Lies on JTR Forums

It is with a heavy heart that I find myself wasting valuable time today, which I could be spending on something far more productive, by having to respond to some lies being told about me on JTR Forums.

It was rather unfortunate, I thought, that following the statement I posted on 5th November, Kattrup of all people - normally very reliable - mistakenly informed the members of JTR Forums that I had announced my retirement from Ripperology. This wasn't what I said at all.

The issue is a practical one. I need a website for my music, and potential future visitors to this website who are interested in the music obviously can't be confronted with posts about a gruesome series of serial killings nor about a fake diary relating to those serial killings. I'm not prepared to go to the expense of running two websites. So all the stuff about Jack the Ripper will need to be hidden and not easily accessible. I'm also extremely busy with the music right now and, in any event, with the discrediting of the star witness for the Battlecrease provenance of the diary, the concept of diary defending is dead in the water, leaving nothing more for me to say about it. Nevertheless, I clearly stated that should something arise requiring my attention, I would write a blog post, only it would be hidden, needing a link to the blog to access it.

The purpose of my statement, therefore, was to inform members and visitors of the impending change to the format of this website, not to announce my retirement.

Because I know what will happen. When I next make a post - indeed perhaps even in response to this one - someone will say "Oh I thought Lord Orsam announced his retirement". No he has not!

Kattrup's unfortunate error then led to the usual suspects coming out of the woodwork to make cheap shots at me, unfettered by any moderation which one assumes would apply to anyone other than me. I would have ignored the abuse but then, this morning, Tom Wescott told a blatant lie about me which I felt I needed to respond to in order to put the record straight, for anyone who cares about the truth, which should be everyone.

While I'm wasting my time with this I might as well respond to all the other stuff that's been posted by various individuals on JTR Forums over the past few days.

TOM WESCOTT

Responding to a typically inaccurate old post from Gary Barnett from 2020 in which he had mischaracterized my 2018 resignation from Casebook and connected it for some unknown reason to a discussion I once had with Tom Westcott on the forum a year earlier in 2017, the same Tom Wescott wrote:

"I do recall David was unhappy because I'd apparently misattributed a research find to a different David by mistake. He'd been very complimentary to me prior to that, sending me a copy of his Camden Town Murder book and asking (demanding) lengthy feedback on it."

This is all completely untrue. The whole lot of it.

Let's deal first with his claim that I was "unhappy" because he'd misattributed a research find to a different David by mistake.

He's wrong about this although I don't accuse him of lying about it. I suspect he's just confused. What happened is that in his 2017 book he mentioned some research I'd done whereby, with the assistance of Robert Linford, I'd uncovered the identity of "Mrs Colville" (an ear-witness to some kind of fracas in Brady Street on the morning of the Nichols murder) but he mistakenly referred to me in the book as "David Gates".

On 10 April 2017 I posted this on Casebook (#40 of the thread "Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)":

"Decent of you attempt to acknowledge my research on the Coldwell family and Handley's Mews in your book, Tom (footnotes 34, 40 and 41), but I'm not David Gates."

Does that sound like I was unhappy? No, I was just pointing out his error to him.

Tom's reply was:

"David, if I've misidentified your research as belonging to someone else, I'll be mortified."

And then my reply to him:

"There's no 'if' about it Tom; in footnote 40 you've referred to my Casebook thread of 8 January 2015 ('The Curious Case of Mrs Colville') but attributed it to David Gates.

It was in the OP of this thread that I suggested that Honey's Mews might be a corruption of Handley's Mews, not David Gates as suggested in footnote 34.

However, you can rest assured that I'm not the slightest bit bothered about the misidentification and, like I said, it was decent of you to make the attempt."

I would have thought that my final sentence would have conveyed to any normal person that I wasn't unhappy at all. That seems to be clear in the words: "I'm not the slightest bit bothered about the misidentification and, like I said, it was decent of you to make the attempt."

The amusing follow-up to this is that a month later, in the same thread, after I concurred with Gary Barnett's criticism of Wescott for making a false claim about the date of a document in his book, to which Wescott had ludicrously claimed that Barnett was only doing it out jealousy, Tom replied to me as follows:

"So....this IS all about defending Gary's honor? And here I thought it was about me accidentally attributing your research to David Gates. We're making breakthroughs here."

So Wescott either genuinely believed I was unhappy that he'd misattributed my research to David Gates, despite me having told him I wasn't the slightest bit bothered, or he was just saying this to pretend to people that I had an ulterior motive in criticising his misdating of a document.

