Lord Orsam's Blog

[Howard Brown]

I've moved David's blog to the Ripper Media section....

[Guest]

Quoting from just a selection of times in his 2,500 words written about me on his blog when he requests further information from me concerning his departure from Casebook and my possible role in it:

But since I've revealed that he actually did tell me that he HAD effectively reported the thread to Ally Ryder he's gone very quiet...

Well let's not mess about. I know he did write to her. So why doesn't he reveal what he said?

So why not be open and honest about what he said to the Administrator of Casebook about me in May 2018? Let's get to the bottom of this subject, Jonathan.

If Jonathan Menges thinks I've misinterpreted the facts, let him post the actual facts.

What I know for a fact is that there are circumstances that have not been publicly revealed and I challenge Mr Menges to either reveal those circumstances himself or allow me to do so.


I repeat so that there is no doubt: what I want from him is the truth about what he did in May 2018. Why is he so reluctant to reveal that truth? Is he ashamed of what he did?



I won't be sharing private email exchanges in public nor will I share private messages in public but I'll provide a little more detail. This shouldn't be totally brand new to David as I've already told him most of this.



For several private reasons this past year that are none of David's business Ally hasn't been able to devote her full attention to the boards and the dozens of report post alerts that flood into her Casebook inbox daily. That is why she eventually asked me to help moderate the message boards.



Anyway, Back to May of 2018...
I didn't "effectively" report the thread to Ally. More than one person apparently used the report post function on that thread, as I believe Ally indicated to David. I was not one of them.
I do speak to Ally a few times a week as we've been good friends for twenty years and the topic of that thread came up as it had been reported and Ally had read it. But it was not reported by me.


As I've already told David, and what I said to Ally, was that Michael Hawley was complaining about David's behavior on the thread but I didn't believe that David was breaking any rules. I told Ally, as I've already told David, Mike's constant reposting of the same post over and over again and his complaining was getting annoying. David's habit of taking 10 posts to reply to one, quoting a single sentence picked out for each post was also annoying, but I felt that it was mainly Hawley instigating this by refusing to answer the points David was raising. I've already said all of this to David months ago.

Again, as I've already told David- and I quote from my message to Ally- "Orsam is not really breaking any rules as he's criticizing a published author's research. If Mike wanted to have a thread promoting his book and exclude all posts but those praising him he clearly doesn't know how Casebook works."

Ally's reply was that there is a balance and she'd figure out a solution. She thought that people would draw their own conclusions by Mike's refusal to answer and, if not for Orsam, there would be no posts on the thread at all. Basically she was saying that no one gave a shit about the book but David.


That's the extent of my communication with Ally about the thread.

She decided to lock the thread. That was her decision alone. David apparently took umbrage at her decision and exchanged messages with her. I don't know the content of those messages, but apparently it is those messages between David and Ally that led to his departure from Casebook.


So in a nutshell... I thought Michael Hawley-not David- was at fault on the thread. Ally locked the thread. David apparently got whiny at Ally privately (I can imagine) and also apparently made threats of legal action against Casebook...and so now David is no longer a member of Casebook.



I'd say that's "The End" of this issue but we really know it's not.




JM

[Guest]

Feel free to delete the post if you want Howard as it’s Casebook’s business.

All that really needed to be said is that it wasn’t the thread that sent David from Casebook but what he wrote in his later exchanges with Admin. If he hadn’t complained to her about her decision to lock it he’d probably still be a member.

And for the record, I wish he was still a member.

JM

[Howard Brown]

I'll let it ride, Jon. Its not a problem. Many members of The Forums are also members of Casebook and I'm sure those who'd read what David wrote were wondering how the person accused would respond.

As far as we're concerned, the matter is concluded. It is Casebook's business and any future postings on the issue will be removed.

Thank you.

[Guest]

Yep the matter is concluded for me, too.

No doubt David will have an additional 3,000 words to say about the subject though.

JM

[Caroline Brown]

The Eleven Days
https://www.orsam.co.uk/theelevendays.htm

Okay, I'm weak. But I just had to take a sneaky peek and within seconds fully appreciated how Mike Barrett, even with his bullshi*ometer cranked up to eleven, was able to fool some of the most intelligent seeming characters in Ripperology, with the following sneaky tweak:

Michael Barrett told the invited guests... [not a good start, when recalling that this man couldn't lie straight in bed] that 'he had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually forged the Diary. When the agent took the bait, Barrett claimed, he found himself with just eleven days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary.'

Back to reality, the simplest translation would be:

Michael Barrett had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually managed to acquire the "old book" he had just been shown in the Saddle. When the agent took the bait, Barrett found himself with just eleven days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary.

