The Clanger's attacks on Lord Orsam are well documented in the archives of this website and, given that the Clanger implies that he, as a much respected and not at all arrogant, pompous or evil researcher, has been the subject of unwarranted attacks by Lord Orsam, I have been asked by the Lord Orsam to conduct an investigative deep dive into the history of the Clanger's online posts about Lord Orsam to see whether the Clanger has or has not been sticking his nose into places where it should not have been stuck.
Lord Orsam posted a detailed explanation as to why he could no longer remain a member of Casebook due its policy of unacceptable censorship and mistreatment of its members. He also explained in detail why certain arguments put forward by Mike Hawley relating to Francis Tumblety were false. In addition, in a further update, Lord Orsam wrote in detail about Simon Wood's latest edition of his book. Lord Orsam also posted about Edward Fairfield during May 2019. Those articles had nothing to do with the Clanger, who was not mentioned in any them, but he nevertheless felt it appropriate to stick his nose in and comment (#34 of JTR Forums 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread) on 11 June 2019:
'If you dared question his opinions he might throw down the gauntlet and challenge you to a 3,000-word duel (on his blog).'
Why he posted this, or what legitimate purpose that sort of comment served, is beyond me. One could interpret it as a personal attack on a researcher but I would say that it seems to have been an attempt by him to say that there's something wrong with Lord Orsam responding at length to someone who has questioned his opinions. To me, that's the very fucking nature of debate. But the Clanger obviously didn't like it because Lord Orsam's responses, albeit sometimes long, are invariably effective (although why that should have affected the Clanger so much that he felt the need to comment in the way he did, I have literally no idea).
In a further set of updates, Lord Orsam published an article about Charles Cutbush and a response to 'Society's Pillar' about James Maybrick's authorship of the diary (and then a response to responses to that article). Again, the Clanger wasn't mentioned in any of these articles. This proves that Lord Orsam was not interested in the Clanger at all, despite the Clanger's 'insulting twerp' abuse which he had outrageously posted about Lord Orsam in 2018 (which Lord Orsam ignored).
In August 2019, however, the Clanger had decided to stick his nose into matters that were of no concern of his. Crawling over Lord Orsam's website, he found the article Some Thoughts in which, some years earlier (in 2015), his Lordship had written a light-hearted entry for the benefit of Forum members entitled 'NEW JTR SUSPECT IDENTIFIED' in which, as a satire on the ridiculous types of JTR suspect theories that emerge from time to time, a man called Joseph McCarthy was jokingly put forward as Jack the Ripper because he had a tattoo with the name 'Polly' and gave his address once he left prison as being in 'George Yard, Whitechapel'. As was mentioned, he even had the initials 'FM' tattooed on his upper arm! The Clanger totally missed that this was a joke article and first posted about it on JTR Forums on 6 August 2019. He also created a new thread on JTR Forums to seriously challenge what he thought was Lord Orsam's actual theory about the Ripper's identity!
Two days later, in a Maybrick diary thread, repeat, in a Maybrick diary thread, he gratuitously referred to this supposed 'new suspect' of Lord Orsam, and said: 'What a load of cobblers'. Yes, you read that correctly, he actually brought up the subject of Joseph McCarthy in a Maybrick diary thread. His objective was to demonstrate that McCarthy was not Jack the Ripper and thus Lord Orsam is wrong about stuff, therefore, he must be wrong about the Maybrick diary being a fake. I kid you not. This actually happened. It is real.
When Lord Orsam subsequently pointed out that his article was clearly a joke, not a serious attempt at putting forward a Ripper suspect, the Clanger said nothing about that - he couldn't even bring himself to put his hands up and acknowledge that he'd made a mistake and had missed the joke - but continued ludicrously to try and pick holes in Lord Orsam's response. He ended up (much later) making a mistake about how the habitual criminals register was produced and then went totally silent on the subject.
But he wasn't silent on the subject of Lord Orsam. On the contrary, he couldn't stop talking about him!
On 2 August, Howard Brown, in a sad attempt to cosy up to and ingratiate himself with the Clanger and others, started to refer to Lord Orsam as 'Mr Warmth' and then, in an even sadder post four days later, for which he should feel thoroughly ashamed of himself, wrote:
'I remember asking him if he'd like to join once...I remember Mr. Warmth giving Gary and others a rough time and calling them Forums (meaning this site) Muppets...I respectfully won't be asking him to join again'.