In response, I posted:

"Oh crikey, is THAT what you meant earlier? Goodness, Tom, that is delusional thinking. I couldn't care less about you calling me David Gates in your book and I thought I already said so. I was just letting you know that you'd got it wrong so you could correct if it you wanted to.

Seriously, Tom, if you think that is the reason I posted in this thread, or has anything at all to do with it, you need a major reality check."

So I told him twice in 2017 that I couldn't care less about the David Gates mistake in his book yet here we are in 2024 and he still thinks I was unhappy about it.

This, I suppose, is the state of modern Ripperology.

But, anyway, on to the main issue which is the next part of his JTR Forums post from yesterday in which he says:

"He'd been very complimentary to me prior to that, sending me a copy of his Camden Town Murder book and asking (demanding) lengthy feedback on it."

This is a statement made either dishonestly or recklessly without any regard to the truth.

Far from me being complimentary about Tom Wescott before 2017, I had not been and had no reason to be. I hadn't read any of his pre-2017 books (and still haven't) and wasn't impressed by his Casebook posts, so what could I have possibly complimented him about? Although he uses the fact that I sent him a copy of his Camden Town Murder book as evidence of me being complimentary about him, the book was sent to him at his express request. Thankfully I have the receipts.

Shortly after I joined Casebook in 2014, out of the blue, Tom Wescott addressed the following post to me on 4 December 2014 in a thread about Lechmere:

"Hi David, Have your Islington and Camden murder books been reviewed in Ripperologist? If not, I'll volunteer for the job."

At this time, I distinctly recall having no idea who this person was. None at all. But, well, he was publicly volunteering to review my books in Ripperologist, I was a new member on Casebook and I thought it would be rude to refuse.

My reply came later that day:

"Hi Tom. No, my books have not been reviewed in any publications (I've never submitted them anywhere for review) and you are the only volunteer! Please do go ahead - and if you need review copies let me know how to get them to you."

Our discussion continued via Private Message. Thankfully, before I resigned from Casebook, I downloaded all my PMs, so I happen to have a record of what followed.

Here is the full sequence of messages:

04/12/2014 - Tom Wescott to me

Hi David. Your books look interesting and I'll be happy to review them for Ripperologist. If you so choose, you can then quote the reviews on Amazon. No guarantee I'll like the books, but if I do, I'll also write a personal review on Amazon.com. Please send a copy of each, whenever you get the chance, to the address below.

[Address redacted]

05/12/2014 - Orsam to Wescott

Hi Tom, thank you. Will do. And, of course, I appreciate that there is no guarantee that the reviews will be good!

07/12/2014 - Wescott to Orsam

I look forward to reading them. I notice you wrote them under a different name? By the way, don't take board debate personally, at least not from me, because it's never intended that way. I think I come off more snippy than I mean to.

07/12/2014 - Orsam to Wescott

They will be coming from London so might take a bit of time to get to you, especially over Christmas. The books are written under my real name. They are self-published under the name "Orsam Books" hence my casebook name. While it would be nice to have a surname which is spoken as "Awesome" that sadly is not the case for me! And I never take anything on the board personally, it's just debate and stuff. I have far more of a sense of humour than might be evident but you will usually find it lurking deep within my posts. You don't need to apologise for anything either - without debate, discussion, argument we will never come to the answer of anything and I welcome being challenged. But glad to know that nothing said on the board will affect the review!

10/12/2024 - Orsam to Wescott

Tom, just to let you know that I posted the Camden book to you today. I'm issuing a revised version of the Islington book for the 100th anniversary in the new year and this should be ready before Christmas so I will send that version to you as soon as I have it.

10/12/2014 - Wescott to Orsam

Great, I look forward to receiving it.

10/12/2014 - Wescott to Orsam

Hi David. I wanted to let you know I received your book today. It's a very handsome paperback and far more lengthy than I figured it would be. Does it cover just the one murder? How long did you research this?

24/12/2014 - Orsam to Wescott (now by email)

Hi Tom,

Apologies for delayed response, I've been pretty busy in the last few days leading to Christmas and haven't logged into the forum, though I have now done so to read your message.

On the book, it was about 3 years of research and yes it is all on the one murder.  You will see that in chapter 18 there is a connection with JTR when I discuss Patricia Cornwell's theory as it pertains to Sickert (as her suspect in both the Camden Town and JTR murders) and includes one of my favourite points that I don't think has been mentioned before, regarding the initials ACC.

