Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Part 25

BITHA NOW IN ERROR WITH THE INTERNET 

The Bitha's been around on the Forum for almost three years now.

Suddenly, for the first time, after I published 'The Secret Source of Michael John Barrett', he's got a problem reading articles on this website!

Funny that, aint' it?

So we had from him (in #8091 of 'Incontrovertible'):

'Is there not another way to view this information other than reading it on his website?

He seems to be the only person on the internet  being charged by the width.'

As it happens, the Bitha has a personal website under the name of Jay Hartley at https://jayhartley.com/.  He's written an article about Mary Jane Kelly which is found at https://jayhartley.com/who-was-mary-jane-kelly/.

So here's a screenshot of the start of that article on the Bitha's own website.  Notice the narrow text down the middle.

 

Here's a screenshot of this website from my computer unchanged from the settings I always personally use.  Notice that the width of the text columns are the same as the Bitha's. In real life I've measured them both to 8 inches. 

 

I'm using a size 14 font on this website whereas the Bitha, I guess, uses either size 10 or 12.

Here are the same two images just showing the text columns lined up and centered against each other:

 

They're identical.  And that's what I see on my screen.

Now, if you don't see it on your screen just adjust the width, using the fucking Zoom function on your internet browser or enlarge on your phone, or whatever, with your fucking fingers.

It's kinda simple and very basic. 

I've also mentioned in the past when I was saying exactly the same thing to Major Tom about two years ago that, if you really want, you can copy and paste the text from my articles into a Word document (then if you like into a PDF) and read it that way if you have reading difficulties, having adjusted the font size to whatever you like it to be.  

With the Bitha, however, the problem is usually with comprehension difficulties.

But I must say it's funny that the only two people who have claimed to have difficulty reading the articles on this site are the only two people who believe that James Maybrick wrote the Jack the Ripper diary!

Perhaps this explains why the Bitha hasn't been able to come up with a response to my forensic demolition of the reason he put forward for Mike's attempt to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.

THE MAJOR CHIPS IN

#8096 of Incontrovertible:

'I don't know of any site on the entire web where one has to make 'Zoom' magnification decisions...'

Funny that, because on the very site he posted that comment - the Censorship Forum - I regularly find myself zooming to 125% because I don't like it at 100%.

But anyway the point is that the solution to the Major's alleged problem in reading articles on this website is right there, and very, very, simple, whether he does it on any other site or not.  He now knows what to do (and I've told him to do it at least twice before on this website) so that should be the end of it!

THE GOOD SHIP LOLLIPOP

Miss Information responded to my 'Secret Source' article in #8096 of the 'Inconceivable' thread to which my own detailed response, written on 22 January 2022, can be found in Researching the Notes.

But there was one thing in her post which particularly struck me.  After saying that 'Mike mentioning the good ship lollipop [Britannic] in his research notes from 1992 doesn't cut the mustard', Miss Information said by way of explanation:

'Lord Orsam might have had himself an argument if only 'Sir Jim' had mentioned in the diary that he had met Bunny on the Britannic.' 

Only Miss Information can deceive herself in this way.

I've already provided an almost identical example of such an error whereby her 'Sir Jim' made an inconceivable mistake about the relationship of the (unnamed) Countess de Gabriac to his wife. 

Yet she denies that Lord Orsam has an argument about this!!! 

I mean, had the diarist said that he met Florence on the Britannic, the Mad Major would no doubt have popped up and said, it was eight years earlier, James Maybrick might simply have muddled up the name of the ship in his mind...anyone can make such a mistake.  We'd probably have been given a string of examples of people making similar mistakes, probably offered up by Miss Information herself.  And, according to the Major, the diary would have survived again!

DON'T FORGET GLADYS

Don't forget there's also the point that 'Sir Jim' wrote 'my dearest Gladys is unwell yet again' at some point in early 1888, thus following the mistake by Ryan (p.137) that both of Maybrick's children 'had whooping cough' in 1887.  

Miss Information has never even commented on this, preferring to stick her head in the sand and ignore it. Perhaps she's not even aware of it. 

The Major didn't even understand the point at first and it had to be explained to him by RJ Palmer.  So his response is also awaited! 

THE CLANGING CLANGER KEEPS ON CLANGING WITH EVEN MORE CLANGINGNESS THAN BEFORE

In keeping with his tradition of misrepresenting everything I say on this website, and showing his inability to read simple English, the Clanger said in #8099 of 'Incontrovertible':

'I had to laugh when I read that only through reading Ryan could MB have come up with ‘off Tithebarn Street’. No Scouser would ever describe somewhere as being ‘off’ somewhere else would they?' 

