Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by jerryd 24 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 12 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by jerryd 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Torso Killings: torso maps - (22 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (18 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (5 posts)
General Discussion: Mystery photographs found in car-boot sale box - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: A film Pitch - Who was Jack the Ripper? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Media > Books > Non-Fiction

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old 05-09-2018, 06:28 PM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

How thick are you? It's not just me he wants to stop the same posting. How many times are you going to post when I told you that I'm not going to play your game. You have a fatal flaw, and if I tell you them, you'll merely change your online article. Honesty, I will reply, but only AFTER you write your David Orsam book. I will love to give you the same treatment you've given other authors, such as Jonathan and Simon. Sooo...

How interesting!

David Barratt changed his online negative article on Jonathan Hainsworth’s book AFTER Jonathan dominated him on Casebook! Now I see what he’s doing. He seems to antagonize the author on the forums until the author is forced to defend his work. It creates a huge thread that no one bothers to read, so no one sees how Barratt’s arguments are an act of minimalizing evidence to the contrary. Barratt then fixes his online article through crafty smoke and mirrors. Sorry, David, I’m not going to play your game.

It is likely why you have not written your book (David Orsam books) yet, since you fear authors will give your book the same treatment. Writing an online article is certainly much safer, since you can edit it immediately. Honestly David, I will give you a thorough and fact-based review of your Tumblety section. When will it come out?

The problem the reader has is, since they are not privy to all the details, your strawman arguments sound convincing. It’s just that they are not valid. Even on this thread, we see Barratt’s minimalizing of the evidence. I’ll give two:

First one: Barratt paraphrases Littlechild’s statement in such a way as to make the reader believe he did not have inside knowledge that Tumblety had escaped to France. Barratt states, “It doesn't then get much better, for in the next sentence we are told that it is "certain" that Chief Inspector Littlechild stated that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, with a supporting quote provided in which Littlechild says absolutely no such thing! All Littlechild says is that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" which is something that the police could have established subsequently. And they could have done so very simply by learning that Tumblety had purchased a ticket, while in England, to travel to Boulogne!”

This is a lie. Littlechild actually stated, "and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne..." The second part does indeed show that Littlechild was privy to something other than purchasing a ticket in England. Besides, he used an alias, Frank Townsend, so how on earth would they have known it was him?

Second one: Barratt minimalized the evidence for an English detective in New York watching Tumblety. Barratt states, “Mike seems to swallow a bartender's story that this English detective told him he was there "to get the Whitechapel Murderer".” First, note how Barratt minimalized the evidence into ONE bartender’s story. The bartender's story was actually bartenders' stories collected from competing New York newspaper reporters independently and on the same day. This is corroboration! These reporters saw the man too and neither could have picked up the other’s story. Evidence for this is that they have different facts. The following events were published in the New York World on 4 December 1888,

. . . It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. . . . He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective . . .
Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm . . .
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying: 'He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothing at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it.'


The World reporter’s impression of the man being an English detective corroborates the barkeeper’s comment that, “he says he wuz an English detective,” and the reporter witnessing the detective staking out Tumblety’s residence corroborates the barkeeper’s comments about him being interested in Tumblety. The barkeeper also brought up Tumblety’s name to the reporter, clearly evidence that he received the information from the detective. There is no reason to assume the barkeeper’s account of the English detective’s Whitechapel murder mission as the product of a barkeeper’s lie. Additional evidence confirming the veracity of the barkeeper’s statement comes from the second, separate eyewitness, a New York Herald reporter:

I found that the Doctor was pretty well known in the neighborhood. The bartenders in McKenna's saloon, at the corner of Tenth street and Fourth avenue, knew him well. And it was here that I discovered an English detective on the track of the suspect. This man wore a dark mustache and side whiskers, a tweed suit, a billycock hat and very thick walking boots. He was of medium height and had very sharp eyes and a rather florid complexion. He had been hanging around the place all day and had posted himself at a window which commanded No. 79. He made some inquiries about Dr. Tumblety of the bartenders, but gave no information about himself, although it appeared he did not know much about New York. It is uncertain whether he came over in the same ship with the suspect. (New York Herald, Dec 4, 1888)

There is even further corroboration from Cincinnati:

It has been known for some days past that the detectives have been quietly tracing the career in this city of Dr. Francis Tumblety, one of the suspects under surveillance by the English authorities, and who was recently followed across the ocean by Scotland Yard's men. From information which leaked out yesterday around police headquarters, the inquiries presented here are not so much in reference to Tumblety himself as to a companion who attracted almost as much attention as the doctor, both on account of oddity of character and the shadow-like persistence with which he followed his employer. The investigation in this city is understood to be under the direction of English officials now in New York, and based upon certain information they have forwarded by mail. One of the officers whom current reports connects with this local investigation is James Jackson, the well-known private detective . . . The officials at police headquarters declined to talk about the matter or to answer any questions bearing on this supposed discovery of 'Jack the Ripper's' identity. (Cincinnati Enquirer, Dec. 14, 1888)

Now, does this sound like my point is supported by just one bartender as Barratt minimalized? Sorry David, this is the last reveal I will give you (and I’m sure you will “edit” your article). I will not play into your hand and give you the other areas of your minimalization, but I will repost this every time you post.

Sincerely,
Mike
_____
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-10-2018, 02:46 AM
Darryl Kenyon Darryl Kenyon is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 201
Default

Just a couple of thoughts. Could the bartenders have been working in the same pub? McKenna's saloon. It does seem likely both establishments being described as being on the corner near num 79. He had been hanging around the place all day as one report says. It does seem unlikely that he would go to different bars for then bars to get in touch with different newspapers on the same day. More likely one bar with different reporters talking to different bar staff during the same day. As the detective possibly did. The first one not knowing Tumblety, second one did. Plus could the detective be British but based in New York, perhaps within the employ of Scotland Yard, dealing possibly with/spying on Irish Americans who were sympathetic to the cause. This [to my mind] would make sense.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-10-2018, 09:29 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
How thick are you?
I'm guessing you don't have the capability to see the irony in asking me that question but if you think that repeating the same long post (to which I've already replied) is going to stop me from posting in this thread you are greatly mistaken.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-10-2018, 09:30 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
It's not just me he wants to stop the same posting.
Are you talking about Jmenges? Well, yes, I think his post can only really have been directed at you because you are the one who keeps repeating the same long and boring post, despite that post already having been responded to. And, despite his polite request, you have pretty much done it again, with the mere addition of a new paragraph at the start. It's very disrespectful, not just to him but to the administrators of this site and to all its members.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-10-2018, 09:32 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
How How many times are you going to post when I told you that I'm not going to play your game.
I'm not playing any kind of game with you Mike. My posts are directed as much to other members of this forum as to you, especially as you don't seem to want to engage or answer my reasonable questions. And I believe that I can post as many times as I like if I feel I have something relevant to say. Yesterday I posted clear evidence that the deployment of 12 constables at two train stations in 1889 had absolutely nothing to do Tumblety, in contrast to the false impression given in your latest book. Is there anything you want to say about that?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-10-2018, 09:45 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
You have a fatal flaw, and if I tell you them, you'll merely change your online article.
So I have "a fatal flaw" which you refer to as "them"? What is it, one fatal flaw or many? And does it relate in any way to your 2018 book which is the actual topic of this thread?

You might have seen that I've already called your bluff and posted the entire online article to which you refer on this site for posterity and I obviously won't be able to change that post. Link to it is here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10790

So, bluff having been called, what's the fatal flaw, or flaws, that you think you have identified then Mike?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-10-2018, 09:53 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
Honesty,
I don't think you saying "Honesty", by which you presumably mean "Honestly", is appropriate here, Mike, bearing in mind what you then go on to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
I will reply, but only AFTER you write your David Orsam book. I will love to give you the same treatment you've given other authors, such as Jonathan and Simon. Sooo...
I have absolutely no idea what book you are talking about, Mike. Possibly another hallucination? I've already written two books on True Crime, one about the fascinating but little known First World War murder of a lieutenant's wife, Annie Wootten: the other about the more famous murder of Emily Dimmock in 1907. They are The Islington Murder Mystery and The Camden Town Murder Mystery respectively, both excellent and gripping reads! Available from Amazon and all good booksellers!!! Then there is a book published this month called New Romantics Who Never Were: The Untold Story of Spandau Ballet. There's already been some online media interest in this book which you can find here:

https://wp.me/pE8aS-3pE

and here:

https://noisey.vice.com/en_uk/articl...ole-their-name

If you want to give those three books "the same treatment" as I have given other authors then you can simply go ahead and do it. It will, however, undoubtedly involve you having to do some actual research to check my facts which might come as a bit of a shock to you. I nevertheless look forward to reading your articles.