The Evening Post for 1888 is held in hard copy form in the British Library in London - available to all users -  and I photocopied pages relating to the Nichols murder and some relating to the Chapman murder which I haven't looked at properly yet, but I know contains a mention of some bloody newspapers being found near the scene of the murder which, it was speculated, the murderer had wiped his knife on (a bit similar to the supposed Brady Street bloodstains in that the police were said to have missed them).  I was thinking of posting this on the forum if it's new information, although I imagine this is probably already known about (but it doesn't ring any bells with me, does it with you?).  I didn't get round to copying (or even looking at) the stories on the Double Event/Kelly murder but I understand that the British Library is going to allow users to use their own cameras to photograph newspapers in the new year - which is very radical for that institution where even photocopying has been difficult until now - so I will probably photograph everything relevant there is in the Evening Post.  Is there anything you would be particularly interested in?

I'm not, incidentally, intending to publish anything on JTR but I have a potentially interesting line of research I'm working on which, if it comes off, I will post on the forum in the new year (although even if it doesn't work I probably already have enough material sufficiently interesting to post about in lesser form).  I may not be on the forum for a few days due to Christmas though.

I should have the amended version of my other book ready to send to you in the new year.

In the meantime, have a very happy Christmas!

24/12/2014 - Wescott to me (via email)

Hi David, thanks for that. You must have been quite taken by the Camden Town murder to write so much on it. As for the Evening Post stuff, I'd be interested in whatever you get. The bloody newspapers are well known, but the Post might have some new details. What you posted regarding the Post reporter who had access to the autopsy is unique and is actually crucial to the chapter I'm currently writing on the Nichols murder for my next book, so you've already earned an acknowledgement! You also managed to dig up a reference to the Brady Street blood stains that I had not seen before. So the Post appears to be a very valuable source of information. I'm currently reading two books (back and forth) but as soon as I complete them both I plan to start on yours. It appears you hired someone to to the layout for your book and prepare it for printing. They did a good job. I did all that for my first book myself, but it was a lot of work and I'm not sure I'm the best man for the job the next time around. Do you mind me asking how much a service like that costs? No rush to reply. Have a great Christmas, enjoy it, and we'll talk again soon. 

24/12/2014 - Me to Wescott (via email)

That's all good, glad to have been of some use.  Incidentally, when it came to the third day of the Nichols inquest on 17 Sept it was the first day of the Parnell Commission Inquiry - which dominated the front page of the Evening Post - and clearly the paper's top reporter had been sent to that, with only a very brief account of the inquest in the newspaper, which had rather lost interest in the Nichols murder post Chapman.  So I didn't bother transcribing it for the forum.

The book layout cost me £105 (which included two revisions) - unfortunately the guy who did it for me (for both books), Ken Anderson, retired earlier in the year and his email account no longer works so I have no way of contacting him or making any amendments other than using Adobe XI to edit the PDF - which is rather limited in the changes it allows me to make.  I think there are others that offer the service online, but I'm afraid don't know which ones are any good.

25/12/2014 - Wescott to me (via email)

He didn't send it to you in Word as well? What a shame! You got a good price and it seems he did a good job at least. I was wondering about the third day of the inquest but what you said clears that up. By the way, in case I didn't mention it before, I should have scans of the London Hospital registration for 10pm Aug 30th to 3:30am Aug 31st some time next month. Hopefully I'll be able to get some answers regarding the Brady Street bloodstains. I've been going over that with a fine tooth comb and have come to the conclusion that the 'suspicious mark' Helson admitted to is likely the bloody handprints found in front of the gates at Honey's mews. 

In January we corresponded on some issues relating to Brady Street and on 14th January 2015 I wrote to him as a postscript to an email:

14/01/2015 - Me to Wescott

I sent you my other book in the first week of Jan so it should arrive with you soon if not with you already.

After a couple more emails about Brady Street that's where it ended, There was never any review in Ripperologist and I never chased him to write one. I never once asked, let alone demanded, any feedback on my books from Tom, lengthy or otherwise.

So his claim that I'd "been very complimentary to me prior to that, sending me a copy of his Camden Town Murder book and asking (demanding) lengthy feedback on it" is all false. It is so far from the truth - the very opposite of the truth in fact - that, while I don't know for sure what is going on in that man's head, I can only describe it as a blatant lie.