That must have been the laugh of a complete lunatic because he did not read me saying that 'only through reading Ryan could MB have come up with 'off Tithebarn Street'.

I had thought that what I wrote was very clear, but I'd forgotten that some of my readers have comprehension difficulties.

What I wrote was that, out of all of the sources available to Mike, 'it is ONLY Ryan who places Knowsley Buildings as being 'off'as opposed to in or out 'of Tithebarn Street'.  I didn't say, therefore, that Mike could only have come up with 'off Tithebarn Street' through reading Ryan.  What I did say was that due to (a) the fact that Ryan states that Maybrick maintained 'a fine office in Knowsley Buildings, off Tithebarn Street' and (b) the way Mike phrased the entry in his research note as being: 'James Maybrick's office: Knowsley Buildings  - Off Tithebarn Street. - recorded in Liverpool Echo'  (a way of phrasing not found in the Liverpool Echo), 'I think we can say that Mike has given himself away once more as trying to disguise a Ryan source as one from the Liverpool Echo'.

If the Clanger genuinely and seriously thinks that Mike took the time to scour through back issues of the Liverpool Echo at Liverpool Library (something which even Miss Information tells us did NOT happen) and found the reference to 'Knowsley Buildings, Tithebarn Street' or the reference to 'Knowsley Buildings, which is out of Tithebarn Street' and decided to change that wording of his own accord to 'Knowsley Buildings, off Tithebarn Street' by pure coincidence matching the phrasing in Ryan's book, which even Miss Information accepts Mike used as a source for his info on Maybrick, then good luck to him!  But I suspect he may be on his own in thinking this, as usual.

As to the Clanger's other point in his post that:

'what’s the big deal about Brierley being a senior partner in a sugar broking company? He was, wasn’t he? He’s certainly described as such in the press.' 

this is just another straightforward comprehension failure.  Mike didn't describe Brierley as a senior partner in 'a sugar broking company'.  He described him as a senior partner in a firm of 'cotton brokers'.  Sugar doesn't fucking enter into it so the Clanger has had another one of his weird brain malfunctioning moments.

But even if we allow for the Clanger's stupidity, do him a favour and change 'sugar' to 'cotton', the point I actually made is that Brierley was not described in the Liverpool Echo as a senior partner of a cotton broking company, he was described in that newspaper as a MEMBER of a cotton IMPORTING company. In fact, out of all known pre-1992 sources, it's only Ryan who described Brierley as a senior partner of a cotton brokers called Brierley & Wood which is exactly the way Mike described him.

It's odd because I already explained all this very clearly.  Even odder is that everyone else, even Miss Information, accepts that Mike did not search through back issues of the Liverpool Echo from 1889 but used Ryan, so the Clanger is doing no more than pissing into the wind, as usual.

ON 'CHANGE

The Clanger's newspaper extract that he posted in #8110 reminds me of something I spotted in the Liverpool press during the 1880s:

 

As far as I've been able to tell, the Liverpool press invariably referred to the Cotton Exchange as 'Change for short, not as the Exchange

Here's another example, from the Liverpool Echo of 21 January 1889:

 

'The deceased died very suddenly, he having been  on 'Change on Wednesday'.

I imagine that this reflected the way cotton brokers referred to the Cotton Exchange in Liverpool during that period, although it would be interesting if that could be confirmed from other sources. 

In the diary, it's referred to as 'the Exchange'.  So perhaps Maybrick had a different way of describing it, or the forger wasn't aware that it was called 'Change.  

ANOTHER LOUD CLANG

Clanger came up with his own theory for why Mike didn't mention Ryan's book in his research notes (#8104 of 'Incontrovertible). It's coz Mike 'for whatever reason' (lol!) wanted 'to pretend he'd put more effort into producing his notes than he actually did.'

We don't need to spend much time on this clanging bit of idiocy.  It assumes that Mike discovered a key book about the Maybrick case but deliberately didn't mention it to the fucking co-author of his forthcoming book on the diary (see Researching the Notes).  Does that make any sense?  Of course not.  There would have been no harm in including at least one reference to Ryan, after all, which would have shown Shirley, his co-author, that he'd put some effort into finding books on the Maybrick case, just like he happily cited secondary sources (i.e. books) in the Ripper section of his notes without a single newspaper reference.