God alone knows what brought that comment on but it seemed to be a case of Howard being swept up by the nasty comments of other members such as 'Mr Poster' who had just said 'God he is tedious. But given his penchant for slagging people off to no purpose except massaging his ego...it's no wonder he's banned from certain websites and confined to his own echo chamber'.
Needless to say, none of this was true. Howard was vaguely misremembering something from years earlier (as Lord Orsam explained in his response A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to JTR Forums) and, of course, he had never been 'banned from certain websites' as Mr Poster stated but this was the type of abuse being hurled from JTR Forums that he was having to put up with at this time (largely from people angry because he'd destroyed their diary defending nonsense.)
In respect of having given Howard's darling Gary 'a rough time' (oh diddums), here's how Lord Orsam responded in his 'Funny Thing...' article on 12 August 2019:
I also have no idea what Mr Brown means about 'giving Gary' a rough time. If, as I assume he does, he means Gary Barnett, I've never even mentioned him directly or indirectly on this website before today, other than once when I referred to an unnamed person who had correctly pointed out that the supposed 1882 extract from a volume of the British Bee Journal was actually from 1975 (that person being Gary Barnett). So that's not giving him a hard time. Quite the opposite. And even if I was giving him a hard time on this website, what business of is it of Howard Brown? He doesn't moderate this website! So what if I had given Gary Barnett a hard time? Does he need to be protected by Howard Brown? Is Barnett a sensitive flower who should be exempt from all criticism?
What was the Clanger's response to the 'Funny Thing...' article? Here it is. 13 August 2019, #46 of 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread:
'I suspect the men in white coats are on their way'.
How, I wonder, does the Clanger justify that sort of behaviour (to borrow one of his favourite words)? It was an absolutely outrageous comment and arguably an unjustified personal attack on another researcher of the sort he tells us needs to be criticised and condemned!
The day before this, on 12 August 2019, the Clanger had posted in a thread on the Forum which Lord Orsam had started on 11 March 2017 (Lechmere/Cross name issue part 2) which had concluded the very next day. Resurrecting this three year old thread, in which he had not posted at the time when he and Lord Orsam were both members of the Forum, the Clanger said:
'Thanks to Lord Orsam for proving the blindingly obvious: that people sometimes use alternative names'.
He was once again clearly seeking Lord Orsam out, looking for a fight in his well-known thuggish manner (even though the coward knew his Lordship couldn't respond directly to him in that thread).
On 20 August, responding to his Cross/Lechmere point, the Clanger became the subject of his own article, Bee in his Barnett, an entirely legitimate discussion about the Clanger's views on the Cross/Lechmere name issue. It concluded:
'As far as I can tell, all Gary Barnett is doing is telling us what he THINKS the position should have been in 1888 based on nothing more than his own imagination and his modern day prejudices. When he finds some good reason to explain to us why Charles Cross needed to state both his names to the coroner then perhaps he can come back to one of the forums and tell us all what it is.'
As usual, when he is called out on a serious topic, the Clanger failed to offer any response to the content of article (merely saying 'silly ass' and 'Lord Charles' in #60 of Lord Orsam's Blog thread on 22 August 2019). He prefers a different approach to the normal one, simply attacking Lord Orsam, rather than Lord Orsam's arguments.
On the same day as 'Bee in his Barnett' was published, his Lordship also published the very first 'Lord Orsam Says...'. I understand from private conversations with Lord Orsam that he hadn't planned to be doing something like that but the ridiculous amount of lies being told about him and the abuse being hurled over demanded a platform in which he could respond to those lies.
The Clanger naturally featured in this first edition of 'Lord Orsam Says...' but only in respect of responses to stuff he had posted about Lord Orsam. Thus, Lord Orsam referred in one entry to 'his campaign to smear me at every possible opportunity'. He also responded to his continuing nonsense about Joseph McCarthy whereby he refused to acknowledge that he'd been responding in all seriousness to a joke article. Indeed, I see that Lord Orsam wrote at the time:
'Time after time, I face this situation. Responses are concentrated on me, Lord Orsam, rather than on the actual issues I'm writing about, by people who want to try and play the man rather than the ball. When I finally do get someone attempting to respond properly to an article it turns out to be Gary Barnett trying to pick apart a joke article from four years ago. Come on chaps. Raise your game!'
Needless to say, the game was not raised. On 23 August 2019, the Clanger posted:
'Should we really be giving this fruit loop any publicity'.