And it was a lie told for the purpose of smearing me as a kind of mad person who randomly sends my books to people I allegedly admire and then demands lengthy feedback from them. Unless the guy is suffering from early onset dementia, he surely must recall that he asked me to send him my books for him to review them.

Not mentioned by Tom in his deceitful post is that, as we can see, I also sent him my Islington Murder Mystery book. But he provides no explanation as to why he didn't review it in Ripperologist.

I remember being pissed off that I needed to make to visits to the Post Office to expensively send these two books across the Atlantic to Wescott who I rather suspected was just getting a free copy of my books to read for himself. Despite saying that my Camden Town Murder book was "extraordinarily well researched" he also says in his post, in somewhat in contradiction of that statement, that he "couldn't really read it" whatever that means (and it's the first time he's said this in ten years) but now that he's developed an interest in the Camden Town murder he might read the book for his own enjoyment and interest which wasn't why I took the time, trouble and expense to send him those books over to America ten years ago.

But, hey, he got two free books out of me, personally delivered to his door, so well done Tom.

But for him to falsely inform the members of JTR forums in a blatant attempt to smear me that I used to like him but then I sent him a book and pestered him for feedback is just a lie. No doubt this guy is someone who Jonathan Menges would describe as one of the leading Ripperologists in the field. I mean, lord help us. No wonder Ripperology is in such a state when people like this who have such little regard for truth and accuracy are operating.

GARY BARNETT (1)

Barnett was the first to react to Kattrup's fake news about my supposed retirement. His first comment was the obviously sarcastic "Missing him already…" followed by (strangely) "One of, possibly the, best researcher (sic) in the field. Let’s hope another subject within Ripperology piques his interest and he returns to the field". Nevertheless he was back later that day to say:

"Such a pity that he couldn’t actually prove that the use of ‘one-off’ didn’t pre-date the diary. I suspect it may well have done."

This is incomprehensible gibberish. Of course "one off instance" pre-dated the diary. Otherwise the forger wouldn't have known of the expression in order to use it!

But then we had this:

"He clearly didn’t pick up on the pre-diary equine usage of the term (or did but chose to conceal it), so perhaps he missed it (or discovered it and chose not to reveal the fact).

We’ll probably never know."

Although I've responded to this claim on multiple occasions, it later transpired that Barnett never bothered to see what I'd written about it. The short point is that the equine usage of "one off" to describe the age of a young horse is entirely irrelevant to the diary because the diarist wasn't attempting to describe the age of a horse.

SIMON WOOD

Then we had Simon Wood with this:

"He talks a good game, but is certainly not the ace researcher many believe him to be.

Much of the counter-research "[I'm right, so you are wrong"] material he has unearthed is laughably lame and falls at the first hurdle."

This was an extremely ironic comment from someone who has posted categoric statements in multiple internet discussion threads such as "Jack the Ripper didn't exist", "George Hutchinson didn't exist", "Mary Jane Kelly is not in the photograph" etc. etc. usually without any explanation and certainly with no evidence, but very much in an "I'm right so you are wrong" kind of way.

It's a shame that space was so tight on JTR Forums that Wood was unable to identify a single piece of my counter-research that is "laughably lame and falls at the first hurdle".

In similar fashion, the anonymous Guest (probably Phil Carter) who commented here on my Mistaken History article about Wood's book in which I identified numerous errors by Wood claimed that he'd found "many mistakes" in my article but was unable to identify a single one.

The other irony is that Wood has himself relied upon my research and changed his book in response to my findings but not always in a positive way. The classic example must be when I demonstrated that no Scotland Yard officers were in Spain when Richard Pigott shot himself, as Wood had originally claimed in his earlier books, but then changed it in his latest book to a claim that Scotland Yard officers were on their way to Spain at the time, even though I clearly proved that they only left London after Pigott committed suicide.

Why did he do such a thing? Because he wanted to keep some sort of mystery alive in the matter. He knew very well that what he was writing was untrue but stubbornly would not accept it. He deviously used an erroneous reference in another work of secondary literature to give him some sort of source even though it was a dud reference itself unsupported by any evidence. Another reflection on the sad state of Ripperology.

CAROLINE MORRIS-BROWN (1)

Of course she couldn't resist joining in the kick-Lord-Orsam-fest.

