Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Part 23

"LORD ORSAM'S ENDLESS TIRADE OF ATTEMPED ABUSE..."

On 22 December 2021, the Major exploded with rage against Lord Orsam. Although Lord Orsam hadn't said a word online for over a month, all the Major's anger came out in #8031 of the Incontrovertible thread:

'have you never read Lord Orsam's endless tirade of attempted abuse against anyone who disagrees with his drainpiped discourses? Have you never noticed how semi-abusive he is to those he clearly considers so beneath him?'

It's possible that the Major had been suddenly struck by the realisation that he's wasted the past thirteen years online having managed to convince basically no one that the diary is genuine.  Until now he seems to have believed that there were hordes of silent members all nodding along with his nonsense about the diary but just too shy to post.  But reality has obviously sunk in with the Bitha's poll in which only one other person voted for the diary being genuine, and that was probably a sympathy vote.

The immediate trigger for his outburst, though, was that he'd been caught in yet another misunderstanding.  RJ had posted very clearly that Miss Information was wrong to say that Mike Barrett had needed to be 'reminded' of his story that Anne wrote the diary at the meeting on 20 July 1995.  This was a blatant error made by her, apparently still believing what was said in her book, that Mike's 5 January 1995 affidavit was publicly known within a short time of it being sworn.

Naturally, the Major replied on behalf of his mistress but made a complete mess of it.  He set out what he imagined the conversation between Mike and Keith Skinner in July 1995  (#8026) to have been which entirely supported what RJ Palmer had said!  Mike had not needed to be reminded of his claim that Anne wrote the diary.

It's a shame, incidentally, that the full transcript of the 20 July 1995 meeting has never been produced.  We could then see what was actually said rather than rely on the Major's imagination.   

So rattled was the Major by RJ telling him that he was condemning his mistress even further that his reply was utterly incomprehensible.  Can anyone make sense of this:


'Goodness RJ, I'm quite breathless. I read your post and focused-in on what I thought was your central point - namely that claims had been made that Mike had been reminded by someone that he had claimed that Anne had written the diary and I hadn't deduced from your same post that you were aware that Mike had not been reminded of anything but had offered the information of his own volition. No more radical than that. If I realised you were arguing the toss about Caz saying Mike had been reminded of this, I wouldn't have bothered. Were you actually posting to say that she was incorrect to say that Mike had been 'reminded'? Honestly, RJ, what does it matter - does it materially change the point she was making?' 


I read your post and focused-in on what I thought was your central point - namely that claims had been made that Mike had been reminded by someone that he had claimed that Anne had written the diary and I hadn't deduced from your same post that you were aware that Mike had not been reminded of anything but had offered the information of his own volition. No more radical than that. If I realised you were arguing the toss about Caz saying Mike had been reminded of this, I wouldn't have bothered. Were you actually posting to say that she was incorrect to say that Mike had been 'reminded'? Honestly, RJ, what does it matter - does it materially change the point she was making?
I read your post and focused-in on what I thought was your central point - namely that claims had been made that Mike had been reminded by someone that he had claimed that Anne had written the diary and I hadn't deduced from your same post that you were aware that Mike had not been reminded of anything but had offered the information of his own volition. No more radical than that. If I realised you were arguing the toss about Caz saying Mike had been reminded of this, I wouldn't have bothered. Were you actually posting to say that she was incorrect to say that Mike had been 'reminded'? Honestly, RJ, what does it matter - does it materially change the point she was making?
I read your post and focused-in on what I thought was your central point - namely that claims had been made that Mike had been reminded by someone that he had claimed that Anne had written the diary and I hadn't deduced from your same post that you were aware that Mike had not been reminded of anything but had offered the information of his own volition. No more radical than that. If I realised you were arguing the toss about Caz saying Mike had been reminded of this, I wouldn't have bothered. Were you actually posting to say that she was incorrect to say that Mike had been 'reminded'? Honestly, RJ, what does it matter - does it materially change the point she was making?
I read your post and focused-in on what I thought was your central point - namely that claims had been made that Mike had been reminded by someone that he had claimed that Anne had written the diary and I hadn't deduced from your same post that you were aware that Mike had not been reminded of anything but had offered the information of his own volition. No more radical than that. If I realised you were arguing the toss about Caz saying Mike had been reminded of this, I wouldn't have bothered. Were you actually posting to say that she was incorrect to say that Mike had been 'reminded'? Honestly, RJ, what does it matter - does it materially change the point she was making?

I read your post and focused-in on what I thought was your central point - namely that claims had been made that Mike had been reminded by someone that he had claimed that Anne had written the diary and I hadn't deduced from your same post that you were aware that Mike had not been reminded of anything but had offered the information of his own volition. No more radical than that. If I realised you were arguing the toss about Caz saying Mike had been reminded of this, I wouldn't have bothered. Were you actually posting to say that she was incorrect to say that Mike had been 'reminded'? Honestly, RJ, what does it matter - does it materially change the point she was making?

I can't.

As for the Major's tirade against Lord Orsam, no examples of the alleged 'attempted abuse' or 'semi abusive' statements were produced by the Major.  Not a single one.  But he is somewhat of a saint.  'have I - amongst the many - ever once complained about his Major Misunderstanding jibes?'  he asked.  Ah, he's such a big strong boy. 

