Lord Orsam's Blog

[Chris Phillips]

If they are highly personalised attacks on individuals - which they invariably are - they don?t deserve a response. End of.

Fair enough to ignore ad hominem attacks, but if you're saying David's work is nothing more than ad hominem attacks, that's clearly wrong.

[Gary Barnett]

Fair enough to ignore ad hominem attacks, but if you're saying David's work is nothing more than ad hominem attacks, that's clearly wrong.

Don?t do an Orsam on me, Chris. ;-)

Much of his research is littered with snide comments and digs at other researchers.

[Scott Nelson]

Hey! I finally got a few mentions on Orsam's blog! "Little Scottie Nelson"

Thanks David Orsam, Esq.

[Trevor Marriott]

Don?t do an Orsam on me, Chris. ;-)

Much of his research is littered with snide comments and digs at other researchers.

He has challenged what some researchers have said on certain topics in Ripperology stating quite bluntly that they have been wrong and have misled the ripper community, and he has put his money where his mouth is by showing quite clearly the proof he has to back up what he alleges.

If those researchers can prove that he is wrong, and that they are in fact quite correct, then it is for them to step up to the plate and rebut what he is stating. or argue their case in any way they see fit, or have the metal to stand up and say yes I am wrong you are right.

But we haven't seen that, the silence has been deafening from those who have been targeted and those whose research has been brought into question, leading the rest of us to accept what he is saying as being correct.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Gary Barnett]

Hey! I finally got a few mentions on Orsam's blog! "Little Scottie Nelson"

Thanks David Orsam, Esq.

Don’t be so modest. It was ‘Little Scottie Nelson Esq.’

[Scott Nelson]

Yeah, OK. Your "clanging" must be drying up too, Gary. It was only mentioned a couple of times.

[Gary Barnett]

Yeah, OK. Your "clanging" must be drying up too, Gary. It was only mentioned a couple of times.

So, Scott, what’s your opinion of notorious Jack McCarthy now? It seems he handed responsibility for running his hovels over to his mad, blind brother-in-law - presumably so he could concentrate on his charity work.

[Caroline Brown]

Why on earth would I want to read any of his obsessive personal attacks? I know he can't help himself, because I have it on good authority, and I'd sooner have raging toothache than go there - thanks all the same for the heads up, Trev, Chris, whoever.

If and when The Good Lord provides actual proof of a Barrett hand in the diary, perhaps one of you would be good enough to let me know, and share that proof, pure and simple, without any of the hostile trimmings.

I won't be holding my breath in the meantime.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris Phillips]

Why on earth would I want to read any of his obsessive personal attacks? I know he can't help himself, because I have it on good authority, and I'd sooner have raging toothache than go there - thanks all the same for the heads up, Trev, Chris, whoever.

Sadly, personal attacks on both sides have been par for the course as far as discussion of the Diary have been concerned. It has been utterly poisonous, and I think it would have been far better for Ripper research if the Diary had never existed. I wish it could be totally ignored. I wish everyone - including David - would stop discussing it.


But if people are still interested in discussing it, it's obvious why people would want to read David's contributions. Because the quality of his research is high and because - if people must carry on discussing the Diary - they will find new and relevant information there.


I can understand why people feel hostile to him, because he has no hesitation in ridiculing people on the other side of the argumemt. But if someone provided new information on the Mattan case, for example, of course I would want to read it - even if they criticised me, ridiculed me, and generally dragged me through the dirt.

[Mr. Poster]

One wonders of course what is his primary objective - uncovering "truths" or something and the nasty bile is just a secondary thing...... or could it be slinging bile is his main objective and he just needs something to hang it on?

In which case...one wonders also..... to what extent is he willing to cut corners or just rely on weak semantical arguments so that his main interest - bile slinging - can be pursued?

Saying that, I will always have a pedestal for him as his Spandau Ballet research was superlative and made the world a better place to live in for so many of us.

While 2020 will probably not be viewed as a vintage year for many, for me personally I view it as the year I was reborn - enlightened as to the back story of Spandau Ballet and the better man for it.

P

[Trevor Marriott]

One wonders of course what is his primary objective - uncovering "truths" or something and the nasty bile is just a secondary thing...... or could it be slinging bile is his main objective and he just needs something to hang it on?

In which case...one wonders also..... to what extent is he willing to cut corners or just rely on weak semantical arguments so that his main interest - bile slinging - can be pursued?

Saying that, I will always have a pedestal for him as his Spandau Ballet research was superlative and made the world a better place to live in for so many of us.

While 2020 will probably not be viewed as a vintage year for many, for me personally I view it as the year I was reborn - enlightened as to the back story of Spandau Ballet and the better man for it.

P

His primary objective would seem to be pointing out to the ripper community the errors, mistakes, deliberate misgivings, and the conclusions arrived at by those who have been directly involved in the diary over the past years, which clearly are significant in the grand scheme of things, which if true show a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by those named.

Over the last 4 months he has produced a plethora of evidence in support of what he postulates and over that time not one person who he has challenged has bothered to either prove him right or wrong.

Ignoring what he writes only plays into his hand, and those who he calls over the coals should either accept or reject what he is stating, and either prove him wrong, or equally come out and admit they were wrong, because he will not let this rest be assured of that now he knows at this time he has the upper hand.

He has thrown down the gauntlet will anyone be brave enough to pick it up?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Gary Barnett]

One wonders of course what is his primary objective - uncovering "truths" or something and the nasty bile is just a secondary thing...... or could it be slinging bile is his main objective and he just needs something to hang it on?

In which case...one wonders also..... to what extent is he willing to cut corners or just rely on weak semantical arguments so that his main interest - bile slinging - can be pursued?

Saying that, I will always have a pedestal for him as his Spandau Ballet research was superlative and made the world a better place to live in for so many of us.

While 2020 will probably not be viewed as a vintage year for many, for me personally I view it as the year I was reborn - enlightened as to the back story of Spandau Ballet and the better man for it.

P

I wonder what % of his articles do not contain a put down of other researchers?

[Gary Barnett]

His primary objective would seem to be pointing out to the ripper community the errors, mistakes, deliberate misgivings, and the conclusions arrived at by those who have been directly involved in the diary over the past years, which clearly are significant in the grand scheme of things, which if true show a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by those named.

Over the last 4 months he has produced a plethora of evidence in support of what he postulates and over that time not one person who he has challenged has bothered to either prove him right or wrong.

Ignoring what he writes only plays into his hand, and those who he calls over the coals should either accept or reject what he is stating, and either prove him wrong, or equally come out and admit they were wrong, because he will not let this rest be assured of that now he knows at this time he has the upper hand.

He has thrown down the gauntlet will anyone be brave enough to pick it up?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you’ve not seen a single challenge to any of his research on here?

[Trevor Marriott]

I wonder what % of his articles do not contain a put down of other researchers?

Perhaps he feels obliged to put down researchers in that way because of how he suggests they have deliberately been misleading and underhanded.

You know that old saying "stick and stones"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Gary Barnett]

Perhaps he feels obliged to put down researchers in that way because of how he suggests they have deliberately been misleading and underhanded.

You know that old saying "stick and stones"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Is that your take on it, Trevor?

Then perhaps you can explain in what way I’ve been misleading and underhanded.

I’ve no doubt my look at Andrew Stevens will generate a lengthy, personalised rebuttal and a new range of T shirts. Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways, because I’m not aware that I’ve done anything underhanded or mislead anyone. I just think his sneering Public Service Announcement is based on half-arsed research.