Her first attempt at a dig was:

"I trust he will enjoy a fulfilling and music-filled retirement and is not already regretting his public failure to prove who penned his bête noire."

She later claimed not to have read my posts so how does she know what I've proved and what I haven't?

In any event, what I always intended to do were two things:

1. Establish whether we can say that the diary is fake. I have done that in spades with my research on "one off instance". We now know for certain and incontrovertibly that the diary is a modern fake.

   
   

2. Establish if it was possible that the Barretts could be the authors of the diary in the face of claims by Caroline Morris-Brown that this was absurd. Clearly, the idea of the Barretts being the forgers cannot now be dismissed.

Apart from that, I'm not Scotland Yard with powers of interview, search and arrest so I could never "prove" who wrote the diary, nor have I been trying to. But given that the only alternative possibility, of it having been discovered at Battlecrease, has collapsed now that the star witness has been found to be wholly unreliable, the fact of the matter is that the Barretts are the only game in town.

GARY BARNETT (2)

Barnett then became irked by people singing my praises, so wrote this:

"David is unquestionably a very good researcher, but he’s also a rather nasty piece of work who has, for some odd reason, acquired a massive adoring fan base.

I believe he was in invited to join JTRForums some time ago, but for some reason never took up the offer."

Barnett doesn't know me. He's never met me or spoken to me or communicated with me outside of the Casebook forum. He doesn't even know anyone who knows me. All he knows of me is what I've publicly written, either online or in published works. For him to say without any foundation or justification, in circumstances where I have no right to reply, that I am a "nasty piece of work", so that any reader who doesn't know better may think that he has some kind of secret insight into my character, can only really be the type of abuse that comes from someone who is themselves is a very nasty person.

As for me having been invited to join JTR Forums, I can't see what possible relevance this has, or why he mentioned it. All that happened is that many years ago while I was a member of Casebook, Howard Brown sent me a PM inviting me to join JTR Forums but I politely declined on the basis that posting on one forum was taking up far too much of my time and I didn't want to post on two.

GARY BARNETT (3)

Addressing Michael Banks, Barnett wrote:

"So why might Michael have not mentioned and discounted the equestrian term ‘one-off’?"

He obviously meant to say "Lord Orsam", not "Michael", but the extraordinary thing about this is that I have mentioned the equestrian term "one off "on multiple occasions. In fact, every time Barnett mentioned it on JTR Forums I responded to his comments on my website.

After Chris Phillips told Barnett that several people had seen me writing about it, but that not everything on the website is still there, Barnett wrote:

"That’s rather convenient."

A strange comment, as if Chris Phillips was lying to him.

I can happily provide all the references. I discussed the equestrian/equine term "one off" in the following editions of "Lord Orsam Says..."

• Lord Orsam Says... Part 9 posted on 18 July 2020

• Lord Orsam Says... Part 10 posted on 1 August 2020

• Lord Orsam Says... Part 11 posted on 19 September 2020

• Lord Orsam Says... Parts 19 & 20 both posted on 20 November 2021

• Lord Orsam Says... Part 34 posted on 15 October 2022

• Lord Orsam Says ...Part 41 posted on 14 April 2023

Plus I collated my comments from parts 9, 10, 11, 19 & 20 into a separate article entitled "Equestrian Matters" which was published on 15 October 2022.

These were, of course, on the previous website but some or possibly all of these articles still survive on the Wayback Archive.

Barnett could and should have read all these articles but he obviously has no interest in what I have to say about the matter, preferring to pretend that I've been avoiding the issue.

In fact, Barnett was told on Casebook on 19th July 2020 (Special Announcement thread) by Al Bundy's Eyes that I had responded to his equine nonsense: "David has argued his case against equine use" Barnett was told.

Barnett's response?

"I hadn’t realised that David had responded to the discovery of the equine usage, but knowing his methods, I think I’ll pass on checking it out. He usually distorts others’ points and launches smokescreens of personal insults to disguise the fact."

So he knew about it but deliberately refused to read what I'd written and now, four years later, claims that I've never mentioned the equine usage and that it's "convenient" that my articles about it are no longer easy to find online. It's not even clear to me that he knows that my old website had to close down due to the termination of Webs' website service.

GARY BARNETT (4)

From his exchange with Michael Banks, it transpires that Barnett hasn't even read my articles about "one off instance" despite commenting negatively about them. He seemed baffled and flabbergasted by the notion that I'd found and posted examples of "one off" from the 1880s, even though I've always said that "one off" signified a quantity (of one) during the nineteenth century in technical manufacturing jargon.