But they are not 'jibes'.  I don't know anyone who misunderstands his subject more than the Major.  And don't forget I've discussed matters with the likes of Simon Wood, Mike Hawley, Phil Carter, Trevor Marriott, Jonathan Hainsworth, Michael Richards and, hell's teeth, the Clanger.

Where I will give the Major some credit is that he does, for the most part, acknowledge where he has gone wrong - which is, let's face it, all of the fucking time - but alas not always, as can be seen by his disingenuous and thoroughly deceptive response to the 'one off' issue.  His response to 'Bunny's Aunt' also involved incredible wishful thinking.  In other words, he's prepared to concede certain peripheral points but not those which clearly destroy the diary.  He clings onto it irrationally, despite having an incontrovertible fact which disproves the diary staring him in the face.

But he's so often wrong, time and time and time again, that it's amazing that he doesn't wake up from the spell in which he's been under for at least thirteen years and ask himself why he keeps getting it all wrong in respect of the diary.

At his request, I gave him a response to his 'Society's Pillar' which demolished the entire thing to sand within a few weeks of publication and, although he has promised to respond to my response, he now gives a date of 2025 for doing so, which is basically never.

When it comes to misunderstandings, he is the Major of them.  The real tragedy of it is that he is intelligent but just not quite intelligent enough to see the error of his ways.  John Cleese says of viewers of Fox in the U.S. that they are just too stupid to ever understand how stupid they are and the same is basically true of the Major.  He thinks he is super intelligent and is operating on a higher plane to most mortals who can't see and understand the things that he (and only he) can see and understand. Back in 2008 he thought that he and only he could see that the diary hadn't been disproved as being written by Maybrick, although that's fallen apart now. If he were just a little more intelligent he would realize that the fact that every single argument he's ever made in support of the diary has been destroyed must surely mean that he's got it all wrong.

But Major Misunderstanding blunders on and, it seems, will continue to blunder on regardless of where the evidence leads. 

NOTE FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THIS WEBSITE

Following on from Lord Orsam's post above, if anyone is aware of either attempted abuse or semi-abuse on this website, please contact me at the address in the contact page, providing examples of such attempted or semi-abuse.  I am particularly interested in seeking out and removing any endless tirades of attempted or semi-abuse but all forms of attempted or semi-abuse will be considered, whether endless tirades or not.

Orsam.co.uk takes attempted abuse and semi-abuse very seriously, especially endless tirades of them, and it is not tolerated here. 

In fact, no form of abuse of any kind is allowed on this website and I personally guarantee to stamp out any abuse that is drawn to my attention, and punish the individual or individuals responsible, even if it's none other than Lord Orsam himself, hallowed be his name, who is responsible (although I don't suppose he ever would be, and come to think of it the idea is, frankly, absurd, knowing the type of non-abusive person Lord Orsam is).

I'm also thinking of introducing a reporting feature for 'jibes' which, to be honest, I also don't like and should be stamped out with ruthless efficiency.  If you do see any 'jibes' on this website please make a note of them for future reference.

Thank you,

ADMIN 

NOTE FROM LORD ORSAM

Needless to say, should the administrator of this website seek to censor any of my posts, he or she (I've no idea who does it these days) will be sacked immediately, without notice.

If the Major genuinely thinks that I attempt abuse against 'anyone who disagrees with [my] drainpiped discourses' whatever that is supposed to mean - and I trust it's not attempted or semi-abuse on his part - the best way of dealing with it is to respond to those 'drainpiped discourses' in a rational manner befitting the nature of those discourses.

The Major's failure to engage and respond to what I've written in any sensible way, while exploding with rage at the mere fact that I am freely able to do so, thus demolishing every single post he writes, outside of the daft restrictions of the Censorship Forum, is very telling of someone who lost the argument a good four or five years ago.

FURTHER NOTE FROM ADMIN

Just to make clear that I run this site and no interference will be tolerated from anyone, even members of the aristocracy. Any attempt to remove me from my position will be met with legal proceedings. 

THE POLL OF POLLS

The really amusing thing about the Bitha's diary poll was the reactions to it from the horrified diary defenders.

The Bitha was 'a little surprised so many people think the Barretts in one form or another hoaxed it' (#3).  Ha ha! Of course he was.  He never gives the subject any serious rational thought and is carried along by the fiction that the diary might be real.  Even when loading the questions to favour the outcome he wanted (as I discuss below) it turned out that most people can see through the smokescreen that the diary defenders have thrown up.

Miss Information's response was the most amusing, complaining in #33 of 'the bias shown by so many Barrett believers who post'.  That's in contrast to her own entirely unbiased opinions, of course.

But the poll was, needless to say, having been created by a diary defender, loaded in favour of the diary.

Look at the option that the Bitha created for himself.

As opposed to '100% genuine - I believe it was written by James Maybrick', the Bitha created the niche option, which he voted for, of 'Could be genuine - Could actually be the real deal.'

A classic example of how to load the dice.

For where was the option of 'Could be a hoax' ?  Or the option of 'Could be a hoax by the Barretts' ?

They didn't exist.

If someone THOUGHT it was a hoax, without being certain, they were forced into one of three rigid categories, premised on absolute certainty:

'Barrett Hoax', 'Modern Hoax - Not by the Barretts (persons yet unknown)' or 'Old Hoax'.

