A Statement by Lord Orsam about JTR Forums

Yesterday, Steve Blomer, the Admin of JTR Forums, emailed me out of the blue, and unsolicited, in response to my last blog post, telling me that I was "very welcome" to email him directly about any posts on JTR Forums (because he doesn't have time to read them all) and he expressly told me that he wanted me to let him know which posts "have offended". Personally, I didn't think it would do any good - he doesn't seem to be able to control Barnett who is allowed to argue back against any ruling telling him to behave - but, after Barnett made a further string of abusive and harassing posts in the early hours of this morning, containing multiple false allegations about me, I decided that I should take him up on his invitation.

Although I am, at this point, probably busier than I have ever been on my life doing other things, I took the time and trouble to draft a statement which I invited Steve to post on JTR Forums in response to what Barnett had posted in the early hours. Did he agree to post it? Do me a favour. Of course not! I mentioned to him in my covering email that Barnett's false allegations are the latest in a line of false allegations about me which remain uncorrected on JTR Forums, including e recent false allegation by Tom Wescott that I pestered him to review one of my books and the false allegation by Ed Stow that I didn't reply to a friendly message he once sent me and that I had announced that I didn't engage in correspondence or private discussions. As I mentioned to Steve in my email to him, "I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to do about these things - surely false statements of this nature should not be allowed - but I am trying a new approach by drafting this statement to see if that works."

The only response from Steve, who said he has discussed it with the "Admin team" of JTR Forums, is to close the "Lord Orsam Blog" thread which should have been a thread for members of JTR Forums to post links to interesting articles and discuss those articles in a mature fashion. Well, that doesn't matter too much because I don't expect to be posting many articles in the future but, while Steve's action might prevent Barnett from making abusive and harassing postings in the future, it doesn't deal with the issue of the false uncorrected allegations which still exist and remain in the thread.

Even worse, is that one of the allegations made by Barnett, namely that I'm too cowardly to join JTR Forums, is known by Steve to be absolutely false, yet he chooses to remain silent about it.

Here is the full text of the statement I invited him to post which he refused to, on the ludicrous grounds that it "would make the situation even worse". I have no idea how this is possible when he is the moderator of the forum and would be responsible for ensuring the situation does not get "even worse". It's his job! But, like I say, he doesn't seem to have the ability to control Barnett who just does exactly what he wants on there without any moderation at all.

I might add that I told Steve that he could take out the portion in brackets from my below statement where I quoted the opening of my previous post in case it offended the delicate sensibilities of his members.

Response by Lord Orsam to a string of attack posts on JTR Forums by Gary Barnett in the “Lord Orsam Blog” thread, in the early hours of 15th December 2024:

In #833, Barnett posted:

“Why is it that anything even remotely approaching ‘personal stuff’ against Lord O meets with disapproval here and yet links to his far worse personal attacks are encouraged?”

I have never seen any encouragement on JTR Forums of any personal attacks by me nor have I ever seen any links to personal attacks by me on JTR Forums. As usual, Barnett provides not a single example of any “personal attack” by me on anyone, let alone a link to such attack on JTR Forums. This is probably because he knows that if he does so, the entire defence for his personal vendetta against me on JTR Forums, which he repeats time and time again, will fall apart. I well recall when, in 2018, on Casebook, pretty much out of the blue, he called me “an insulting little twerp,” yet the three purported examples he gave at the time of me being “an insulting little twerp” failed to substantiate or justify that insult which was, of course, in breach of the Casebook rules. In his mind, though, they seemed to allow him to insult me in that extraordinary way.

If, incidentally, when referring to links to my “far worse personal attacks”, Barnett is referring to the opening line of my last blog post which was visible in the link posted by Chris Phillips [which read: “Why Gary Barnett is allowed to continually post nonsense and attempt to traduce my reputation on JTR forums is a mystery. He's evidently too scared to come here and say stuff that he knows he can freely post on another website without any possible contradiction from me”], this was nothing more than what I thought was a straightforward explanation by me as to why I was wasting my time having to dig out two old articles and post them on my website when there were many other more productive things I could have been doing at a time when I am extremely busy. I do not accept that those two sentences constitute a personal attack, let alone a “far worse” personal attack than anything Gary Barnett has posted about me on JTR Forums.

Barnett’s constant justification that he only posts personal attacks aimed at me because of my own alleged personal attacks fails (even if such attacks actually exist), not only because the posts of his that I was complaining of in my latest blog post involved him gratuitously responding to an issue from four years ago which I had already dealt with and disposed of, so that there was no good reason whatsoever for him to resurrect it in 2024, wondering aloud if I had wriggled out of something from four years ago, but also because the key difference is that he is posting on a moderated site, subject to the jurisdiction of a moderator/administrator and subject to rules of the site, yet makes posts which would surely not be allowed if they were directed at another member of JTR Forums.

