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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 1 hour and 28 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by packers stem 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - by rjpalmer 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by packers stem 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (23 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (14 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - (4 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (1 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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #131  
Old 05-14-2018, 11:59 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default The Case of the Vanishing Little Man

So why does Hawley say in his latest book that "a number of modern researchers" claim that the English detective seen in New York outside Tumblety’s apartment in December 1888 was a private detective? To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person who has argued that this is a possibility.

He could have written something like "It has been suggested that the man might been an English detective" (which is the type of thing he does at other times) so why the need to invent multiple researchers with whom he is arguing?

Well I’ve asked him enough times to explain himself and he’s refused to do so. Consequently, I’m going to draw my own conclusions.

I can’t claim to understand the workings of Hawley's mind but certainly one possibility is that if he narrowed it down to just one person he would have to face up to the fact that this person was me - and if it was me then he would equally have to face up the fact that he hasn’t responded to my detailed argument on the point at all. Instead he has, to use his expression, "cherry picked" those bits of my argument he wants to respond to.

Let me give one important example of the consequence of this. In my online article, "The English Detective", I make the point that one of the reporters who described the English detective (the one from the New York World) described 'a little man', despite the fact that he was wearing 'an enormous pair of boots with soles an inch thick'. As there had been a minimum height requirement for Metropolitan police constables since 1823 to be at least five feet, seven inches, without shoes, and as all known Scotland Yard detectives at the time, with one single exception (Inspector Greenham who was five feet, eight inches, tall) started out as Met police constables, there is no possible way on this planet that any Scotland Yard detective wearing heels an inch thick could have been described as “a little man”. If the detective seen outside Tumblety’s apartment in December 1888 was a little man he was certainly NOT a Scotland Yard detective.

If, however, the reporter was wrong to describe the detective as a little man, because he stood a minimum of five foot eight inches in his heels an inch thick, then it calls into serious question whether that reporter actually saw the English detective. And if he didn’t see him it’s a disaster for Mike because this reporter is supposed to be corroborating the detective’s very existence!

So Mike has a really serious problem with the description of the English detective by this reporter. How does he deal with it in his 2018 book? To ignore it, basically. He doesn’t even include the quote about the English detective being “a little man” in his latest reproduction of the New York World article, an act of omission which I understand is properly described as “minimalisation”.

This may be why he wanted to get away from the notion that I am the person who has argued that the English detective is not a Scotland Yard detective. If a number of modern researchers have made this argument he doesn’t need to respond to any specific one and can ignore the inconvenient fact that the detective was described by one of his two supposedly corroborating reporters as a little fella.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #132  
Old 05-14-2018, 12:16 PM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
As there had been a minimum height requirement for Metropolitan police constables since 1823 to be at least five feet, seven inches, without shoes, and as all known Scotland Yard detectives at the time, with one single exception (Inspector Greenham who was five feet, eight inches, tall) started out as Met police constables, there is no possible way on this planet that any Scotland Yard detective wearing heels an inch thick could have been described as “a little man”. If the detective seen outside Tumblety’s apartment in December 1888 was a little man he was certainly NOT a Scotland Yard detective.
How tall was Edmund Reid?
Quick reply to this message
  #133  
Old 05-14-2018, 12:27 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
How tall was Edmund Reid?
Are you referring to Edmund Reid of H Division?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #134  
Old 05-14-2018, 03:59 PM
jmenges jmenges is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
So why does Hawley say in his latest book that "a number of modern researchers" claim that the English detective seen in New York outside Tumblety’s apartment in December 1888 was a private detective? To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person who has argued that this is a possibility.
What Mike says in his new book is this:
"One claim by a number of modern researchers states that this man was an English private detective hired by the two men who gave the sureties for Tumblety’s bail before he sneaked out of the country."

See Tim Riordan's 'Prince of Quacks' page 183-4 for an example of a modern researcher making this suggestion.

JM
Quick reply to this message
  #135  
Old 05-15-2018, 04:13 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

Wow, have I gotten under David's skin! Continuous and incessant posts just on one small portion of the book, the very book that contradicts David's claims.

Oh yes, I do have more, and if anyone wants to know some of it, just contact me privately. David, hurry up with your book so that I can present it publicly in a nice review. Or do you now plan to postpone it just because I plan on giving you an honest review?

No Herlock, you misunderstand. My point is David's practice of minimalization or act of reductionism. Notice his first post. Of course he's going to "clarify" with additional. . . additional. . . additional. . . posts (ad nauseum), and I'm planning on responding to those once he's written his book.

Sincerely,

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message
  #136  
Old 05-15-2018, 07:13 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,098
Default

Mike, what evidence do you have that David is being dishonest when he says that he has no intention of writing a JTR book?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message
  #137  
Old 05-15-2018, 09:50 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmenges View Post
What Mike says in his new book is this:
"One claim by a number of modern researchers states that this man was an English private detective hired by the two men who gave the sureties for Tumblety’s bail before he sneaked out of the country."