So if someone thought that it COULD be a modern hoax by the Barretts, but weren't sure, there was no category for them.  That's in contrast to someone, like the Bitha, who thought it COULD be genuine but wasn't sure.  They  had their own special category!

The same is true for someone who just thinks it's probably not genuine (and is a hoax) but doesn't know whether it's by the Barretts or not and doesn't know whether it's a modern or old hoax.  There's no category for that person other than going into 'Undecided - Need more hard evidence'.  And that's precisely the category that the Bitha wanted to push those people into.  Hence, he said in #21:

'We should all be agnostic until we finally know who penned it'.

He's driven anyone who isn't entirely certain about what type of hoax it is into the vague 'undecided' category, while giving himself the luxury of a 'could be genuine' option. 

For consistency, the Bitha should really have been in the undecided category himself because he says he's not sure.

Look at it the other way round.  Miss Information has told us many times that she's satisfied the diary is a fake.  Yet she's placed herself in the 'undecided' category because there is no option for 'FAKE' on it's own.  She now tells us she's not sure if it's a modern or old hoax, so there was nowhere sensible for her to go.  Undecided isn't a proper category for her because she IS decided that it's not genuine, or so she tells us. 

You see, the diary defenders love nothing more than to say that we don't know enough to say if the diary is genuine or not. It's basically the entire theme of the Incontrovertible thread.  That's why the Bitha was happy for there to be a large agnostic vote.  But as we can see from Miss Information's own choice, we don't know if the undecideds are, in fact, decided that the diary is a hoax or not.

Ultimately, the truth cannot be decided by a vote but it's nevertheless good to know that Miss Information's unceasing, unrelentless and thoroughly irrational propaganda campaign against the notion of the Barretts having created the diary is having little effect in the real world.

RETURN OF THE SKINNER

Lord Orsam has devoted an entire article to Keith Skinner's posts in the Forum on 23 December 2021 which can be found here.

UNFAIR CRITICISM?

Lord Orsam is baffled at the criticism levelled at Hallie Rubenhold by, amongst others, Debra Arif for the inclusion in her book of the statement that Elizabeth Stride's name 'appears in workhouse records' twice in 1880 a couple of months apart.

That claim seems to be a correct one. The criticism of Hallie is that she didn't mention that, on one of those two occasions, Stride was admitted and discharged from the workhouse on the same day by the police.

As no one seems to know why this happened, it's odd to find Rubenhold criticised for not mentioning it.  How could she have done?  What could she have said?

At the very best, it's a footnote point, not something for the main text and, as such, a somewhat harsh criticism.

Paul Begg, in #3 of the thread entitled 'The workhouse as a place of remand', says that it's 'interesting' that Rubenhold didn't mention the details she is supposed to have mentioned and suggests it was 'an effort to whiten Stride's character'.  But whiten from what?   To the extent that Begg is trying to say that Stride was being taken from the workhouse to be charged with some kind of offence, we have no idea what that offence would have been or whether she was convicted or acquitted of it.

Debra Arif writes in #17 that the record shows that Stride was involved in 'some sort of incident with the police...whatever the nature of it was' yet despite not knowing what that incident involved, expresses surprise that it was omitted from Stride's book.  It seems to me that the explanation for the omission is found in Arif's admission that she has no idea what the incident was, which means that Rubenhold equally had no idea.

The short and pretty simple point that Rubenhold was making was that Stride's name is found twice in workhouse records in 1880 and that on the second occasion she was recorded as being 'destitute'.  It seems rather likely that she was destitute or near destitute on the first occasion too, otherwise why was she taken to a workhouse?

Police regulations in force at the time stated:

'Destitute persons coming under the observation of the Police are to be taken, or directed to the workhouse of the parish wherein they are found, unless in cases where, from necessity, or any urgent circumstances, they can only be sent to the workhouse which happens to be nearest; and in all cases where persons are sent to a workhouse not being that of the parish where found, a special report will be made in the Morning Report of the following day, stating the cause.' 

There are plenty of good reasons to criticize Hallie Rubenhold but this one seems a little bit extreme.

ALL ROADS LEAD TO FICTION

While I agree with the central argument of Bob "Mini Fish" Mills' article 'All Roads Lead to Lechmere' in Rip 170, that Lechmere should have been a person of interest to the police investigating the murder of Mary Ann Nichols in 1888 (and, indeed, regarded as a suspect until eliminated from the inquiry), why did Mills need to include so many fictional and unsupported statements in his article?

Let's count them together shall we:

1. 'On the morning of 31st August 1888, Robert Paul left his home...he was running late for his job as a carman in Corbett's Court in Hanbury Street...It was 03.45, and he was rushing to get to work for his 04.00 start'.

Although Paul was reported to have said that he was 'hurrying along' Bucks Row, there is no evidence that he was running late (prior to the discovery of the body) and no evidence that his work started at 4am; on the contrary if his work involved being a carman at Corbett's Court in Hanbury Street he would have arrived there well before 4am if he was in Bucks Row at 3.45am.

2.  Quotes David McNab as saying "Lechmere was discovered standing over the body...".

Why would you include a false statement in support of your argument?