How hard can this be?

Love,

Caz
X

[Howard Brown]

November 24, 2019

The latest from Dave's Blog

Lord Orsam Says Now.....

https://www.orsam.co.uk/lorsmsays.htm

Who Was the Worst Jack the Ripper Writer?

https://www.orsam.co.uk/worstjtrwriter.htm

[Paul Butler]

Okay, I'm weak. But I just had to take a sneaky peek and within seconds fully appreciated how Mike Barrett, even with his bullshi*ometer cranked up to eleven, was able to fool some of the most intelligent seeming characters in Ripperology, with the following sneaky tweak:

Michael Barrett told the invited guests... [not a good start, when recalling that this man couldn't lie straight in bed] that 'he had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually forged the Diary. When the agent took the bait, Barrett claimed, he found himself with just eleven days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary.'

Back to reality, the simplest translation would be:

Michael Barrett had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually managed to acquire the "old book" he had just been shown in the Saddle. When the agent took the bait, Barrett found himself with just eleven days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary.

How hard can this be?

Love,

Caz
X

Agreed Caroline. The simplest explanations are more often than not the right ones.

[Abby Normal]

Okay, I'm weak. But I just had to take a sneaky peek and within seconds fully appreciated how Mike Barrett, even with his bullshi*ometer cranked up to eleven, was able to fool some of the most intelligent seeming characters in Ripperology, with the following sneaky tweak:

Michael Barrett told the invited guests... [not a good start, when recalling that this man couldn't lie straight in bed] that 'he had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually forged the Diary. When the agent took the bait, Barrett claimed, he found himself with just eleven days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary.'

Back to reality, the simplest translation would be:

Michael Barrett had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually managed to acquire the "old book" he had just been shown in the Saddle. When the agent took the bait, Barrett found himself with just eleven days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary.

How hard can this be?

Love,

Caz
X

apparently pretty hard, if you cant tell the difference between forging a diary and acquiring an old book lol

[Abby Normal]

Agreed Caroline. The simplest explanations are more often than not the right ones.

no. that wasn't a simplest explanation it was a convoluted "translation" -and those are more often than not-not the right ones.

[Scott Nelson]

What's your reaction to Lord Orsam's take on your Torso obsession, Abby?

[Abby Normal]

What's your reaction to Lord Orsam's take on your Torso obsession, Abby?

mild euphoria

[Paul Butler]

no. that wasn't a simplest explanation it was a convoluted "translation" -and those are more often than not-not the right ones.

No. Caroline's explanation is not only the simplest, it's also probably the right one.

[Kattrup]

No. Caroline's explanation is not only the simplest, it's also probably the right one.

Could you expand on why you believe it to be simpler? It seems to involve a further step (the “translation”) so how is it simpler?

[R. J. Palmer]

I swore off discussing the Maybrick Diary (or at least I am trying), but I do wish Caz would translate her translation, as it eludes me. What am I missing? How does her scenario make any sense?

Barrett first called Doreen's office on 9 March, 1992, the same day Dodd was having some work done on his house. Barrett called back the next day, 10 March, announcing he had the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

Mike didn't show up in London with the scrapbook until 13 April.

So under what circumstance would Mike say he only had "11 days" to acquire "the book" before meeting with Doreen in London when he actually had something like 34 days?

The whole point of Lord Orsam's "11 days" timeframe is that it dates from the only logical point that Barrett would have acquired the scrapbook/photo album from the auctioneers O & L, ie., 31 March, 1992.

By contrast, from what event is Caz measuring her "11 days" and why?

Finally, perhaps I will regret bringing this up, but for Caz's theory to work, she has to admit that the Barretts DID create at least ONE elaborate hoax on their word processor: Mike's research notes. Think it through, for it's a tough sell; the jury is going to have to accept that the Barretts didn't forge the diary, but, after acquiring "the book" and contacting Doreen, they DID go home, bone-up on Colin Wilson, Paul Harrison, etc., create bogus research notes, backdate them to August 1991, and then dishonestly turn them over to Shirley Harrison in July. And those notes refer to Tales of Liverpool, a book not even in their possession during that timeframe, April-July 1992 (when Caz must be theorizing these bogus notes were created) but HAD been in their possession the previous summer when Devereux was still alive, 1991. The ownership of the booklet has to be ignored as a "coincidence" for the Battlecrease Burglary Heist to be believed.

Get better, Caz. Maybe when your head clears you'll be able to explain how this 'works.' The Barretts are guilty of one hoaxed document, but not the other?