See Tim Riordan's 'Prince of Quacks' page 183-4 for an example of a modern researcher making this suggestion.
Thank you jmenges, that is interesting and helpful. I haven't read Riordan's book but I've just this minute purchased it as a Kindle version. From a quick search of it, I see that Riordan's suggestion is not quite as you present it, at least not in that version, for what Riordan says is that the man referred to in the New York newspapers might have been 'a bounty hunter' hired by someone stuck with having to cough up the cash for Tumblety's bail. Perhaps in the hardback book, however, he claims it was an English private detective?

In any event, it's for Mike to tell us what HE means by "a number of modern researchers". I have repeatedly tried to extract that information in this thread. Thus:

#16

Perhaps Mike can name those researchers for us because I'd be interested to know how their arguments are expressed and if they accord with mine.

#39

Who are the "number of modern researchers" who have claimed that the English detective supposedly seen outside Tumblety's apartment in New York was an English private detective hired by two men who gave sureties for Tumblety's bail?

#63

Repeated #39 above.

#81

Repeated #39 above.

Why hasn't he answered?

One possibility is that he wasn't aware of Riordan's argument on the point or had forgotten about it. Alternatively that he knew that Riordan suggested a bounty hunter, not a private detective. Alternatively, if his view is that a bounty hunter is the same as a private detective, that he didn't want to accept that his "number" of modern researchers was just two, Riordan and myself.

I see that he's posted again today and could have cleared this matter up very easily but has chosen not to.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #138  
Old 05-15-2018, 09:57 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
Wow, have I gotten under David's skin!
Might it be that the very reverse is the truth, do you think Mike?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
Continuous and incessant posts just on one small portion of the book, the very book that contradicts David's claims.
Had you responded to my four initial posts on 7th May in a reasonable and sensible way, there might have been no need for any further postings. I assume that your mention of "one small portion of the book" is your sub-conscious way of saying that you got a few things wrong but everyone should look at the bigger picture about Tumblety possibly being Jack the Ripper. That would be absolutely fine but where is the actual admission of any error in the "one small portion" of your book to which I was referring? Or do you think you haven't made any errors anywhere in the book?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
the very book that contradicts David's claims.
But does your book contradict my claim (#12) that the 12 constables were not deployed at St Pancras and Euston for any purpose relating to Tumblety? We seem to be no nearer to establishing your view on that issue.

How can your book contradict my claim (#13) that it is not "certain" that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne when I only made this claim AFTER reading your book?

How can your book contradict my claim (#15) that Tumblety was not necessarily arrested on 7th November 1888 when I only pointed this out to you AFTER reading your book? And I thought we had established that you failed to understand the meaning of "received into custody" in the Central Criminal Court Calendar, although you've never actually admitted it in terms.

And does your book really contradict the claim in my online article that "Unless a sensible reason for a [Scotland Yard] detective being sent from London to New York can be put forward, the idea of the English detective reported by the New York newspapers cannot be taken seriously"? What is the sensible reason to explain why a Scotland Yard detective from London would have been prowling around outside Tumblety's apartment in New York December 1888 (as asked in #16)?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #139  
Old 05-15-2018, 10:04 AM
jmenges jmenges is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Thank you jmenges, that is interesting and helpful. I haven't read Riordan's book but I've just this minute purchased it as a Kindle version. From a quick search of it, I see that Riordan's suggestion is not quite as you present it, at least not in that version, for what Riordan says is that the man referred to in the New York newspapers might have been 'a bounty hunter' hired by someone stuck with having to cough up the cash for Tumblety's bail. Perhaps in the hardback book, however, he claims it was an English private detective?
A bit nitpicking isn't it David?
In my opinion, a "bounty hunter" isn't quite an accurate description of what he should have been called in Tim's book, and a "private detective" isn't completely right in Mike's either. Its a variation of the two called a "skip tracer". They 'trace' people who have skipped town and jumped bail.
Clearly Tim Riordan is suggesting exactly the type of person you think you're the first to describe.

JM
Quick reply to this message
  #140  
Old 05-15-2018, 10:05 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
Oh yes, I do have more, and if anyone wants to know some of it, just contact me privately.
Are you saying you want to respond to my open posts on this forum in private so that you can secretly mislead people – perhaps with the addition of more unsubstantiated smears, false allegations and downright lies - without me having any kind of opportunity to reply?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
David, hurry up with your book so that I can present it publicly in a nice review. Or do you now plan to postpone it just because I plan on giving you an honest review?
Three books are already published Mike. The Islington Murder Mystery, The Camden Town Murder Mystery and my new book about Spandau Ballet and the New Romantics. See www.orsam.co.uk for details. All very fine and gripping books. You are free to "review" them all if you like, not that I have ever reviewed any of your books.

I do wonder if you had a dream one night, Mike, in which you dreamt I was writing a book about Francis Tumblety specifically, or Jack the Ripper generally (who knows what you are talking about?), and now can't distinguish the fantasy from reality. If you are licking your lips at this dream of reviewing an imaginary future book of mine about Tumblety or JTR, it isn't ever going to happen in the real world, although if you dream hard enough you might be able to conjure it up in your mind. Perhaps the words "excellent" and "amazing" will pop up in your dream!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


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 08:52 PM.


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