This is just a basic part of my argument but Barnett was incredibly ignorant of it. No wonder he kept banging on about his horsey nonsense, being unaware that there was a far more relevant use of "one off" prior to 1888.

GARY BARNETT (5)

Chided by Admin not to write abusive posts directed at me, Barnett pushed back with:

"Are you aware of the numerous personal insults David has issued towards several of your long term members?"

Once again when it comes to anything connected with me, no examples are provided and it's unclear to me what he means.

I rather suspect that what he's referring to are not personal insults but rather the legitimate ridiculing by me of those who have made ludicrous arguments, such as the famous mis-dating of a magazine believed to be a nineteenth century Bee Journal which referred to a person as a "one off" which was, in fact, published in 1975. That kind of thing is perfectly reasonable to ridicule.

I don't think that being a member of JTR Forums could or should protect someone from being ridiculed. Nor should it allow a member of JTR Forums to call me "a nasty piece of work" without any justification or explanation as to what is meant by that.

But Barnett's argument was irrational and nonsensical. He continued with his post to Admin by saying:

"By allowing his blog to be posted here, you are accepting those to be repeated."

This is bizarre. It seems to be written by someone for whom English is not their first language and who has run a foreign language sentence through an online translator. I mean, my blog is not posted on JTR Forums. It's posted on this website. The fact that there is a thread to discuss my blog or provide links to it does not mean that JTR Forums is accepting anything I say.

In any event, most of the links posted in the thread are to my old website which won't work. What articles on this website does Barnett complain of? Why doesn't he link to some of these personal insults so that Steve knows what he's talking about?

It's perfectly clear what Barnett wants. He wants any mention of my website banned on JTR Forums because he can't bear criticism or ridicule of himself. It's as simple as that.

Then he asked Steve:

"Why aren’t we allowed to respond along the same lines?"

Well I'd like to know where I've ever referred to Barnett as a nasty piece of work on this website. In the unlikely event that I ever did say such a thing about someone, I'd explain it because, otherwise, it might mislead someone into thinking that I knew something about that person that wasn't public knowledge.

The funny thing about it is that if you go back through the Lord Orsam Blog thread on JTR Forums, you will find a stream of abuse posted liberally about me throughout the thread, mainly by Gary Barnett. For example, Barnett saying of me in 2019: 'I suspect the men in white coats are on their way' and 'Should we really be giving this fruit loop any publicity' while labelling me "the Spandex bully". This person then has the cheek to mislead Admin of JTR Forums into thinking that he is a poor innocent victim of personal insults, only responding to those insults.

The fact of the matter is that I barely even knew Gary Barnett existed when, on 10 May 2018, he referred to me on Casebook, in breach of all the posting rules, as "an insulting little twerp". On that occasion, he actually gave three examples of the supposed insults that I had used. One of them was "Dear boy"!!!! On no known planet is that an insult, and wasn't taken as such by the person I was addressing. The other was "muppets" which was the legitimate ridicule I was talking about of people who misdated a 1975 journal as being from the 1880s. The final one was "Chief Diary Defender" which is a description, not an insult in any known world. So he had nothing. No wonder he didn't give any examples to the Admin of JTR Forums of any personal insults. He's happy to make claims but not prepared to back them up.

GARY BARNETT (6)

The smear campaign continued as Barnett said to Admin of JTR Forums in a further post:

"But, Steve, are you happy that Lord O’s endless personal nastiness towards some of your long term supporters is repeated by links on JTRF?"

Again, not a single example of any personal nastiness that can be found in any link that exists on JTR Forums was provided by Barnett. Barnett just assumes that it exists but fails to justify the claim.

But frankly, lets say I was being nasty to people who happen to be members of JTR Forums. What does that have to do with the Admin of JTR Forums? It's not the job of Admin of JTR Forums to protect those who happen to be members of JTR Forums from external criticism or nastiness, is it?

Barnett added:

"I’m pretty sure (I would hope!) that If had endlessly slagged off JTRF members in the way Lord O has over the years, I would have been banned from the site."

So let me get this right. The way Barnett thinks of it, he's not allowed to slag off JTR Forum members who are able to respond directly to him but he thinks he can slag off Lord Orsam who cannot respond to him.... and he certainly does slag off Lord Orsam gratuitously at every opportunity.