Three days after the first 'Lord Orsam Says...', the Clanger was already encouraging Howard Brown to censor any mentions of Lord Orsam's website to avoid giving Lord Orsam 'publicity'. To his eternal shame, Howard cravenly obliged by moving the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread to the restricted Members Only section.
The next update of this website was on 8 September 2019. The second edition of 'Lord Orsam Says...' included this response to the censorship on JTR Forums:
'When it comes to me, however, the barricades are up and the shutters are down. They are in full defence mode, in hiding, because they know that, try as they might, they cannot undermine my credibility and they will be severely beaten every time they try to challenge me. We've already seen Gary Barnett, now licking his wounds, make two attempts to discredit me, once over my joke McCarthy article, about which he posted furiously in two Forums in multiple threads (but has now gone deathly silent) and then, in his second attempt, over the Lechmere name issue. On both occasions I made him look foolish so Howard helps out his mate and locks the door.'
I think this analysis of the situation must have been correct.
Naturally Lord Orsam responded to the Clanger's 'silly ass' insult, and gave a full response to his claim that the research on the Cross/Lechmere name issue had been 'misinterpreted', in the article A Look Under the Barnett. This was another entirely proper analysis of the Cross/Lechmere name issue question, proving that the Clanger's claim - that research showed that individuals with alternative names usually felt it necessary to reveal that name to the authorities - was untrue. The article concluded with Lord Orsam saying:
'Anyone who wants to argue against this proposition, including the great expert himself, Gary Barnett, needs to produce actual evidence, not speculative opinion. In the absence of that, it would seem that it is Barnett who has misinterpreted Kattrup's research.'
Was there any kind of serious response to this? Any kind of sensible discussion or debate around Lord Orsam's article? Of course not. Don't be silly. This is the Clanger we are dealing with. All was silent.
The Clanger, on the other hand, did respond to Lord Orsam's article Crossing the Line in which it was noted, as a small part of the article, that it wasn't correct to say of the 1876 Islington inquest involving Charles Cross that, 'an address was given for every other witness but the carman's was omitted', as the Clanger had claimed in October 2017. This was just a factual mistake by the Clanger and although he tried to wriggle out of it, he couldn't do so, and, again, he was seething about Lord Orsam having shown him up once more.
By the time of the next update (now christened by none other than the Clanger himself as 'Orsam Day'), on 27 October 2019, there was so little mention of the Clanger in the entire update that the Clanger posted in #73 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread (which had returned to normal public status for no stated reason), that:
'What a disappointment! It seems I only merit two paragraphs.'
One of those paragraphs commented on how silent the Clanger had been about the articles in the previous update (about which he said nothing) while, in the the other one, Lord Orsam made the point that the Clanger's claim that 'insiders' got as much stick as Hallie Rubenhold was getting obviously wasn't true, and he compared the amount of attention being directed at Rubenhold's mistakes with the silence in respect to similar critical errors by Paul Begg in his 'Scotland Yard Files'. The Clanger played dumb, saying that he hadn't read Begg's book but that was no answer because Lord Orsam had already identified Begg's mistakes.
This issue of the Clanger being too cowardly to even ask Begg about critical errors he had made in his book continued for months and it turned out that Lord Orsam was entirely correct. Despite hurling abuse after abuse at Rubenhold, supposedly because she'd made some mistakes which she'd failed to acknowledge, when it came to Paul Begg, the big boy Clanger was unable even to ask him about it, let alone criticize him!
Isn't that incredible? Even to this day, despite Lord Orsam having explained in detail where Begg had gone wrong, the Clanger has been physically incapable of demonstrating that he is not a total hypocrite. He simply couldn't do it. Begg couldn't bring himself to acknowledge the mistake either, by the way.
It was incredible. Are these the researchers who the Clanger thinks deserve so much respect?!
Another Orsam Day on 24 November 2019, this time with an article 'Who Was the Worst Jack the Ripper Writer?'. On the face of it, this was an article which had nothing to do with the Clanger. But of course he challenged what Lord Orsam had said about the pseudonymous author of the Joseph Barnett chapter in the 'Who Was Jack the Ripper Book' who had claimed that nothing further was known about Joseph Barnett after the Kelly murder, overlooking the fact that he was, in fact, known to have been working for John McCarthy in December 1888.