The Clanger should really leave the unsupported theorizing to Miss Information who at least is a professional speculator.  

ANOTHER CAMEO APPEARANCE

The Bitha, having somehow finally managed to overcome all the technical difficulties that he couldn't solve himself, and worked out how to read the articles on this site, nevertheless got himself confused as to the purpose of my 'Secret Source' article.  He thinks I was trying to deliver a 'fatal blow' to the diary.

Thus, in#8107 of 'Incontrovertible', we find him saying: 

'Orsam Day once again fails to deliver the fatal blow he believes he has delivered about eight times now'.

He's confused for two reasons.

My 'Secret Source' article wasn't intended to deliver a 'fatal blow' to anything.  What I was trying to prove was that Mike had secretly incorporated information from Ryan's book into his research notes.  I believe I've done that very successfully.  No one is disputing it!  What I was particularly pleased about was spotting the point re. the Britannic which no one else had previously noticed.  That's what I believe my assistant was raving about when he kept saying 'You've done it again, Lord Orsam'.  In other words, I'd spotted an important fact which everyone else had missed.  In the Bitha's mind, I'm guessing he thinks the claim was that I'd dealt another fatal blow to the diary.  No, the diary is already dead.

That brings me onto my second point.  The fatal blow to the diary HAS been delivered due to the exposure of 'one off instance' as an anachronism which no one in 1888 could possibly have written in their personal diary.  The blow WOULD have been delivered on publication of the diary back in 1993 had not Shirley Harrison told the world that she'd found an example of the use of 'one off' to mean unique from the 1860s.  Once that turned out to be non-existent - in 2016 would you believe - the diary was dead.  It remains dead.

You can't deliver a fatal blow to a corpse.  The later examples of 'Bunny's Aunt' and 'Bumbling Buffoon' merely confirmed what we already knew.  Diary is dead.

Truly, only idiots and writers of fiction continue with the idea that James Maybrick wrote that diary.  I'm pretty sure that the Bitha is one or the other of these. 

WHAT'S THAT NOISE?

I hear the ominous clanging of the Clanger.

Yes, he's back!! In #8108 with his silly Tithebarn Street point, this time making some false comparisons.  Let's see...

  

Well done the Clanger.  Three dreadful examples.  Even by your standards, that's impressive.

So the thing to bear in mind is that Knowsley Buildings was actually a building IN Tithebarn Street (at Number 15, Tithebarn Street).  It wasn't, in any real sense, off it, as Ryan seems to have believed.

As can be seen from the Clanger's own first example, Mono's Public House was in Marybone, a completely separate street from Tithebarn Street, of which the correct address for the pub, which no longer exists, was 49-53 Marybone.  The public house itself was not properly speaking off Tithebarn Street other than that it was in a street which was close to Tithebarn Street, albeit separated from it by Great Crosshall Street, as can be seen here:

 

The location of the old pub itself was further north up Marybone, outside of the cropped area above, and thus well away from Tithebarn Street.  The inclusion of 'off Tithebarn Street' in the advertisement by TRS Estates Group for the sale of the freehold of the public house in the Liverpool Echo of 19 August 1999, which is what the Clanger has posted, was obviously to make it appear that the building was at a more popular and valuable location than it actually was.

Indeed, a search of the entire British Newspaper archive for 'Marybone off Tithebarn' produces just one solitary example: the Clanger's advertisement from 1999!  This suggests to me that it's not even normal, and never has been, to refer to Marybone as being 'off Tithebarn Street'.

What about example number two?  Well that's hardly any better because it's talking about the purchase of land off Tithebarn Street for the construction of a building, The Avril Robarts Learning Resource Centre.  This building, which has now been built (and is today called the Avril Robarts Library, housed in the Tithebarn Building), sits literally at the corner of Tithebarn Street and Vauxhall Road. 

In fact, if the Clanger had bothered to read the news story he found from the Liverpool Echo of 23 June 1995, he would have seen that the location of 'the second centre' (i.e. the Avril Robarts centre, the first centre being the Aldham Robarts Learning Research Centre) is stated in the story to be proposed to be built on a car park 'at the corner of Tithebarn Street and Vauxhall Road':

While the address of the centre today is 79 Tithebarn Street, that probably wouldn't have been known in 1995 when the car park presumably wouldn't have had an address.  What actually happened is that the new building, which was completed in 1997, was made an extension of, and given the same address as, an existing old building which housed the Liverpool Polytechnic, formerly the City School of Commerce, which had long had its address as 79 Tithebarn Street (and this building was entirely in Tithebarn Street, not at the corner of Vauxhall Road).  But in 1995 a reference to 'off Tithebarn Street' was appropriate for a proposed building which was going to be built over a car park stretching across (or off) two streets in contrast to a building which actually existed in that street.