3. 'Paul is sure that he arrived in Buck's Row at 03.45 exactly.'

That's not what Paul said at the inquest and, while it is true he was reported in one newspaper as saying that it was 'exactly a quarter to four' when he passed up Buck's Row, this was after reports that PC Neil had discovered the body himself at a quarter to four, so, as part of an argument that he, not Neil, was the first to have discovered the body, can hardly be taken to be the exact time.

4. 'Simply put, if Lechmere left his home at about 3.30...He should enter Bucks Row about 3.36 or 3.37'.

This is only true if 'about 3.36 or 3.37' incorporates 3.42 or 3.43 (as it must do) which makes a nonsense of Mills' entire argument.

5. 'There is time missing.'

No there isn't.

6. 'We can see that there is around eight or nine minutes unaccounted for.'

No we can't.

7. 'Lechmere could leave home as late as 3.35 and there would still be several minutes unaccounted for'.

No, there would not.

8. 'Lechmere's usual time for leaving was 3.20'.

Good grief!  Christer Holmgren's unfounded speculation has now entered the record as fact! 

9. 'On a normal day he arrived in Buck's Row around 3.27.'

Jesus Christ.  Have we stepped into a parallel universe?

10. '...the usually reliable Times'.

Er...no, not with inquest reports, alas.

11. 'I think the discrepancy lies in that Lechmere would have told the inquest that he usually left home at 03.20.'

Totally unfounded speculation, and not what a single newspaper reported Lechmere as saying. 

12 'It's worth mentioning that when Lechmere was found in Buck's Row at 03.45 on that fateful morning, it was about 18 minutes later than he would be there on his usual commute'.

Why is it 'worth mentioning' bullshit?

13. 'The only witness who heard anything was a neighbour named Mrs Lilley...'

What about Mrs Colville (Coldwell) in Brady Street?    Why rely on one newspaper report and not another?

14. 'If somebody else had killed Polly Nichols and had to run off they couldn't have headed east; they would have run right into Lechmere'.

Bull Shit.  Unless the killer was blind, he would surely have walked right past Lechmere, not run into him, just like every other normal person is able to walk past someone else on the pavement when walking in the opposite direction.   

15. 'The likelihood of the murderer being an unknown party running away seems slim to none'.

This statement is based simply on no one having seen him leave the scene.  This is a frame up par excellence.

16. 'Inspector Henson (Head of J Division) who oversaw the Nichols case said '...It would have been impossible to inflict the wounds while the clothing was on.'

But no, Inspector Helson, who was not 'Head of J Division', he was merely a local inspector within that division (if anyone was 'Head of J Division' it was Superintendent Keating), said no such thing.  He actually said it would have been possible to inflict the wounds while the clothing was on. 

17. 'As Paul approached, Lechmere walked towards him and blocked his path'.

Complete fantasy about Lechmere blocking Paul's path, unsupported by the newspaper reference provided.

So that's seventeen fictional and unsupported statements. Like I've said, I still think that Lechmere should have been regarded as a suspect but that's something that applies to everyone who discovers a recently murdered person.   I cannot agree with Mills, however, that the murderer definitely had not run away so that 'This is the proof that Charles Allen Lechmere must be jack the Ripper'.  Even if the killer was disturbed by Lechmere there were probably still all kinds of ways he (or she) could have escaped silently. 

But it's not even clear that the killer WAS disturbed by Lechmere.  Mills says, 'If Jack the Ripper had had time to complete his work he would have left the body posed. This is a given. This is what he does, this is his thing, this is his signature'.

This isn't true at all if this was the killer's first murder (so we are up to 18 false statements!).  They often don't leave what becomes their 'signature' until later.  And we only have three more murders (excluding Stride) to guide us.  One might equally say that Jack the Ripper always killed women in the street because that was what he did, that was his thing, his signature, which then means that Kelly wasn't a Jack the Ripper victim.

In any case, why does Mills say that Nichols wasn't posed?  We know from Paul that her clothes had been raised almost up to her stomach.  That sounds like a pose. It certainly doesn't sound like the Ripper had 'taken time and effort to hide his handiwork' as Mills claims.  Paul said that he UNDID the killer's work and pulled the clothes down.  So THIS is what hid the killer's handiwork surely.

Possible posing, no time and effort to hide the handiwork.  I think we've hit twenty false statements now. 

THE SUSPECT FROM HELL

Howard Brown has performed a great service to Ripperology.

After years and years of David Adams ("DJA") interrupting, disrupting and corrupting threads by interjecting with the name of 'Henry Gawen Sutton', usually without any explanation, Howard finally set up a thread in Sutton's name and invited DJA to elaborate on his theory that Sutton was Jack the Ripper.

All he came up with was utter nonsense and, after the lightest of questioning by the Clanger, dropped out within 24 hours with the comment, 'I've had enough'.

But don't worry he then returned the next day to spout more guffins before running away again. 

The fact of the matter is that DJA's theory is based entirely on his speculation that two women, whose names were given as 'Catherine C' and 'Mary Anne N', both admitted to the London Hospital in December 1867, as recorded in the Gull and Sutton paper of 1869, 'Remarks on the Natural History of Rheumatic Fever', were Catherine Conway and Mary Anne Nichols respectively.