Unless the Clanger actually was 'Keith Stride' who was attributed with authorship of the Joseph Barnett chapter (and, if he was, it would be hilarious), it had nothing to do with the Clanger and there was no reason for him to get involved with something said on this website, which he didn't even need to visit, unless he wanted to pick another fight with Lord Orsam, which of course he did.
The worst thing about it was that, in an attempt to undermine what Lord Orsam had said, the Clanger put forward a feeble and clearly wrong argument that the American news reporter who interviewed Joseph Barnett in December 1888 had somehow fabricated his interview with the man. It was shocking that the Clanger could stoop to trying to undermine the credibility of the evidence in the case simply because he didn't like Lord Orsam.
The 'Lord Orsam Says...' of this November 2009 update dealt further with the Clanger's refusal to ask Paul Begg the simple question about his errors in 'Scotland Yard Files' and also with the Joseph McCarthy question which the Clanger had, astonishingly, returned to again, and it was here that he made his error with the habitual criminals register which seemed to, at last, put an end to the discussion.
Under the heading of 'Silence of the Lambs', in the fifth edition of 'Lord Orsam Says' published on 26 January 2020, Lord Orsam commented, quite correctly:
'So, this time round we've had nothing but silence from...Gary Barnett in response to the last 'Lord Orsam Says...'. I don't need to say much about Gary Barnett other than it's strange, what with him being one of the two great seekers of truth, along with Paul Begg, according to Paul Begg, that he doesn't even feel able to ask Begg if he (and Keith Skinner) made a mistake in 'The Scotland Yard Files' regarding the resignation of Monro. I suppose it's only mistakes by Hallie Rubenhold that he feels it important to correct whereas those by Paul Begg can remain unchallenged and unmentioned.'
This entirely reasonable comment really seemed to trigger the Clanger. In #157 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread on 4 February 2020 he referred to Lord Orsam as 'Mr Multiple Personality' and 'his Multipersonalityship'. He must have forgotten this when he criticised Lord Orsam for alleged personal attacks on researchers!
He then claimed that Lord Orsam had made three points, 'all of which are bollocks'. Having established that in his mind (although he was quite wrong, as Lord Orsam would demonstrate in his response in the next update) he said:
'Why would anyone buy a used 'one-off from this genius'.
And there we had it. The real reason for the Clanger's vitriol. He couldn't stand the fact that Lord Orsam had proved the diary to be a fake due to the inclusion of the anachronistic and impossible 'one off instance'. In July 2019 Lord Orsam had published his One Off Article which had been augmented by further research published in Off and On Again and One Off Expressions in October 2019. The Clanger had been angry about Lord Orsam's success on this subject in 2018 when he'd called him as 'twerp' and he remained furious in February 2020. Because here we have an attempt made by him to link the subject of Hallie Rubenhold, and his own failure to question and challenge Paul Begg, with the Maybrick diary and 'one off instance'.
It would obviously had been better for the Clanger if he'd waited for Lord Orsam's response because he would have seen that Lord Orsam was not talking 'bollocks'.
This was the critical Orsam Day where, in response to it, everything changed (just like the world under Covid). Under the heading 'THE HYPOCRISY OF THE LITTLE LAMBS' on 5 March 2020, Lord Orsam demolished the Clangers 'bollocks' argument and continued to press him - dared him in fact - to ask Paul Begg about the mistakes in his book.
Following a passage dealing with Paul Begg's own hypocrisy, Lord Orsam wrote:
'The same, of course, is true of Gary Barnett himself. On 19 February 2020 he posted in JTR Forums (#309 in the new Rubenhold thread) to draw attention to the 'brass neck' of Rubenhold and her followers who were countering objections made 'calmly and rationally' by attempting to portray those objections as 'demented'. The hypocrisy is that this is how he and others on JTR Forums have attempted to counter my own articles on this site which have been written calmly and rationally. They can't actually counter them calmly and rationally themselves, with facts and arguments, so resort to attacking me personally and attempting to portray me in exactly the same way as Rubenhold et al attempt to portray them; so it's kind of karma coming back to bite them I guess.'
Man, the Clanger did NOT like this. Especially as it was true and he had no answer to it. His response on 5 March 2020 (#166 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread was, well, pathetic. Calling what Lord Orsam had written 'dire' he said (underlining added):
'the motivation for almost everything he does seems to be to prove he is cleverer than everyone else in the field. He may well be, but he’s far from perfect and drops some real clangers sometimes.'