But before that - as that may take some time - why don't you answer the very reasonable and straightforward questions that I've asked you in this thread?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-11-2018, 11:09 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Another sentence I find rather objectionable in Mike’s book is this:

"Chief Inspector Donald Swanson was placed in full charge of the investigation, and three first-class detective inspectors from headquarters, Frederick Abberline, Henry Moore, and Walter Andrews, were assigned to assist the detectives assigned to the Whitechapel District, called H Division."

Mike doesn't give a source for the statement that Walter Andrews was "assigned to assist" in the case and there is no contemporary support for the idea whatsoever - no known Metropolitan Police or Home Office documents or even domestic press reports from 1888 or 1889 relating to the Ripper investigation mention his name. The informed reader, of course, will know that it is Walter Dew, and Walter Dew alone, who claimed in his memoirs some fifty years after the event that Andrews was one of the officers investigating the Whitechapel murders but Mike knows very well that there is some doubt as to the matter. In his 2016 book he said:

"Some suggest Walter Dew’s memory failed him and Andrews was not involved, at all."

Mike then went on in his 2016 book to attempt to demonstrate that Dew's memory was perfect but, as usual, Mike had mischaracterised the argument against him (especially if when saying "Some suggest" he was referring to me).

My view is that Dew, who was a junior detective constable in the H Division at the time, either saw in the newspapers that Andrews had been sent to pursue Jack the Ripper in America, or was told this as a bit of gossip by a colleague who had himself seen it in the newspapers, and was thus under the mistaken impression that Andrews was part of Scotland Yard’s team working on the Ripper case (something which fooled Guy Logan too). This would make sense of why there is no mention of Andrews in any of the many documents pertaining to the investigation into the Whitechapel murders.

Hawley's insistence on including Andrews in the team, incidentally, seems to me to be a hangover from his previous belief that Andrews went to New York (or somewhere else on 22-23 December 1888) to do something relating to Tumblety which notion has now been comprehensively debunked and doesn't (thankfully) feature in his latest book.

Now, I certainly don't say that my view must prevail about Walter Dew's recollections, and Andrews' involvement in the case, but it is surely wrong for Mike to state, as a confirmed fact, that Andrews was assigned to assist the H Division detectives, especially without providing a source for his readers. It cannot be regarded as a certainty and should not properly have been stated as such.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-11-2018, 04:06 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,267
Default

Why is it suspected that you are writing a JTR book David? Are you secretly working with Pierre on your Magnum Opus?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-11-2018, 04:26 PM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

David, David, (Pierre) you seem emotionally compelled to write these endless posts, this incessant barking. I first thought it was just a case of extreme confirmation bias (minimalizing and ignoring evidence to the contrary and overemphasizing (and misrepresenting) evidence to the affirmative), but now I believe it’s also your struggle with what psychologists call accommodation vs. assimilation. Although, Christopher Morley may have the answer to this incessant barking:


Truth, like milk, arrives in the dark
But even so, wise dogs don’t bar.
Only mongrels make it hard
For the milkman to come up the yard.



Truth be told, it looks like you’re upset that I discovered your hidden agenda and you’re now paraphrasing, minimalizing, and cherry picking my book to death and not giving the true picture. You certainly look like you’re out to get me. Evidence for this, readers, is that he has skipped the volumes of surprising finds just to create the impression of a bad book. Sounds vindictive.

How many times do I have to tell you, Reductionist Dave, that I’m not going to play your game. Your MO (i.e., what you did with Jonathan) is to offend an author on the boards enough so that they defend themselves and expose the gaps in your articles, present and future. You’ll then amend your online articles. It’s obvious as to your motive. Your online articles will be chapters in your future David Orsam Book. In view of this, I will illuminate you AFTER publication so that I can return the very same courtesy that you have given other authors on these boards. Don’t be afraid to publish, David. Have some guts. I will take the time out of my busy schedule and give you a thorough review.


Recall:

David Pierre Barratt changed his online negative article on Jonathan Hainsworth’s book AFTER Jonathan dominated him on Casebook! Now I see what he’s doing. He seems to antagonize the author on the forums until the author is forced to defend his work. It creates a huge thread that no one bothers to read, so no one sees how Barratt’s arguments are an act of minimalizing evidence to the contrary. Barratt then fixes his online article through crafty smoke and mirrors. Sorry, David, I’m not going to play your game.

