answer my question on the subject in this thread - as well as his original post in which he told me I was 'wrong' while the rest of his post showed I was right - is, for me, the giveaway that tells me that he realises more than he cares to let on.

[David Orsam]

About Jonathan's book

Are you saying you added the sentence I'm complaining about after our discussion in June?

Despite asking this twice, and despite it being a question about Jonathan's book, on a subject within Jonathan's personal knowledge, my question has not been answered.

The sentence is this:

'I postulate that as soon as he was able to access the Scotland Yard file on the Whitechapel murders, Melville Macnaghten read the now-lost report on Dr Francis Tumblety by Walter Andrews, the inspector who had done a background check on this suspect when visiting Canada a few months before.'

Any reader of Jonathan's book, reading his book in good faith, will believe that there must be a reference in some file or document somewhere to a report on Dr Tumblety prepared by Inspector Andrews but that the report itself has become lost. The truth, however, is that there is no evidence whatsoever of any such report ever having existed, let alone any evidence of Inspector Andrews having done a background check on Dr Tumblety in Canada. I haven't yet completed his book but from what I have read so far - and I doubt he comes back to the point - the reader of that book cannot possibly know of the convoluted and tortuous argument that Jonathan uses to reach such a conclusion.

I do criticize Jonathan in the strongest possible terms for including the above unqualified reference to the Andrews report in his book. I suspect it went in as a result of his previous personal feud with Wolf Vanderlinden, and that Jonathan was carrying on a forum argument into his book, but whatever the reason, Jonathan knew at all times that the idea that Andrews was investigating Tumblety is only a theory, put forward by R.J. Palmer, which is disputed. I appreciate that my trilogy might have come too late for him to amend it (although he says he did make a number of changes to has book as a result of my trilogy) but he was fully aware that his theory could be wrong. For example, he posted in the Suckered! thread on 24 June 2015

'There are no official documents that have survived--or ever existed?--that prove Andrews was investigating Parnell and/or Tumblety (whereas there are that he was escorting a prisoner back to Canada).'

His query as to whether any documents that prove Andrews was investigating Tumblety ever existed is inconsistent with his claim in his book that such a document did once exist but is now lost.

He also said to me on the same topic:

'Could be I wrong? Sure. I often am.'

But there is not a hint of him being wrong about this background check of Tumblety in his book. You would think it was a well documented fact to read his book.

Within what seems to me to be otherwise (so far) as sensible and enjoyable book it is very disappointing to find such a statement.

[David Orsam]

Thank you for taking the time to patiently respond to my posts. It helped me understand your position which I know completely share.

Thank you for posting that Hercule. I am very grateful.

[Jonathan H]

For other readers.

I am satisfied, in my opinion, that Inspector Walter Andrews was doing a background check on Dr Tumblety in Canada.

That the preponderance of evidence supports R. J. Palmer's thesis.

Just because other people dispute it, and have the right to, does not obligate me to mention their dissent if I think it is empty.

In the final proofs I had originally included the various arguments and counter-arguments about this aspect but decided to take them out, because for me they were smoke and mirrors.

"The Pall Mall Gazette" was wrong on Dec 31st but also half-right, as Palmer argued to my satisfaction.

Walter Dew mentions Andrews as a Whitechapel detective, yet nothing appears in the extant record except hyperbolic newspaper articles about Andrews chasing Tumblety to New York City. Ergo, strip back the hyperbole, and you have Andrews trying to find otu what he could about a suspect who had enormous potential to embarrass Scotland Yard, and to some extent already had.

People who think that it was entirely tabloid hype are, in my opinion, falling for the cover story, or the Irish-American propagandist need, by some in North America, to link Scotland Yard with the Parnell inquiry and embarrass them that way. It was quite a mine-field, public relations wise.

After reading everything there was in primary and secondary sources I made the judgment call that Dr. Anderson would not have sent Andrews, in the middle of the Whitechapel murders, to Canada unless 1) it was Ripper related business, and 2) it could not be covered with some other work-mission and provide plausible deniability.

I also judged that Guy Logan knowing about the Andrews' mission re: the Ripper abroad came from Macnaghten and Sims, in their usual mix of fact and fiction as I can show they were misleading this popular hack writer in the 1900's, but what they were hustling was not entirely untrue by any means.

Finally I argue in the book that Macnaghten misled Littlechild about Tumblety's fate. He did, I argue, partly because claiming that the doctor had taken his own life airbrushed out of existence the disappointment of Andrews' trip. Had the trip not been about the Ripper, Mac would not have needed to bother.

That's my interpretation. Could I be wrong? Of course. I often am. But my right to my opinion is being denied by a fanatical approach to history, one that does conceded they could be wrong.

I have had my odd success over the years. Back in the 1980's I rejected the flying saucer explanation in favor of the crashed weather balloon for the so-called Roswell Incident. But I sensed that there was some kind of agitation among the brass about releasing the story of the crashed saucer. They were concerned or hiding something. In 1884 the Air-Force investigation revealed Project Mogul; and the balloons' classified mission to test for Soviet atomic weapons.

I feel the same sense about Andrews' trip, and have written it up as such.

[David Orsam]

That is quite a long-winded way, Jonathan, of conceding that there is no 'data' in existence which shows that Inspector Andrews did anything relating to Tumblety in Canada, let alone background research, and your post perfectly demonstrates the absence of any evidence that Inspector Andrews ever prepared a report about Tumblety following his visit to Canada. All you have offered are a few weak arguments where literally everything has to be twisted to fit a pre-conceived theory.