BOOM! The Clanger was born!
And he couldn't stop crawling all over Lord Orsam's website. Thus, on 20 March 2020 he was raising minor quibbles about a point in Lord Orsam's 'Reconstructing Jack' article. It became clear that he hadn't even read Simon Wood's book to which the article was a response! So he was just sticking is nose in where it didn't need to be. As a result, he didn't fully understand what the issue was. But his message to Lord Orsam in that post (#175 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread) was:
Truly, Gary the Clanger was born. His Lordship had been shown by a respected researcher (*coughs*) that the name 'Clanger' was a perfectly acceptable one to use to refer to another researcher and, indeed, the guy was clearly begging to adopt that name. I guess Lord Orsam was only too happy to oblige.
Especially when two days later we had:
'A Little Clanger'
Then five days after this:
'Lord Clang Almighty'
On 31 March 2020, we had then this from the Clanger;
'It seems his fawning acolytes are filled with joy when he reveals that I once called him a ‘twerp’ and a certain author who shall remain nameless a ‘pampered twat’ but, true to form, he neglects to mention that in both cases my insults were made in response to personal insults previously received. In the manner in which he omits certain facts, he is on a par with .... a certain author who shall remain nameless.'
It 's noticeable that the Clanger has never provided any support for his claim that Lord Orsam 'omits certain facts' and it remains as outrageous today as it is untrue. Furthermore, his claim that his unacceptable use of 'twerp' was made in response to 'personal insults previously received' was completely untrue and, of course, no example was provided. I've no idea what Hallie Rubenhold said to cause him to call her a 'pampered twat' but I've never seen her insult him in such a manner that would have justified that abusive language. As we can see, he agreed that they were properly described 'insults' and he really had no defence.
It's also of note that, on the very same day, he referred to Lord Orsam as 'the Grudgemeister'. It should be coming clear now that with the Clanger it's all about projection. Lord Orsam evidently does not and never has held a grudge against the Clanger, whereas the Clanger has been holding some sort of insane personal grudge for years due to what he perceives as Lord Orsam's popularity and the fact that so many people are convinced that the diary has been proven a fake. He just can't stand it.
Despite no Orsam Day in this month, the Clanger was continuing to hurl insults at Lord Orsam, calling him 'the Spandex Bully' on JTR Forums. Projection unlimited.
In the eighth edition of 'Lord Orsam Says..', published on 6 June 2020, his Lordship was noting that the Clanger seemed to be the most unpopular person on the internet, with Hallie's twitter followers slamming him remorselessly after he made a string of obsessive posts about her on the Waterstone's blog page.
I think Lord Orsam hit the nail squarely on the head when he wrote:
'as far as I can tell, from personal experience, he seems to love nothing more than embarking on a vendetta against someone or something.'
This vendetta against Lord Orsam revealed itself once again when, in response to Lord Orsam's article about the Maybrick watch, the Clanger felt the need to comment about what he described as 'trademark sneering' because Lord Orsam had referred to Paul Butler as 'a self-appointed expert'. The Clanger must have choked on his own vomit when Paul Butler immediately and expressly confirmed that he was claiming to be an expert on Victorian watches, even though he's never put forward a single qualification and is clearly not a recognized expert.
But once again the Clanger was sticking his nose into one of Lord Orsam's articles on a subject that had nothing to do with him. Why was he commenting? It was so transparently all part of his vendetta.
The Clanger could not contain himself when Chief Censor Menges announced (wrongly as it happens) that 'Lord Orsam is banned from contributing to Casebook message boards'. After making an incomprehensible 'joke' about 'Denis O'Brien' about whom, astonishingly, he was still jabbering on, he posted on 6 July 2020:
'Keep your eyes open for multiple aliases to match his multiple personalities'.
I'd like to know what good reason there was for making this post and whether it should be described as a personal attack on a researcher. If so, what does that tell us about his behaviour, and should every member of the Forum be regarded as condoning it if they don't condemn it?
Once again, another example of the Clanger sticking his nose in where it did not belong and where he would have been better served by keeping quiet.
At this time, incidentally, the Clanger was still putting forward excuses why he couldn't ask Paul Begg a simple question about the mistakes in his book. Remarkable!
Lord Orsam also pointed out that the Clanger had directly insulted another researcher, Kattrup, by referring to him in #316 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread as Lord Orsam's 'representative on earth', as his 'mouthpiece', a 'grovelling acolyte' and was accused by him of promoting 'the Great Grimpen Mire of word vomit'? What was Kattrup's crime? He simply posted a link to the latest update on this website!