Catherine C is stated in the paper to be 24 years old as at December 1867 while Mary Anne N is stated to be 21.

Catherine Conway was born in April 1842 so would have been 25 in December 1867.  Mary Anne N was born in August 1845 so would have been 22 in December 1867.

Close but no cigar. 

Although DJA has stated that Sutton was connected with all the Ripper victims, he hasn't even proved that Sutton was connected with Eddowes and Nichols.

Sutton's supposed connections to the other victims are even more tenuous.  Sutton was the Shoreditch Vestry Board's medical officer, and DJR has claimed on the Forum (22 September 2019, thread 'Chapman's death' #1608) that 'Mary Ann Kelly was a young member of his church when he joined the Vestry Board circa 1867' but it's just nonsense to say that victim Mary Jane Kelly has been identified as a young member of a church in Shoreditch in 1867.

What the supposed connections between Sutton and Chapman and Stride are supposed to have been I have no idea (although in respect of Chapman it appears to be no more than that Chapman had TB, and Sutton was a 'chest expert').  DJA didn't even bother to identify a single connection between Sutton and ANY of the Ripper victims in the thread Howard created for him for the purpose of explaining his theory.

According to DJA, the five women were blackmailing Dr Sutton for being homosexual but DJA hasn't even provided any evidence that Sutton, who was married with daughters, was homosexual. 

It really is a complete waste of time.  DJA is the poster from hell with his endless off-topic postings about his suspect from hell. 

WHITECHAPEL ON TUMBLETY

A poster called 'Whitechapel' responded to my recent Tumblety's Arrest article in the Casebook thread, 'The Men Who Arrested Tumblety'.

The first comment was:

'I like any new  information on Tumblety but like the above after reading this article I am no more wiser as to what happened in the days leading up to Tumblety absconding'.

This followed a post by John Savage who wasn't commenting on my article but on the thread itself when he wrote, 'Having read through this very interesting thread I am alas no wiser of what actually happened in the days leading up to Tumblety (sic)'.

That itself was a strange comment because the thread is about the men who are believed to have arrested Tumblety, namely sergeants Dinnie and Froest, not about what actually happened to Tumblety.  But anyway, Whitechapel continued:

'I think you can argue it two ways, that even if relations between the Met Police and the NVA were strained, this could have made it more likely that the case was passed to them.'

Whitechapel doesn't explain this strange comment (which is followed by the non-sequitur that Warren and Matthews were under enormous pressure to find the killer).  Why would it have been 'more likely' that the Tumblety case would have been passed to the NVA if relations with the police were strained than if those relations were good? It doesn't make any sense.

But the bigger point is why the Met Police would have passed the case to the NVA at all, regardless of the state of their relations with the NVA.  Through Wontners, they were perfectly capable of prosecuting an indecency case themselves.  Or it could have been done by the Treasury Solicitor.  Why would they have handed over a Jack the Ripper suspect on a different charge to an outside body like the  NVA, especially if those relations with the NVA were not good and they didn't trust them.

What's really critical to understand is that the NVA was regarded as an organization connected with W.T. Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette of whom it isn't an exaggeration to say that he was the mortal enemy of Sir Charles Warren during the years 1887-1888.  Given that Tumblety must have been arrested before Warren's resignation in November 1888, it beggar's belief that Warren would have approved of any arrangement which involved the NVA prosecuting an important Ripper suspect.  We also know that Anderson in the C.I.D. wasn't well inclined towards the NVA either.  How or why would Tumblety have been foisted onto the NVA?

Then Whitechapel moves to speaking nonsense:

First we have:

'I think from the newspapers (including the mysterious Doctor at Euston) and Tumblety himself there is no doubt that he was a Ripper suspect and he could have been hanged for it.'

Well no, you can't be hanged for being a Ripper suspect.  And, yes, there IS doubt that Tumblety was a Ripper suspect at the time because the only actual evidence for it seems to come from an error-ridden article from an American journalist who provided no source for his information.

Whitechapel then gets very confused:

'If a few indecent acts would only have got him 2 years, it pales in comparison to being a world famous mutilating serial killer, so the idea that he proclaimed himself as the Ripper to avoid the tag of indecent assaults is the wrong way round.' 

Jeez!  No, Tumblety never 'proclaimed himself the Ripper' for any reason, including to avoid the tag of indecent assaults.   The argument is that, when he was safely back in New York, he went along with the idea that he'd been wrongly arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper in London (something which was of no threat to him in America) because that was far more convenient for him than having to admit that he'd been arrested on suspicion of sexual offences with young boys.

Knowing that he wasn't, in fact, Jack the Ripper (if we assume that to be the case) would have meant that being accused of being Jack the Ripper posed no danger to him whatsoever.  He would have known for certain that he wasn't going to be hanged for that crime.  

Then the final strange paragraph with another bizarre non-sequitur:

'You can argue that the Met Police failed to find any evidence on Tumblety as the Ripper and were only too happy to buy time, even if it was through the NVA. I think for this theory to hold any credibility you would have to find evidence of the Met Police complaining about interference with their Ripper suspect by the NVA, but I don't think in this case you will find it.'

If, by 'this theory', Whitechapel means the theory outlined in the first sentence (i.e. that the Met Police were happy for the NVA to prosecute Tumblety to buy time) you would not expect to find the Met Police complaining about interference with their Ripper suspect by the NVA. I mean, if they were 'happy' there would have been no complaint!