The third example is a complete disaster for the Clanger. We don't even need to investigate it any further, it's right there in what he's posted. 'St Mary's Church, Highfield Street' is the actual fucking location and it's Highfield Street which is is said to be off Tithebarn Street. Completely fucking different to a building located IN Tithebarn Street.

The below graphic shows the distance from the church in question (which was demolished in 2001) to Tithebarn Street, the X marking the spot where the church stood:

 

Here's the really amusing thing, a search of 'St Mary's Church, Highfield Street' on the British Newspaper Archive produces a grand total of 41 results going back to 1899.  How many of them add 'off Tithebarn Street' to that address?  I'll tell you: ONE!  The same one posted by the Clanger.  It's such an unusual result that we can safely say that the Clanger has provided a false impression of the church's address of truly Rubenholdian proportions! 

I'm suddenly reminded that we haven't had one of these for some time...

 

AND THE CLANGING CONTINUES

Oh my gosh, it gets even worse.  The Clanger in #8110 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread has so badly misunderstood the point about Mike's reference to Alfred Brierley that it's difficult to know where to begin.

His first mistake is to say that on reading my article 'you get the impression that Brierley wasn't a senior partner in a cotton brokers'.  

No, that wasn't what I was saying at all.  He was a senior partner in a cotton brokers.  The only question is: how did Mike Barrett know this? 

For some reason, which I still can't work out, the Clanger has posted an extract from Reynolds's Newspaper of 6 September 1889 in which Brierley is referred to as a senior partner in a cotton brokers.  Why?

Why, oh why oh why, oh Clangerano? 

Reynolds's Newspaper couldn't conceivably have been a source used by Mike Barrett.  So what's the purpose of posting it?  The same information is found in the Glasgow Evening Citizen and Fife Herald, for example, but these are not conceivable sources for Mike to have used for his research notes.

I wouldn't even mind but Reynolds's couldn't have been Mike's source because it refers to Brierley's company as 'Brierly, Wood & Co' whereas Mike, like Ryan, had it as 'Brierly and Wood'.

Shockingly the Clanger then falsely states:

'Time and again the supposedly ultra thorough Lord O leaves out info that might cast doubt on his claims. Is he perhaps not as thorough as he’d have us believe? Or are his omissions deliberate?' 

But the Clanger doesn't identify any omissions in my article.

He makes the point that Mike spells 'Brierley' as 'Brierly' whereas Ryan spells it as 'Brierley'.  That is true and can be seen in the fucking article!  There is no omission (nor is there a typo in my article as the Clanger suggests there might be).

Now it's true that Ryan spells the name as 'Brierley' while Mike spells it as 'Brierly' but the Clanger is daft to point out that 'both MB and Reynolds use Brierly'. The possibility of Mike using Reynolds' newspaper as a source for his research notes not only doesn't exist but Mike expressly states that his source of the Brierley information was the Liverpool Echo.  Although there are two occasions in its reporting (28 May and 13 August 1889) that the Liverpool Echo spells the man's name as 'Brierly', on the latter occasion the story is headlined 'STATEMENT BY MR. BRIERLEY' and spelt correctly on the other eleven times he's mentioned in that same story.  Crucially, it is spelt correctly when it says 'Mr Brierley is a senior member of the firm of Brierley and Wood, cotton importers' thus showing that in addition to the different status and type of business, Mike clearly did not get the wrong spelling of Brierley from this newspaper.

If there was a source which had Brierley down as a 'senior partner' of 'Brierly (sic) and Wood', a firm said to be 'cotton brokers', and mis-spelt the man's name as 'Brierly' too, the Clanger might begin to have a point but ONLY if it was a source which Mike could conceivably have used for his 1992 research notes.  In the absence of that source - and clearly the Clanger hasn't been able to find one - the conclusion must be that Mike simply made a spelling mistake when it came to Brierley's name (one which is very easy for anyone to make), especially as none of the other sources that Mike is likely to have used, of which there are only a limited number, spell 'Brierley' as 'Brierly' when discussing his occupation etc.