By now, the Clanger was becoming a regular fixture in 'Lord Orsam Says...' From originally hardly being mentioned at all, he was now one of the most mentioned characters but only because he kept sticking his nose into places where it shouldn't have been, talking constantly non-stop about Lord Orsam.
The best example of this is the Clanger's attempt to undermine Lord Orsam's research into 'one off' with his hopeless and batshit crazy equine theory as a result of a reference to a 'one off promising filly' he had found in an 1864 newspaper followed by the moronic chant from the Clanger of 'Why didn't Lord Orsam mention this?'. A question that frankly answered itself.
Then he stuck his nose in again with a dreadfully silly point about Dr Tony Deeson and 'one off'. But these are all points Lord Orsam needed to respond to, so he had to keep mentioning the Clanger even though he clearly had no desire to do so.
In another post, the Clanger said that what Lord Orsam writes is 'mostly a load of old cobblers'. This kind of thing wouldn't be so bad if it was supported with examples and reasons, but none were ever forthcoming.
Lord Orsam posted a light hearted article about '14 Millers Court'. The Clanger of course had to post a critical comment. It was nothing to do with him and his comment was typically misguided, but he couldn't stop himself. It was like some online form of Tourette's syndrome.
On it went. Lord Orsam wrote about Alfred Wilkins in Dorset Street and the Clanger felt the need to comment negatively. Sticking his nose in. Lord Orsam wrote about Bunny's Aunt, and the Clanger felt the need to comment negatively. Sticking his nose in again. It was like he was on a personal crusade of vindictiveness. But I'm sure Lord Orsam wouldn't have minded if he had made some decent points. However, his points were either dreadful and/or petty, yet it must have taken Lord Orsam a lot of time and effort to respond to them. None of it was in the slightest bit necessary.
We find the Clanger trying desperately to show that the expression 'bumbling buffoon' could have existed in 1888 due to the frequent use of the word 'buffoon' without ever realizing or acknowledging that the problem was with the word 'bumbling'. The Clanger was responding here to a point raised by The Baron but he was still also banging on madly about his equine craziness behind 'one off' just so that he could (he hoped) get one over on Lord Orsam. All it meant was that Lord Orsam had to waste his time dealing with it and demolishing it.
A rare case of Lord Orsam commenting on the Clanger's behaviour in a genealogical thread on Casebook but only because he noticed that the Clanger was bulling a new member called TRD ('The Rookie Detective') who the Clanger subtly labelled as 'TURD' ('The Ubiquitous Rookie Detective').
Over in JTR Forums, in the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread, Trevor Marriott was quite reasonably pointing out that he never seems to see any 'direct challenges' to what Lord Orsam has said. The Clanger said that to respond to what he described as personal insults (albeit never identified) would be: 'feeding the troll'. Again, just another attack on a researcher by calling him 'troll' (#449). Yet, as we've seen, if anyone is trolling here it's the Clanger, constantly trolling Lord Orsam's articles trying to find some small error, with the stated aim of disrupting his Maybrick diary findings, while ignoring the main thrust of Lord Orsam's arguments.
So aggressive was the Clanger becoming that Howard had to post on 19 November 2020 to say, 'From this point on, please either debate the points Lord Orsam makes or doesn't make...' an instruction ignored by the Clanger, needless to say (with Howard later having to delete a number of his posts, so furious did the Clanger become with members of JTR Forums daring to challenge him about his incorrect views relating to Lord Orsam).
This was when the whole 'Andrew Stevens' controversy blew up after the Clanger had stuck his nose in again after Lord Orsam had commented that John McCarthy had not in fact been Kitty Roman's landlord, as commonly believed. It hadn't been something said by the Clanger (it was said by someone called 'Sean'), and thus had nothing to do with him, but the Clanger not only intervened, but created a brand new thread on JTR Forums about Andrew Stevens, all with the intention of humiliating Lord Orsam by showing that Stevens wasn't Kitty's landlord. At one point he even falsely claimed that Lord Orsam had quoted evidence about the matter out of context. Naturally, it didn't work out as the Clanger had intended, and he was once again forced to flee with his tail between his legs. Andrew Stevens WAS Kitty Roman's landlord, as Lord Orsam had said, and it did not need a thousand words to be written about it.