If on the other hand 'this theory' is my theory, it would be quite wrong to categorize me as claiming that the NVA would have been interfering with a Ripper suspect.  The reason for this is threefold. Firstly, because there is good reason to think that Tumblety wasn't a Ripper suspect in 1888.  Secondly, because the NVA's legitimate prosecution of Tumblety for indecency would never have been regarded by the Met Police as 'interference', even if Tumblety was a suspect. Thirdly, even if the Met Police had in some way been unhappy with the NVA's prosecution of a Ripper suspect they would NEVER in a million years have complained about it because doing so would have effectively been an interference with the course of justice bearing in mind that the NVA was perfectly legally entitled to prosecute an offender under the indecency laws.  

So the idea that you would 'expect to find' the Met Police complaining about interference by the NVA with a Ripper suspect is just nonsense, whatever 'theory' Whitechapel is speaking about.

As for the argument that the police were happy to buy time, I can only repeat that they could have done this themselves if there was evidence that Tumblety was guilty of sexual offences.  They didn't need the NVA. So why did the NVA end up prosecuting Tumblety?

The answer to that question is, in my opinion, what tells us that Tumblety probably wasn't ever arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper. 

JUNIOR LEVEL COMPREHENSION LESSON

Miss Information's attempt to wriggle out of her blunder about Mike having had to be reminded that Anne wrote the diary was a beauty to behold (#8056 of Incontrovertible).

Doing her best to style it out by claiming that she was giving RJ a 'little junior level comprehension lesson', her ludicrous defence was that Mike was 'reminded' that Anne wrote the diary in the same way that, by seeing someone buying a magazine, she might be reminded to buy a completely different magazine for her husband.

So basically if Paul Feldman had merely raised his eyebrows, that sort of thing might have 'reminded' Mike that his story was that Anne wrote the diary.

The problem is that when we go back to her original words (in #7995) that's not what she said.  What she said was:

'when reminded of his claim was that Anne wrote it, he [Mike] moved swiftly on...'

In other words, she was clearly saying that Mike was positively reminded that Anne had written the diary.  Any other interpretation makes no sense.

And, indeed, this is how Keith Skinner himself interpreted her because, in support of her claim, he wrote:

'Mike asked for pen and paper to prove the handwriting was his.  At which point Feldman reminded Mike that his story was that the handwriting in the diary was Anne's'.

Unfortunately, for Skinner, this is not supported by what the authors of Inside Story wrote about that meeting in 2003 nor what the transcript provided by Paul Feldman reveals happened.

So Miss Information has tried to bluff her way out of this dilemma.

The real problem for her is that she has no idea that Mike ever forgot what his story was.  No quote has even been provided from the 20 July meeting that Mike was positively saying that HE wrote the text of the diary.  His request for a fountain pen might well have been to demonstrate how Anne wrote it.  We just don't know what was in his mind and thus don't know if anything triggered his memory that Anne wrote the diary, as Miss Information now claims happened.

The ultimate fact of the matter is that Kattrup was entirely correct to say that Mike consistently claimed that Anne wrote the diary.  Mike was consistent in saying this from November 1994 through to April 1999 (and subsequently). 

Miss Information needs to stop posting misinformation on the boards forthwith. 

SHE DIDN'T STOP

Not only did she not stop posting misinformation but, in #8058, she went back to her original claim:

'All you needed to know was that he was reminded, after asking for writing materials, that he wasn't claiming it was his handwriting, it was Anne's'.

But who reminded him and how?   Hadn't she already agreed that no one actually said to Mike by way of reminder that the diary was in Anne's handwriting?

Why couldn't Mike have always been intending to demonstrate how Anne wrote the diary with Diamine ink?

If that's the case, Keith and Miss Information have simply been assuming that Mike was going to demonstrate how HE wrote the diary.  Did he ever actually say that?  No quote from him has ever been produced that this is what he said. 

THE MAN WHO REFUSES TO ANSWER 

I was astonished to read Christer Holmgren say to Dusty (#13 of the Bob Mills article thread):

'I avoid no questions - that is your myth only.'

It's no myth, believe me.  Holmgren repeatedly refused to answer my question as to the precise route that he and Andy Griffiths took when walking from Doveton Street to Durward Street (Bucks Row) for the 2014 TV documentary, a walk which was said to have taken seven minutes and seven seconds.

See, for example, my thread 2016 thread 'Buck's Row Timings', #57, in which I said:

'...would you mind setting out the exact route you took from Doveton Street to Durward Street with Andy Griffiths?'

I have the proof: 

 

And larger: 

I chided him for not, in fact, setting out the route, as I'd asked. in #64 of the same thread and, in #66, referred to his 'point blank refusal to answer'.  He was nevertheless writing posts addressed to me and, in #68, I said, 'What I'm not seeing is the disclosure of the route you walked from Doveton Street to Durward Street with Andy Griffiths...'.  And then here we are - the explosion of the 'myth', in #69 - Holmgren point blank replied:

'...I am not going to disclose any route just because you ask for it.'

 

This is the man who literally wants it believed that it's a myth that he avoids answering questions!!!