It's just another false point by the Clanger demonstrating his total ignorance of the subject but presented in his normal thuggish 'I know everything' way, so we need another one of these: 

  

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ORSAMISM

What the Clanger finds 'fascinating', apparently, is the 'psychology of Orsamism' (#8113 of Incontrovertible). 

He finally admits that he's obsessed with me.

As he says, he's not interested in the diary 'one bit', just with me.

In his latest rage-post, he's repeated his clever 'Spandex Bully' insult, to add to 'insulting twerp' which he called me in breach of Forum rules while I was a member of that website, and of course we had from him a long list of bizarre names and insults on JTR Forums in the Lord Orsam Blog thread, posted after I resigned from the Censorship Forum, hence: 'Lord Charles' (#60), 'fruit loop' (#63) 'Mr Multiple Personality' (#157), 'His Multiplepersonalityship' (also #157), 'Major Clanger' (#178) LOL!, 'Lord Clang Almighty' (#180), LOL! LOL!, 'Major Clanger' (#181) ROFL!,'the Grudgemeister' (#208), 'Hostile Tony' (#247) [wot?], 'The Spandex Bully' (#294) LOL! (showing he can't even come up with new material today), 'the Rabid Carrot' (#495) and simply 'the Carrot' (#498).

What's made him so angry this time, apparently, is that some posters aren't sufficiently criticising or questioning what I'm saying, hence: 'When was the last time either of you either criticised or questioned anything the Spandex Bully uttered?'

He then attempts to answer his own question by saying: 'Is that because you think he never makes mistakes and you approve of his personal attacks on anyone who dares voice an opinion that is contrary to his?'

The Clanger provides no examples of any significant mistakes made by me (despite having spent the past three fucking years on an obsessive personal mission to find one!) or personal attacks on people with contrary opinions which are supposed to be disapproved of.  The only specific thing he asks about is 'off Tithebarn Street' which is incredibly ironic considering the mess the Clanger has made of this point which he clearly hasn't understood.

So he asked: 'Tell us what you really think about the significance of MB's use of 'off Tithebarn Street'.

Well, I've already explained above about the significance of MB's use of 'off Tithebarn Street'.  It's part of a pattern which shows that Mike was taking his information about Maybrick from Ryan's book, not the Liverpool Echo, as he had claimed.

Sure, on it's own 'off Tithebarn Street' is a small point.  But it's not on its own.  It's part of a pattern.  When we find that every reference in Mike's notes matches not what is found in the Liverpool Echo but what is found in Ryan's book (but not any other book about Maybrick) we draw the obvious conclusion that Mike was getting his information from Ryan's book.

I mean, that conclusion isn't even in doubt.  Even Miss Information and the Major, the hardcore diary defenders, aren't questioning that Mike took his information from Ryan's book!  So the Clanger's obsession with Tithebarn Street, a point which, as I've made clear, he doesn't even understand, is ridiculous.

Yet it's part of a pattern with the Clanger of obsessing over small individual points while missing the big picture.  The guy doesn't understand what an argument is.  You can't focus on one point to the exclusion of all others.  As usual, he can't see the wood for the trees. 

THE ERROR BITHA IS UPSET!

Oh dear.  I seem to have upset the Bitha.  He doesn't like being called the Error Bitha, it seems (#8118 of the Incontrovertible thread).

I must say, I'm shocked.  He's worked so hard to make so many errors in such a short space of time that I rather thought he must have positively chosen the username of 'Errorbitha' but made a typo when he was registering as a member of the Forum.  I was just correcting it.

The Bitha now wants to tell me how I should run my own (very popular) website.  I should, he says, 'tone down the playground antics'.  In fact, the full quote is, 'he needs to tone down the playground antics'.  Oh do I need to?

Yes, you see, because 'Innuendo and cheap nicknames will not deter those who simply are committed to telling the truth'.

The truth, lol! From the fiction loving Bitha!!!! 

The thing is Mr Error-Machine Bitha, the stats show me that people keep flocking to this website in increasing numbers with every update, no doubt because they love to read all about the latest hilarious antics of their favourite characters: the Clanger, Miss Information, Major Misunderstanding and, now, the Error Bitha.

This website follows the noble tradition of Private Eye in mocking the arrogance and pomposity of those who don't like to be challenged.  I don't suppose the lawyer Peter Carter Ruck enjoys being called Peter Carter Fuck by Private Eye but that's the way it goes, I guess.