At this time, we also find the Clanger ranting about what he described as Lord Orsam making 'highly personalised attacks on individuals'. No examples were provided and Lord Orsam reminded readers of the Clanger's own Forum post from May 2018:
The Clanger also claimed ludicrously that this website, on which Lord Orsam started writing articles in 2015, was 'Just a vehicle to slag off Casebook, me, Scott Nelson and Sean'. The desperation of the Clanger in throwing in Sean who almost never gets mentioned on here (Lord Orsam tells me he doesn't even fucking know who he is) and Little Scottie, who is barely mentioned, was palpable. But we can see that the Clanger is prepared to resort to the most outrageous lies about this website and Lord Orsam in his anger due to being outwitted by him time and time again.
Another of the Clanger's comments highlighted was his claim that Lord Orsam's website is 'littered with snide comments and digs at other researchers'. There he goes again with his mention of 'researchers' who supposedly have some kind of elevated status. But I'd really like to know who these researchers are. Himself, himself and himself, presumably.
One of my favourite clangs by the Clanger was his claim that:
'Lord Orsam took me to task for pointing out the flaws in HR's Waterstones blog, but for some reason hasn't mentioned Trevor's performance as her pet mysogynist (sic). I wonder why? Perhaps he's scared of Trevor'.
The truth, however, was that Lord Orsam HAD both mentioned and criticised Trevor's misogynistic performance on Hallie's Twitter page, but it's amusing that the Clanger was encouraging Lord Orsam to denigrate even more researchers!
Lord Orsam noted that the Clanger had failed to respond to Lord Orsam's responses to posts about his Bunny's Aunt article. He also recorded that the Clanger had been back into his Lechmere/Cross name issue thread and had made a number of further comments about Lord Orsam's research, claiming that Lord Orsam had missed the point and referring to Lord Orsam's 'magnum hopeless'. Lord Orsam explained where the Clanger had gone wrong in some detail but there was never any response from the Clanger. As usual, when challenged, the Clanger disengaged from the debate.
Lord Orsam commented on the Clanger's hysterical reaction to his 'Breaking Point' article which appeared in the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread. The amusing thing about it is that Lord Orsam was pointing out that Christer Holmgren was disagreeing with the Clanger's claim that every other witness than Cross gave their address at the 1876 inquest because Holmgren had said in his book that only 'four out of the six witnesses' had given their address. Despite Holmgren actually posting on the Forum in the very same thread as the Clanger, the Clanger failed to take the issue up with Holmgren, showing clearly his animus towards Lord Orsam. He's not interested in getting at the truth, or debating in a civilised fashion, just in attacking Lord Orsam.
Lord Orsam also raised for the first time the issue of why the Clanger is so interested in cat's meat.
The main focus of the 'Lord Orsam Says...' for this update, however, was the Clanger's claims about the Lechmere/Cross name issue, which his Lordship thoroughly demolished.
Lord Orsam noted that other members of the Forum were complaining about the Clanger's attacks on them and his use of insults.
Lord Orsam continued to discuss in a serious fashion the Clanger's points about the Cross/Lechmere name issue but, as usual, the Clanger failed to engage, even though he is lightening fast to respond when the thinks Lord Orsam has got something wrong.
Lord Orsam also noted that the Clanger had made a mistake in listing the occupations of Patrick Carroll, the father of a witness in an attempted murder in Dublin but the Clanger had nothing to say about this in response.
The Clanger had been back discussing Lord Orsam's points about 'one off' in his usual ill-informed way and Lord Orsam had to spend time correcting the record. As Lord Orsam quite rightly said, 'I don't know when the guy is going to stop clanging but it clearly isn't yet'.
Lord Orsam asked why the Clanger was saying that he was tempted to become a fully-fledged member of the Charles Lechmere is guilty parade and why he had created a click-bait titled thread on JTR Forums called 'Charles Lechmere's Lair?'. Although the Clanger read this article, and commented on part of it, Lord Orsam's question has never been answered and it remains a mystery as to why it should be thought for one second that Lechmere had a 'lair' in Pinchin Street or what new discovery had prompted the claim.
Unbelievably, Lord Orsam was recording that the Clanger was still banging on about 'one off' having had 'a 19th century equine usage' - the very definition of batshit craziness.
It was also recorded that the Clanger still seemed to think that a Victorian could have coupled 'bumbling' with 'buffoon' not apparently aware that 'bumbling' wasn't in common use to mean an incompetent person in 1888.