And still no examples of what he means by me endlessly slagging off JTR Forums members. I'd like to know what he's talking about. But I really have no idea. I can only really think that when he refers to "JTR forums members" he means himself but, if that's the case, why doesn't he say so? And if he does mean himself, what endless slagging off is he referring to? Where does one find it? It should be really easy to identify it, being endless.

He seems determined to have any mention of my website banned from JTR Forums for his own personal reasons. Isn't that kind of fascistic?

It's very ironic because one of the reasons I was keen to start this website was to counter false claims Barnett was making on JTR Forums about my Lechmere related name research without any pushback from anyone. Very shortly after starting this site, I posted my counter-research which proved that Barnett was wrong in the criticisms he had made of me (here), although I didn't mention him by name. That research was drawn to his attention by a JTR Forums member (and there were no insults in the post) but Barnett either refused to read it or, more likely, did read it and pretended not to, so he never withdrew his erroneous criticism. That is a mark of the man. It's why I have no respect for him. He never seems to own up to his mistakes. He just goes quiet when he's shown to be wrong. I've seen him do it time and time again.

GARY BARNETT (7)

As time has gone on in the Lord Orsam Blog thread, Barnett seems to have lost touch with reality.

He posted:

"I did follow his nonsense as far as he suggested that the term couldn’t possibly have predated 1900 or thereabouts.

How embarrassing it must have been for him to find written evidence of its usage a couple of decades previously.

Little wonder he decided to remove himself from the field."

Thankfully Michael Banks was able to put him straight and let him know that I've never suggested that "one off" didn't exist in the 19th century.... but what an absolutely daft thing for him to say.

Oh hold on, am I allowed to say that a JTR Forum member has said a daft thing? Or should this website be permanently banned for making the suggestion?

CAROLINE MORRIS-BROWN (2)

It wasn't long before Morris-Brown took her cue from Barnett and stepped forward to portray herself as a poor innocent victim of Lord Orsam, something which will no doubt play well with naive readers such as Jonathan Menges but will cut no ice for anyone who has been on the end of one of her regular tongue lashings.

In her post we had an absolute classic Morris-Brownism:

"I have been made aware that David has tried to insult me personally on his blog. What he may not know is that while words have not hurt me since I reached adulthood, I'd sooner not tempt fate by reading any of his, thanks all the same".

She's been "made aware" you see. She hasn't seen it for herself. But someone has made her aware that I've tried (and failed?) to personally insult her. I guess, because she's never actually read this supposed attempt at personal insult, she wasn't able to quote it or link to it. What a shame. Does she actually know what I'm supposed to have said? It really isn't clear. How reliable is her source? If he or she is a diary defender then probably not very reliable.

This is unsurprising and typical victimhood on her part, the poor little flower who would never have a harsh word to say about anyone (as long as they are a diary defender!)

She says that she didn't need to read my posts because the "juiciest bones" of my research are relayed by others but she's wrong about that. There's plenty of stuff I post that doesn't get mentioned on the boards. RJ Palmer mentions some but not all of it by any means.

And I can provide a classic example why she did need to read my posts. In one of her posts to Michael Banks she wrote:

"Gary found an instance of 'top myself', to mean suicide by hanging, in a newspaper from the 1870s, and his discovery came years after it was originally claimed by an expert that the first ever use of the expression did not appear in print until 1958."

That claim (which she's made before) is false. I've explained on more than one occasion why it is false.

The expert in question, Dr Kate Flint, did NOT claim that the first use of the expression "top myself" did not appear in print until 1958. What she said, as reported by the Sunday Times of 19 September 1993, was that was that the expression "top myself" was "not recorded" until 1958.  That's a very different matter. Dr Flint was entirely correct that it wasn't recorded (by any dictionary) before that time, which makes the expression clearly anachronistic for an 1888 diary.

So, unless Caroline Morris-Brown positively enjoys making false statements on the internet, she should have been reading my blog posts about the diary to educate herself on the facts.

But there's always a reason provided by these people as to why they can't read my posts.

Here is what she says about that:

"Fortunately I never needed to, because he always had people who were only too willing to fetch the juiciest bones of his research to the message boards - without the lengthy and unedifying padding, which I am led to understand typically accompanied it. I suppose I could understand why others have devoured every morsel if they have not been one of his targets - and have a lot more spare time than those of us who have been. But even if he had totally ignored me as some harmless idiot, I think I would have found it hard going and distasteful picking my way through reams of bile aimed at others - and not just people I like and respect and have no quarrel with - just to find the useful nuggets which eventually find their way onto the boards anyway via faithful messengers. But each to their own."