I'd have a little bit more respect for the Bitha's opinion had he not ignored the fact that in two prior posts in the very same fucking thread in which he was posting, the Clanger referred to me as 'the Spandex Bully'.  Why has the Bitha not said a word about that?  On the contrary, he literally included the Clanger in a list of four 'researchers' who 'should continue to get the respect they deserve'.

Oh yes, I agree about that.  They will get ALL the respect they deserve.

For some reason the Clanger, Keith Skinner, Miss Information and Paul Begg should continue to get the respect they deserve because the Bitha has never seen them say anywhere that 'they believe the diary to be genuine'.  Baffling logic.

Well forget about the Clanger because he's not a diary researcher but the other three have all expressed total antipathy to the theory that Mike Barrett might have created the diary.   They won't entertain the idea or give it the time of day.  THAT is why they are not getting respect from those who believe the idea is credible.

Anyway, those 'cheap nicknames'.  Has the Bitha ever rebuked the Major for repeatedly calling Kattrup 'Katnip'.  Has he?  Or is he a coward?

And what 'innuendo' is he talking about? 

By way of apparent explanation he writes: 'Anyone who thinks that I believe in Maybrick as JtR for some financial gain might want to read my Amazon royalty statements so far'.  I really have no idea what he's talking about.   I haven't said or implied that he's doing anything about financial gain.  It's just another error by the Bitha.

What else does the Bitha want to say:

'I find Lord Orsam's detailed obsession with certain casebook members quite fascinating'.

I think the Bitha must have missed the fact that certain Forum members mention me by name in almost every other fucking post in the Maybrick thread, and I'm invariably responding to them.  Has he really missed that?

Thing is, unlike those cowards who ignore most of what I write, I have a policy of responding to every single post addressed to me or about me. I flinch from nothing.  Who else can say the same?

And talking of cowards, did the Bitha miss my detailed forensic demolition of his explanation as to why Mike was looking for a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992?  Why has he not said a word about that? 

As usual, just another diary defender who wants to talk about ME, not about the issues relating to the diary, and certainly not about 'the truth'.  

MORE BITHA TRUTHISM

Again from #8118: 

'We do not have the truth.  The truth maybe the document is real.'

No, this is false.  We DO have the truth about that.  The document cannot be real.

Three words.

One. Off.  Instance.

You are in denial, Mr Bitha.  Those words ALONE prove that the diary is a fake.

And so does 'bumbling buffoon' and so does 'sick aunt'.

THE HAPPY CLANGER

Fresh from labelling Alfred Brierley a sugar broker, and from his Tithebarn Street fiasco, the Clanger in #8121 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread bizarrely refers to Lord Orsam 'employing some of the worst research I have ever encountered in this field in an attempt to make yet another tiresome dismissal of someone else's research'.

I assume that the 'someone else' being referred to his himself.  And I assume that the so-called 'research' of which he speaks is nothing to do with the Maybrick diary (despite posting in a Maybrick thread) but relates to his sudden apparent discovery that Charles Lechmere had a 'lair' off Pinchin Street in which he murdered helpless women. As to that, it will be recalled that I asked a number of questions about why the Clanger has concluded that Lechmere had a lair of Pinchin Street, not a single one of which has been answered.

Instead he continues to focus obsessively on a totally irrelevant point relating to the precise location of James Street, following me having said in an entry in the last update that it was in Stepney and has made two off-topic posts about it in the 'Incontrovertible' thread linking to JTR Forums, so proud is he of the point.

Ed Stow has confirmed that it could be said that James Street was in Stepney (but that so was Pinchin Street) so it's all pointless. And I already agreed in the last update that I could have worded it better, either by saying that Lechmere moved to another location in Stepney or to another location in St George's in the East.  So it's all doubly pointless.

But in my previous update I posted newspaper extracts of four occasions when James Street was said to be in Stepney.  The Clanger having wrongly suggested that Lord Orsam 'scurried off, did a bit of googling' (no, I actually searched in the British Newspaper Archive, not Google) has responded that these were different streets than the one in which Lechmere lived.  That being the case, it does no more than explain why I believed Lechmere had moved to James Street, Stepney, which was the reason I posted the extracts. I wasn't aware there were two James Streets in the same general area of the East End.  But, of course, to repeat the point, it doesn't matter, not only because Ed Stow has confirmed that 'it is true to say in general terms that in 1881 Lechmere was living in Stepney' but because in Lord Orsam Says...Part 21 I stated frankly that:

'If the issue here is that my sentence should have said that Lechmere had moved elsewhere in Stepney in 1881 or elsewhere in St George in the East then fine, it's nothing more than a drafting improvement, as well as a pedantic technical point which doesn't matter, because the actual point I was making was no more than that Lechmere wasn't living in Pinchin Street (Thomas Street) in 1881, as he had been when he was a child in 1861.'