Lord Orsam asked again about the Clanger's obsession with cat's meat. He tells me he's never received an answer.
Lord Orsam also asked if the Clanger was correct to say that there was a market in Corbett's Court even though no such market is marked on Goad. No answer was received.
Lord Orsam had to waste more time correcting a false allegation that the Clanger had now made for the second time, accusing Lord Orsam of describing a 'contrary opinion' as 'word vomit'. It was simply untrue (and Lord Orsam had already debunked it) but the Clanger repeated the fake news as part of his bitter vendetta against his Lordship.
In similar fashion, the Clanger was STILL claiming in his batshit crazy way that Lord Orsam either didn't discover or chose not to mention 'the equine usage of x-off'. That myth had been killed off many updates ago but the Clanger still seems to cling to the view that Lord Orsam should have mentioned it in his 'one off' article despite being entirely irrelevant to it, not to mention batshit crazy.
I've skipped ahead a little bit because I've seen enough.
I nevertheless wanted to mention that the Clanger couldn't resist responding to Lord Orsam's article about Mike's research notes and his secret source. He simply continued to stick his nose in and make dreadful ill-informed points on a subject about which he knows very little but which causes Lord Orsam to waste his time responding in detail.
Lord Orsam asked me to investigate his behaviour and I am delighted to say that I have been able to fully exonerate him.
What my investigation has found very clearly is that Lord Orsam had no interest in the Clanger at the time he (Lord Orsam) started to regularly publish articles on his website after his departure from the Censorship Forum in May 2018 but that the Clanger followed Lord Orsam around like a possessive stalker, jealous of all the attention Lord Orsam was getting, sticking his nose into virtually everything Lord Orsam did and wrote about for absolutely no good reason, although his motive was a bad faith one, trying to undermine through irregular means what Lord Orsam had written about the Maybrick diary and 'one off' in particular, simply because he didn't like the fact that Lord Orsam had managed to do what no one else had been able to do in 25 years by proving the diary to be a fake.
Lord Orsam continued to have no interest in the Clanger in the period 2019 to 2022 and the only time of any substance that he's initiated criticism of the Clanger, as opposed to responding to the Clanger's criticisms, was in respect of his comments about Hallie Rubenhold. On almost all other occasions, the Clanger has only been mentioned because of something he said about Lord Orsam. Sometimes Lord Orsam picks up on something the Clanger has said about Lechmere (about which, it will be recalled, the Clanger posted in Lord Orsam's own Forum thread to pooh pooh Lord Orsam's research) but otherwise he's not interested in anything that the Clanger has to say.
The Clanger, on the other hand, can't stop talking about Lord Orsam and has been obsessed with him from the start, even though Lord Orsam had no reciprocal interest.
During 2019, while attempting to censor any mention of Lord Orsam's website, and manipulating Howard Brown into temporarily making the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread private, in order to deprive Lord Orsam of 'publicity', the Clanger posted a string of abuse about Lord Orsam and made personal attacks on him, such as talking of men in white coats coming to get him and of him being a fruit loop. He attributed false motives to Lord Orsam without evidence (such as the claim that Lord Orsam was motivated by a desire to show how clever he is). Loads of names and insults were posted about Lord Orsam including, most ironically, 'Clanger'.
But here's the interesting thing. What I found in my investigation was that, like any bully, the Clanger was very happy to dish it out but has been unable to take it. When Lord Orsam fought back, giving him a taste of his own medicine, the Clanger became angry, nasty and vicious, snapping at people who posted links to Lord Orsam's website, as he continues to do to the present day.
One thing that is so noticeable is that, after becoming an object of ridicule on Lord Orsam's website, the Clanger suddenly stopped calling Lord Orsam names and went almost respectable in his choice of language. I think that he didn't like being known as 'the Clanger' across the entire internet (which he now is, and Lord Orsam tells me that people now actually email him to discuss 'the Clanger', would you believe?). From what I can see, it's really got to him.
Perhaps he hoped if he was a bit nicer to Lord Orsam, his Lordship would stop being so howwible to him. It didn't seem to work. But the really amusing thing is that he now wants to gaslight the entire online community into thinking that Lord Orsam is responsible for personal attacks on researchers when, as my investigation has proven, it's the Clanger who has, from the very start, been responsible for personal attacks on Lord Orsam.
9 March 2022