It is likely why you have not written your book (David Orsam books) yet, since you fear authors will give your book the same treatment. Writing an online article is certainly much safer, since you can edit it immediately. Honestly David, I will give you a thorough and fact-based review of your Tumblety section. When will it come out?

The problem the reader has is, since they are not privy to all the details, your strawman arguments sound convincing. It’s just that they are not valid. Even on this thread, we see Barratt’s minimalizing of the evidence. I’ll give two:

First one: Barratt paraphrases Littlechild’s statement in such a way as to make the reader believe he did not have inside knowledge that Tumblety had escaped to France. Barratt states, “It doesn't then get much better, for in the next sentence we are told that it is "certain" that Chief Inspector Littlechild stated that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, with a supporting quote provided in which Littlechild says absolutely no such thing! All Littlechild says is that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" which is something that the police could have established subsequently. And they could have done so very simply by learning that Tumblety had purchased a ticket, while in England, to travel to Boulogne!”

This is a lie. Littlechild actually stated, "and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne..." The second part does indeed show that Littlechild was privy to something other than purchasing a ticket in England. Besides, he used an alias, Frank Townsend, so how on earth would they have known it was him?

Second one: Barratt minimalized the evidence for an English detective in New York watching Tumblety. Barratt states, “Mike seems to swallow a bartender's story that this English detective told him he was there "to get the Whitechapel Murderer".” First, note how Barratt minimalized the evidence into ONE bartender’s story. The bartender's story was actually bartenders' stories collected from competing New York newspaper reporters independently and on the same day. This is corroboration! These reporters saw the man too and neither could have picked up the other’s story. Evidence for this is that they have different facts. The following events were published in the New York World on 4 December 1888,

. . . It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. . . . He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective . . .
Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm . . .
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying: 'He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothing at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it.'


The World reporter’s impression of the man being an English detective corroborates the barkeeper’s comment that, “he says he wuz an English detective,” and the reporter witnessing the detective staking out Tumblety’s residence corroborates the barkeeper’s comments about him being interested in Tumblety. The barkeeper also brought up Tumblety’s name to the reporter, clearly evidence that he received the information from the detective. There is no reason to assume the barkeeper’s account of the English detective’s Whitechapel murder mission as the product of a barkeeper’s lie. Additional evidence confirming the veracity of the barkeeper’s statement comes from the second, separate eyewitness, a New York Herald reporter:

I found that the Doctor was pretty well known in the neighborhood. The bartenders in McKenna's saloon, at the corner of Tenth street and Fourth avenue, knew him well. And it was here that I discovered an English detective on the track of the suspect. This man wore a dark mustache and side whiskers, a tweed suit, a billycock hat and very thick walking boots. He was of medium height and had very sharp eyes and a rather florid complexion. He had been hanging around the place all day and had posted himself at a window which commanded No. 79. He made some inquiries about Dr. Tumblety of the bartenders, but gave no information about himself, although it appeared he did not know much about New York. It is uncertain whether he came over in the same ship with the suspect. (New York Herald, Dec 4, 1888)

There is even further corroboration from Cincinnati:

It has been known for some days past that the detectives have been quietly tracing the career in this city of Dr. Francis Tumblety, one of the suspects under surveillance by the English authorities, and who was recently followed across the ocean by Scotland Yard's men. From information which leaked out yesterday around police headquarters, the inquiries presented here are not so much in reference to Tumblety himself as to a companion who attracted almost as much attention as the doctor, both on account of oddity of character and the shadow-like persistence with which he followed his employer. The investigation in this city is understood to be under the direction of English officials now in New York, and based upon certain information they have forwarded by mail. One of the officers whom current reports connects with this local investigation is James Jackson, the well-known private detective . . . The officials at police headquarters declined to talk about the matter or to answer any questions bearing on this supposed discovery of 'Jack the Ripper's' identity. (Cincinnati Enquirer, Dec. 14, 1888)

Now, does this sound like my point is supported by just one bartender as Barratt minimalized? Sorry David, this is the last reveal I will give you (and I’m sure you will “edit” your article). I will not play into your hand and give you the other areas of your minimalization, but I will repost this every time you post.

Sincerely,
Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.