In #834, Barnett posted:

“I thought the Rabid Carrot had retired” (followed by a smiling face with tears of laughter)

He is wrong to think that. I have never said that I had retired or was going to retire. In fact, I made clear on my website that I was not retiring and would continue to post if necessary. It is extremely disappointing to me that within mere weeks of making that statement I have had to make two additional blog posts in response to false things said about me on JTR Forums.

In #834, Barnett also posted:

“Almost every article ‘Lord O’ produces includes a slight on one or more Forums or CB members.”

The vast majority of the articles on my website are about the Maybrick diary so I don’t know what he’s talking about here. But Barnett’s comment seems to suggest that it is illegitimate for me to criticize the works of published authors, essayists, writers or bloggers such as Simon Wood, Michael Hawley, Christer Holmgren, Ed Stow, Tom Wescott, Keith Skinner, Caroline Morris-Brown, Tom Mitchell, Jay Hartley etc. simply because they also happen to be members of an online forum.

Even if he was correct in saying this, it would be irrelevant and seems to come from a belief that being a member of a forum by itself should protect someone from being criticised, which I think is a far more accurate word than “slighted”. If Barnett has an issue with something I post on my websitem he is perfectly free to come and respond there, in the comments section, which then allows me to correct inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings in his response, which I invariably find to exist within them. What I don’t think should be the case is that disgruntled authors whose work has been, quite properly, scrutinised and criticised by me, should use JTR Forums as a vehicle to personally attack me (where I am unable to respond) while ignoring any of the substantive points I have made about their work.

He then says in the same post:

“By allowing links to them you are sanction such behaviour.”

This statement, which I think is false, reflects the fact that Barnett clearly wants to restrict access to my articles by prohibiting links to them on JTR Forums, and has been urging this for many years. At one point, the “Lord Orsam Blog” thread itself was made private by Howard Brown at Barnett’s urging. I really don’t know why Barnett is still concerned about what I write on my website, given that I’ve made clear that any articles I write in future will be few and far between and only when absolutely necessary. Further, I’ve said very little about Barnett on the current incarnation of my website, only responding to what he posts (about me or my work) on JTR Forums. It just seems to me, from my perspective, that Barnett is unable to take legitimate criticism of himself. Time and again he has attacked me on a false basis and then, when I set out the actual facts, and the mistakes he’s made, he goes as quiet as a mouse, neither accepting nor acknowledging those mistakes, and certainly not correcting them.

He then says:

“I got as far as Lord O accusing me of cowardice for not contributing to his blog”.

I have never asked Barnett to contribute to my blog. I have said that if he wants to attack me in response to something I’ve posted on my website (which he sometimes claims to read, but other times claims, as on this occasion, not to) he should do so in the comments section of that website where I am able to respond. Not on a public forum where I’m unable to respond, which can only be deliberately aggravating. He is clearly using JTR Forums as a vehicle to attack me on a regular basis, for example bringing up issues from four years ago which I disposed of four years ago.

What I don’t even find in any of his string of recent posts, is a reason why he doesn’t respond to my posts on my website in the comments section of my website. I can only conclude it is because he knows he will face comeback from me to which he will be unable to respond.

We can see, here, incidentally, a tactic which has been used time and time again by various different people, including other members of JTR Forums, claiming to have read a short part of one of my articles but then not going on to finish it for some feeble reason, which they then thinks gives them an excuse for not responding to the substantive issues.

“I know that several years ago he was invited to join the Forums, but for some reason never did. I wonder why? Excess of courage no doubt.”

This is an offensive statement, containing the false suggestion that I haven’t joined JTR Forums because I am too cowardly to do so. Yes, while I was an active member of Casebook in August 2017, Howard Brown invited me to join JTR Forums as 'a book reviewer or anything else you'd care to do'. As I later explained on my website, I politely declined Howard’s offer, feeling that participating on one online forum (Casebook) was time-consuming enough and I didn’t want to participate in two. I explained this in a publicly available article on my website in August 2019 entitled “A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To JTR Forums” which I assume Barnett read at the time because he posted in response to it in #46 of the Lord Orsam Blog thread with the offensive comment: “I suspect the men in white coats are on their way”. So there is no need for Barnett to wonder why I didn’t join JTR Forums in response to Howard’s invite, and the fact that he does so now, even though I’ve publicly explained the reason for it, and even though he has commented on the article in which I did so, suggests he is making statements about me in bad faith. At the time, of course, in August 2017, I wasn’t being attacked on a regular basis on JTR Forums so there was no need for me to join for that reason. The allegation of cowardice, therefore, in declining Howard’s offer has zero basis.