So that surely disposes of the point which had already been disposed of.

Now that we know that the Clanger IS reading these entries, how about he responds to the below (which I'm now repeating for the SECOND TIME), dealing with the substantive issues of his thread (or, as he likes to call it, his 'research') in which he claimed that Lechmere had a lair, rather than attempting to distract from those issues:

Did we already know of the existence of a cat's meat shop in Backchurch Lane?  YES

Is there any evidence that Lechmere ever visited his mother in Pinchin Street when she was known to live there in 1881?  NO.


Is there any evidence that Lechmere's mother was still living in Pinchin Street in 1888 or 1889?  NO. 

Is there any evidence that Lechmere's mother ever sold any cat's meat from the shed in Backchurch Lane?  NO.


Is there any evidence of a connection between Lechmere and the cat's meat shed in Backchurch Lane?  NONE WHATSOEVER.

Is there any good reason to think that the murderer of the Pinchin Street victim used the cat's meat shed in Backchurch Lane to dismember the corpse? NO. 

Did we already know of the existence of a cat's meat shop in Backchurch Lane?  YES

Is there any evidence that Lechmere ever visited his mother in Pinchin Street when she was known to live there in 1881?  NO.

Is there any evidence that Lechmere's mother was still living in Pinchin Street in 1888 or 1889?  NO. 

Is there any evidence that Lechmere's mother ever sold any cat's meat from the shed in Backchurch Lane?  NO. 

Is there any evidence of a connection between Lechmere and the cat's meat shed in Backchurch Lane?  NONE WHATSOEVER.

Is there any good reason to think that the murderer of the Pinchin Street victim used the cat's meat shed in Backchurch Lane to dismember the corpse? NO.

Why has the already known existence of a cat's meat shed in Backchurch Lane apparently turned the Clanger from a Lechmere hanger-on who thought he was probably innocent to a full blown Lechmere True Believer?  I HAVEN'T GOT A FUCKING CLUE.   

QUESTION FOR THE CLANGER

Now that we know that the Clanger is keenly reading these articles, perhaps he can focus his brain on something he seems to have missed last time round.  For he surely doesn't reply selectively does he?

So, in this newspaper report which I posted last time, from the Tower Hamlets Independent of 6 March 1880, the address of the carman, Francis Rain, charged with being drunk while in control of a horse and cart is NOT stated in the report.

 

In the below report FROM THE SAME NEWSPAPER OF THE SAME DATE referring to a case in the same police court, however, we find the addresses of two carmen charged with causing a young boy's death both included in the report.

 

Now perhaps the Clanger, who has previously demonstrated expert knowledge of these matters, can explain to us why the address of Francis Rain is not found in the report of his case while the addresses of George Agre and Thomas Curtis ARE included.

Does it mean that Francis Rain withheld his address from the magistrate?

Or does it mean that the newspaper withheld his address for some unknown reason while nevertheless reporting the addresses of two carmen involved in the death of a young lad?

Or does it mean, as I suggest is the case, that newspaper reports of legal proceedings in the nineteenth century were inconsistent in publishing addresses for witnesses and/or people charged with crimes and that no sensible or reliable conclusion can be drawn from the absence of those addresses? 

SWEET SUGAR

I've already mentioned this but, in view of the Clanger's 'god's gift' comment in #8121 of 'Incontrovertible' I do think it's worth capturing one post for posterity:

 You see that right?

 

Let's be crystal clear: 

 

Hmmmn. A warning to the gullible.  Check everything he says - he is not god's gift as he makes out to be.

WHERE'S DA BITHA?

I'm not kidding you.  Literally TWO posts after the Bitha said he was 'certain' that 'the truth' was the only thing that researchers are interested in, and also stated that 'cheap nicknames', which are 'designed to undermine and belittle', will not deter those who are committed to understanding 'the truth', the Clanger gleefully posted that he occasionally refers to Lord Orsam as 'the Rabid Carrot', something which, to my recollection, he'd only ever done before on JTR Forums but now, here he was, introducing this cheap nickname to the Bitha and the other Censorship Forum members for the very first time.