Frankly, it's extraordinary that any serious researcher would refuse to answer such a question.  I continued to press him to do so in other threads while I was a member of the Forum, but to the best of my knowledge he's not answered it to this day.

If he truly thinks it's a myth that he avoids questions let him tell us precisely what route he took for that walk.

THAT WALK

Did the walk even take place?

Well Christer has basically said it did.  He said in #12 of the 'Buck's Row Timings' thread that, 'We walked at a normal pace, not hurrying, not getting lazy.'

But we all know what TV people are like.  Ed Stow had already timed the walk himself beforehand.  Did the camera crew just film footage of Christer and Andy setting off on the walk then they all took a break, drove over to Durward Street, and there simply filmed them arrive with a stopwatch being stopped at 7:07, which was Ed Stow's timing?

That would not surprise me in the least (and it would explain why Christer avoided answering my question like the plague, because he's too embarrassed to admit it).  But there's probably no point in asking Christer about it because he doesn't answer questions on the subject.

THE BALLAD OF THE CLANGER

In his obsessive/compulsive attempt to blame Hallie Rubenhold for being the person who first claimed that Conway wrote or co-wrote ballads, the Clanger seems to have lost the ability to read English.   In #36 of his 'creation of a myth' thread on JTR Forums he said:

'When you read this, 'one of the only publications believed to be linked to the pens of Thomas Conway and Kate Eddowes...' you might be forgiven for thinking that someone other than HR has put forward Kate as author/co-author of the Robinson ballad.  The Bugle doesn't even mention the ballad...'

On one such trip to Stafford in January 1866 she experienced the trauma of seeing her own cousin, Christopher Robinson, hanged for the murder of his sweetheart at Wolverhampton - and then helping to sell copies of a scaffold ballad about him to the assembled crowd, estimated to number around 4000 persons on the fatal morning. Little did she known that some 20 years on her own name would echo and send a shudder throughout the land in connection with an even gorier murder!
They returned from Stafford in style, booking inside seats on Wards coach with proceeds from ballad sheet sales. It had been a profitable trip and after leaving the coach at Wolverhampton, the jubilant poet hired a donkey cart and set off with Catharine for Bilston where he ordered another 400 copies from Sam Sellman, the Church Street printer. Her quick wit and repartee had played a major part in selling so many copies of her poetical companion's ballad at Stafford and he rewarded her with the price of a flowered hat from Woolley's in Bilston High Street whilst he waited in the Market Tavern for Sam Sellman to run off the extra order which would be on sale at their regular pitch on the following Monday.

Oh really?  The Bugle doesn't mention the ballad?

What about the bit in the Bugle article where it says:

'On one such trip to Stafford in January 1866 she experienced the trauma of seeing her own cousin, Christopher Robinson, hanged for the murder of his sweetheart at Wolverhampton - and then helping to sell copies of a scaffold ballad about him to the assembled crowd, estimated to number around 4000 persons on the fatal morning.' 

and this bit: 

'They returned from Stafford in style, booking inside seats on Wards coach with proceeds from ballad sheet sales. It had been a profitable trip and after leaving the coach at Wolverhampton, the jubilant poet hired a donkey cart and set off with Catharine for Bilston where he ordered another 400 copies from Sam Sellman, the Church Street printer.'

and this bit:

'Her quick wit and repartee had played a major part in selling so many copies of her poetical companion's ballad at Stafford.'

They returned from Stafford in style, booking inside seats on Wards coach with proceeds from ballad sheet sales. It had been a profitable trip and after leaving the coach at Wolverhampton, the jubilant poet hired a donkey cart and set off with Catharine for Bilston where he ordered another 400 copies from Sam Sellman, the Church Street printer. Her quick wit and repartee had played a major part in selling so many copies of her poetical companion's ballad at Stafford and he rewarded her with the price of a flowered hat from Woolley's in Bilston High Street whilst he waited in the Market Tavern for Sam Sellman to run off the extra order which would be on sale at their regular pitch on the following Monday.
On one such trip to Stafford in January 1866 she experienced the trauma of seeing her own cousin, Christopher Robinson, hanged for the murder of his sweetheart at Wolverhampton - and then helping to sell copies of a scaffold ballad about him to the assembled crowd, estimated to number around 4000 persons on the fatal morning. Little did she known that some 20 years on her own name would echo and send a shudder throughout the land in connection with an even gorier murder!
They returned from Stafford in style, booking inside seats on Wards coach with proceeds from ballad sheet sales. It had been a profitable trip and after leaving the coach at Wolverhampton, the jubilant poet hired a donkey cart and set off with Catharine for Bilston where he ordered another 400 copies from Sam Sellman, the Church Street printer. Her quick wit and repartee had played a major part in selling so many copies of her poetical companion's ballad at Stafford and he rewarded her with the price of a flowered hat from Woolley's in Bilston High Street whilst he waited in the Market Tavern for Sam Sellman to run off the extra order which would be on sale at their regular pitch on the following Monday.
That's THREE mentions of the Robinson ballad right there. So what is the Clanger talking about?  I can only assume he got himself confused.