Barnett also says in #834:

“This year started badly for me, but receiving the Robert Linford award and being credited with ‘traducing’ Lord O’s reputation have been positive developments.”

Barnett here seems to think that unjustifiably attempting to traduce a person’s reputation is a positive thing to do, and he is clearly proud of it. I won’t comment further on that.

Then in #835 Barnett posted:

“I notice there’s recently been some push back on CB against the nonsensical idea that the term ‘one-off instance’ couldn’t possibly have been written in the 1880s.

Wouldn’t it be great if the Man of Courage (aka all the pseudonyms he hides behind) joined the Forums and put us all straight?”

The suggestion that I use multiple pseudonyms for any reason (let alone to hide behind) is false. I do not.

As for why I do not join JTR forums now, there is a good reason. As Steve Blomer will be aware, in 2023, when my old website was about to die, I floated with him the possibility of joining JTR Forums but he was not keen (for some reason, which remains unknown to me to this day) and I, therefore, did not go on to ask to join. So that avenue is closed to me and I cannot respond on JTR forums to the repeated personal attacks on me by Barnett.

As for “one off instance”, I have explained in great detail why the term “one off instance” couldn’t possibly have been written in 1888. It’s a shame that Barnett either hasn’t read what I have written on the subject or doesn’t understand it. The supposed “push back” on Casebook which Barnett refers to, amounts to nothing at all. Barnett’s suggestion that I rejoin Casebook to respond to what has been posted on Casebook (if that is what he is suggesting) is bizarre bearing in mind that he must know that I resigned from that Forum in 2018 out of principle and will never be going back.

Then Barnett goes on in #836:

“There was a time, believe it or not, when the RC was a staunch supporter of mine, repeatedly defending me against someone whose research I had questioned.

Repeatedly - boy, did he go on and on and on…?"

It is not true to say that I have ever been a staunch supporter of Gary Barnett.

What Barnett is referring to is an incident in May 2017 whereby Tom Wescott accused Barnett of being “petty and jealous” when he challenged the claim in one of his books that the records of the London Hospital showed that a woman called Margaret Millous (or Mallows), referred to as 'MM', was admitted to the hospital at some point with a cut on her arm between 10pm on 30 August and 3.30 am on 31 August 1888, and thus might have been a second victim of Jack the Ripper that night.

I thought that accusing Barnett of being motivated by reasons of jealousy in challenging an error in Wescott’s book was a cop-out by Wescott. I didn’t believe for one second that Barnett had pointed out the serious error in Wescott’s book because he was being petty and jealous of Wescott, and I therefore pressed Wescott on Casebook to answer a simple question as to when precisely MM was admitted to hospital. In fact, the question I asked him was this:

'Do you accept that the woman in question was admitted to hospital on a different day to the attack on Nichols or are you saying that MrBarnett has read the London Hospital records wrong?'

If Barnett thinks I went “on and on” in my questioning of Wescott, even though he was also participating in the exchanges, it was only because Wescott continually evaded the simple question I was asking him with various different evasive tactics. The record of our exchanges is very clear and remains on Casebook to this day for anyone to view in the thread “Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott”.

During the questioning of Wescott, incidentally, Barnett posted this:

'Tom, why don't you stop the ****-stirring and personal insults and just explain why you are absolutely convinced that MM was admitted on the 31/8 when the record says 1/9.'

I find it very revealing that Barnett thinks that just because I was pressing Wescott to answer the same question and challenging his claim that Barnett was only questioning him through jealousy of his (Wescott’s) supposed success, this means I was staunchly supporting him. I was doing no such thing. I was challenging Wescott in order to get to the truth of the matter, not supporting Barnett.

The irony of all this is that during the exchange, Wescott seemed to accuse me of defending the honour of Gary Barnett, a remark which caused Barnett himself to respond on 11 May 2017 by saying (#447 of the thread):

“Honestly, there's no need for anyone to defend my hono(u)r.

David never claimed to be.”

Seven years later and Barnett now appears to be adopting Wescott’s claim.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond.

Lord Orsam

15 December 2024

The last sentence of that statement reads rather ironically. I was not, of course, given the opportunity to respond nor was any other solution offered. It seems that I wasn't "very welcome" to email Steve directly after all! As I told him in my email when I expressed by disgust with his response, I had thought it would be useless to email him and I have literally no idea why he invited me to do so.