Did the Bitha rush to chasten the Clanger and tell him that he should only be interested in understanding the truth, not posting cheap nicknames designed to undermine and belittle?

Did he fuck!

Of course he didn't.  That would mean taking a courageous stand on principle.

No, he said not a fucking word. 

So if we want to understand the truth according the Bitha, it's this.  The Bitha only criticizes those who don't make posts defending the diary.  Those who claim that the diary is a fake are fair game.  Those who put forward batshit crazy arguments in defence of the diary, or attack Lord Orsam, get a free pass and are allowed to post whatever cheap nicknames they like. 

There is a word coming to my mind.  

What is it now?

Ah yes... 

Hypocrisy! 

UNDERSTANDING THE TRUTH

If the Bitha wants to understand the truth about the Maybrick diary, surely understanding why Mike sought a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 is one of the most important things to understand in this entire saga.

I've explained why his previous explanation is not only wrong but nonsense. So far, he's totally ignored it. Is he going to take issue with my explanation?  Or does he accept it?

If he's going to take issue, please show me where I'm wrong.  Coz funnily enough, I'd like to understand the truth.  But if he's only going to engage with me very selectively, to discuss side issues like technical website issues and language style, while avoiding every single substantive point I've made, that's not going to get us very close to understanding the truth, is it?

But perhaps the Bitha just likes to write imaginative fiction on the Forum, as in his book, and has no interest in the actual facts, and particularly in getting the facts right.

THE IMAGINARY CLOCK

Amazing how much the Clanger knows, ain't it?

In #5432 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread, he tells us, on the basis of literally nothing, that it is 'likely' that Lechmere had a clock in his house. Yes, you read that right, 'likely'!  It was, you see, because Lechmere was 'somewhat more upmarket than many of his neighbours'.

Christ alone knows how the Clanger is able to say how 'upmarket' Lechmere or his neighbours were in 1888 but it's literally astonishing that the Clanger feels able to say that it is 'likely' that Lechmere had a clock in his house when there is literally no evidence either way, nor any evidence presented as to what proportion of people in the East End in the 1888 did have clocks in their houses.

Perhaps he has now finally achieved his ambition, turned into god and knows everything.

He also tells us in #5433 that his guess is that a brewery clock along Paul's route would have been illuminated.

It's fantastic to have so much knowledge, although one has to wonder what value a guess from a clanger in 2022 actually has.  Some might say none whatsoever.

But the whole question of clocks is utterly pointless.

If either Lechmere or Paul saw a clock, we have no way of knowing if that clock was accurate, or running a few minutes fast or slow.  That's a CRITICAL question.

The fact of the matter is that neither man, to our knowledge, was asked how they fixed the time when they thought they left their house.  For that reason, we can never ever know if they even saw a clock (let alone if that clock was accurate) or were reconstructing the time, i.e. guessing.

Further, neither of them at the inquest gave a precise time that they left their house in any case.  All we know from the press reports is that Lechmere said it was 'about' 3.30 while Paul said it was 'about' or 'just before' 3.45.  That could encompass a wide range of times.  

As I say, even if they saw a clock, it helps not one bit in circumstances where we are speaking of a situation where we don't know if those clocks were accurate.  It only needs them (if they actually saw one) to be running a few minutes fast and it would be very easy for Lechmere and Paul to have met in Bucks Row at say 3.42, or about 3.40, as Inspector Abberline estimated had happened.

Here's a crazy thought. Perhaps an experienced police detective familiar with Whitechapel in 1888 knew better than the Clanger and others in 2022. 

MESSAGE FROM LORD ORSAM

As we move to a new 'Lord Orsam Says...' page, Lord Orsam wishes it to be known that should anyone wish to link to any of the entries on this page, or any of entries on any of the other 'Lord Orsam Says...' pages, bearing in mind that because of the irrational and vindictive rule of Chief Censor Menges no one on the Censorship Forum is allowed to directly quote Lord Orsam (but they are allowed to post links to this site), then just drop an email to Lord Orsam's assistant at the email address on the contact page and he will create a new page containing just that individual entry from 'Lord Orsam Says', the link for which can then safely be posted on the Censorship forum.  This is a public service from Lord Orsam.

 

LORD ORSAM
23 January 2022
Published: Orsam Day 9 March 2022