Incidentally, someone other than HR had put forward Kate as a co-author of the Robinson ballad, as the Clanger himself admits: David Bishop in a fictional account in 2006 in which, as the Clanger says, 'he suggests Kate and Conway co-wrote the Robinson ballad'.  But HR wasn't allowed to have this in her mind, apparently, because Bishop 'doesn't get a mention in the bibliography of The Five'.  It's a well known fact that an author isn't allowed to refer to the existence of any information which isn't included in a book or article in their bibliography.

As it happens, Hallie literally explains in a footnote what she meant when she said that the ballad was linked to the pens of Thomas Conway and Kate Eddowes.  The footnote states:

'Jared Kobek, the author of 'May My End a Warning Be: Catherine Eddowes and Gallowes literature in the Black County' (https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-kobek.html) builds a case for attributing the ballad to Kate Eddowes and Thomas Conway'.

Now, I think Hallie was wrong here and misunderstood Kobek's article. What Kobek actually said in his Casebook article was that 'Eddowes was involved'.  By this he meant 'involved, however modestly, with the manufacture and distribution of literature'.  Now, I think Hallie has understood the word 'manufacture' to have meant writing the literature but it's pretty obvious that Kobek was referring to Eddowes being potentially involved in the more mundane aspect of the printing of the ballad rather than its poetical creation.

Nevertheless, it's an ambiguous word.  To say that Eddowes was involved in the manufacture of the ballad could be taken to mean that she co-wrote it and I think that's what Hallie believed, especially because Kobek then went on to say that this told of 'a richness, and patience, in her character that we otherwise would not know'.

Okay, she was wrong but mis-reading or mis-understanding a text isn't something unique to Hallie Rubenhold.  The Clanger has done it on many occasions!

WEIRD IN THE EXTREME

I've given up reading all of Christer's posts but his desperate attempt to rule out the possibility that Nichols was murdered at 3.30am (#3827 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread) struck me.  He said:

'I have two eminent and very senior experts saying that HALF the bleeding time you suggest would be weird in the extreme...'.

This is a falsehood so weird as to be extreme.  He doesn't even have one expert saying this or anything like it. 

He then switched in later posts (e.g. #3935) to claiming that Nichols wasn't 'likely to bleed' for as long a time, which is very different.

The problem is that many years ago I wondered on the Forum if it was possible to rule out a time of death of 3.30am on the basis of the fact that blood was seen to be oozing out of Nichols' neck wound fifteen minutes or so later.  Trevor Marriott contacted an expert in forensic pathology, Dr Biggs, who reported back categorically that it was impossible to rule out a time of death of 3.30.

Neither of Christer's experts has said that they can rule out a time of death of 3.30.

In other words, on the basis of the available medical evidence, Nichols might have been murdered before Lechmere even left his house that morning!

Perhaps that is too weird in the extreme for Christer to compute.

CLASSIC CHRISTER

If you want to know why Christer Holmgren gets it wrong all the time on matters of time, just look at this statement (#3841 of 'Evidence of Innocence' thread): 

'3.35 is not around 3.30, though.  It is around 3.35.'

Er....no 3.35 is at 3.35, exactly.  When you're not wearing a watch, in the middle of the night, around 3.35 is easily both 3.40 and 3.30 at the very least. 

And 'about 3.30', which is what Lechmere said his time of departure was, could easily have been both 3.25 and 3.35 at the very least. 

I don't know if it's the dumbest thing Christer has said on the Forum but it must be right up there. 

A QUESTION FROM CHRISTER

'why not accept the times given?' asks Christer (#3845 of 'Evidence of Innocence' thread).

Why not, indeed?

So when PC Mizen testified under oath at the inquest that, 'at a quarter to 4 o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing Hanbury, Street, Bakers's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying' why, oh why, does Christer not accept the time given?

If Mizen was approached at 3.45am - and the constable wasn't even reported as having used the words 'about' or 'around' - then the body must have been discovered by Lechmere and Paul about five minutes earlier, i.e. 3.40am, which, funnily enough, was the estimated time of the discovery given in an official report by the detective in charge of the case, Inspector Abberline.

It's so simple if you just accept the times given in evidence. 

THE FUTILITY OF IT 

Here's the thing about the case against Lechmere.

All that needs to be said is that, if he left his house at about 3.30, this could mean he left his house at 3.25.  If he left his house at 3.25 he would have arrived at Bucks Row at about 3.33 giving him sufficient time to have met and murdered Nichols before Paul showed up in Bucks Row at about 3.40.

That's it!

The opportunity was there.

If that was all that was said, we simply wouldn't need to be bothering to consider anything about the timings, nor indeed about the fucking blood.  There would be no inconsistency in Lechmere having murdered Nichols at shortly before 3.40 and Neil seeing blood oozing from her throat at some point between 3.45 and 3.50.  We just wouldn't need any expert input here.

It's all so simple but Christer Holmgren seems to feel the need to work out what was more likely for some reason.  So he wants to conclude that it was more likely that the murder occurred at 3.45 and thus more likely that Neil saw blood within only four or five minutes of the murder having been committed, a conclusion based on a misunderstanding of both the witness evidence and the expert evidence.

It's not possible to do what Christer seems to want to do in order to frame Lechmere.

All we can say is that Lechmere could have murdered Nichols but equally there is no evidence against him which leads us to the conclusion that he must have done so, or is likely to have done so. 

 

LORD ORSAM
31 December 2021
Published 21 January 2022