All she's doing here is trying to tell the world (and me) that she's not reading my posts but, of course, if she did read them she could answer all my points about the diary, and, any case, she knows from what others say that she doesn't need to.

I can guarantee that not everything I post finds its way onto the boards. That Dr Flint thing is just one small example. For someone supposedly interested in the diary I think it's just childish that she refuses to read my posts or at least refuses to acknowledge reading them.

For myself, I do try to read all her online posts but I must admit - and I don't say this out of any desire to insult - that many of her posts are so full of baffling and incomprehensible long-winded speculation without any substance whatsoever that find myself skipping through them at lightning speed without, I'm satisfied, losing any of the little meaning they contain. But I do attempt to read them. I don't put forward lightweight and flimsy excuses about imaginary "reams of bile" for not doing so.

THE END

Well I think that's enough from me. Already people will say that they can't read this blog post because it's too long without considering that I'm replying in one post to about 30 different posts all full of unmitigated nonsense about which I could have said a lot more. But I really don't enjoy wasting my time and I do hope that I don't have to come back to counter more lies told about me.

LORD ORSAM

13 November 2024

UPDATE 13.11.2024

Upon reviewing some later emails, I find that Tom Wescott did write to me further about the Camden Town Murder Mystery on 29 June 2015, which I'd forgotten about. Here's what he wrote:

"Hi David, I hope all is well. I see you're publishing in Rip under your real name. Brave man! LOL. I look forward to receiving the issue and reading it. Speaking of which, I've started your Camden Town book. Cracking stuff so far, though I confess I'm rather ignorant of that crime."

"Cracking stuff so far" he told me at the time and now he says he "couldn't really read it". Make of that what you will.

FURTHER UPDATE 14.11.2024

Bang on cue, as if to demonstrate that RJ Palmer doesn't always put across my own views by any means, he has posted this morning on JTR Forums that those defending the Maybrick Hoax "can bask in the glory of yesteryear when Dr Kate Flint was wrong about 'top myself'."

But I don't accept she was wrong.

I assume that RJ has accepted, on trust, Caroline Morris-Brown's claim that "it was originally claimed by an expert [Dr Kate Flint] that the first ever use of the expression did not appear in print until 1958." The fact that Morris-Brown didn't quote Dr Flint saying this should be a red flag to anyone. If a Diary Defender doesn't provide supporting proof of what they're saying it should, by default, be disbelieved. At the very least, evidence should be requested.

This is what was reported in the Sunday Times of 19 September 1993 which is what I believe Morris-Brown was referring to:

There are two things apparently said there by Dr Flint, both of which are true.

The first (albeit not a direct quote), in the first paragraph, is that "to top myself" meaning to commit suicide was not recorded until 1958.

This is correct. As at September 1993 "to top myself" meaning to commit suicide was not recorded in any dictionary as having been used prior to 1958.

While the second thing said by Dr Flint, being the quote in the second paragraph, might on its face seem to support the Morris-Brown position to some extent (even though the year 1958 isn't mentioned in that paragraph), the fact of the matter is that the expression "to top myself" meaning to commit suicide has not been found prior to 1888. What Barnett found from an 1877 newspaper was the words "top himself". Yet, the preceding paragraph was clear that the expression in question was "top myself" not "top himself". So, strictly speaking, Flint was again correct. It's not just a technical point either because the issue was whether a diarist in 1888 was likely to have written "top myself" in the diary. If that exact expression had never been in print in the 1880s and had only appeared in a different form in a single newspaper based on what a single prisoner had said eleven years earlier, this must mean that it is highly improbable that someone writing a document in 1888 would have used it.

Not, of course, impossible, which distinguishes it from "one off instance" (due to the latest research subsequent to 1993 which now shows that expression to be an impossibility for 1888) but highly improbable. It's clearly anachronistic - still not having been found in print until the 20th century - and demonstrating on its own that the diary is a fake, so the diary defenders who do bask in the glory of the 1877 discovery are doing so under false pretences.

Just one other thing. A new member joined the site this week, so it IS possible to do it. I have no idea how though. But if you're not a member and you want to be notified of any future blog posts after this one (and the Ripper element of this site will be going dark very shortly) you might want to use some initiative and work out how to sign up.