How do Suspects compare?

[PaulB]

Where Paul and I disagree -- we agreeably disagree about everything --

I have to disagree with you there. We do not disagree about everything.

[PaulB]

.
I have never suggested the matters we are discussing are original to me I am simply highlighting the flaws and as you know there are very many.

It gives people a better perspective on the case and allows further food for thought and for others to consider whether or not the historical documents and other facts you and others seek to rely can safely be relied upon.

The point is that they are not original to you, but have been thought of by others and answered. And you are not giving people reasons for considering whether the source materials can be relied on. You are stating that they can't be. The Littlechild letter is an authentic document written by a senior and informed source, you have no evidence at all to so much as suggest that he was mistaken or wrong in saying that Tumblety was a suspect in 1888. All you've done is argue that Littlechild is worthless because he is uncorroborated by 1888 sources, and when it is pointed out that Tumblety himself acknowledged that he'd been a suspect, you attribute that to Tumblety being a self-publicist, and the US press simply picking up on what Tumblety said. None of it supported by a tittle of evidence or reasoned arguent.

[PaulB]

What those authors thought and belived and wrote is unreliable and uncorroborated by official documents and as I said previous should not be relied upon as primary sources.

The trouble with historians as I see it is they automatically accept without question as gospel what has been written in the past and wont accept new things which have a modern day impact on those past historical facts.

No offence intended here Trevor, but you really are talking trough your anal orifice. If you really understood what history is and what historians do you would know that the very, very, very, last thing they do is unquestioningly accept what was written in the past. The whole reason for their existence is arguably to question what was written in the past. That's how academic historians mostly spend their days, and constantly looking for fresh approaches and new interpretations. That's why history is a living subject, constantly evolving, always and forever responding to fresh perspectives. Sorry, Trevor, but Jack the Ripper isn't a modern day crime investigation, it's history, and it is subject to the tools of the historian. To even think, let alone express the opinion that historians 'automatically accept without question as gospel what has been written in the past' simply demonstrates that you don't really understand what history is and what historians do. If you had even the slightest idea of what history is and what historians do you wouldn't ever make such a completely asinine comment. It is such an utterly absurd thing to say.

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally Posted by Jonathan H View Post
To Trevor

Paul is correct about historical methodology being the only science-of-detection left to us.

I am sorry I have to disagree

And unfortunately you are utterly wrong to do so.

Where Paul and I disagree -- we agreeably disagree about everything -- is that I do not see Dr. Tumblety as a suspect but rather the police suspect of 1888.

Had perhaps an academic historian, with the time and the resources of a college or university, tackled this topic Tumblety would have been inevitably found in the US newspapers -- and then in the more oblique fragments in the UK press.

I have said before what was written by the press cannot be safely relied upon yet people still want to use it as primary sources


And as has been pointed out to you time and time again, the only - only - evidence for the past you possess are the voices of those who were there and who speak to us through what has survived, and that includes newspapers. As for 'safely relied upon', do you imagine that is a thought original to you?

.
I have never suggested the matters we are discussing are original to me I am simply highlighting the flaws and as you know there are very many.

It gives people a better perspective on the case and allows further food for thought and for others to consider whether or not the historical documents and other facts you and others seek to rely can safely be relied upon.

[PaulB]

Originally Posted by Jonathan H View Post
To Trevor

Paul is correct about historical methodology being the only science-of-detection left to us.

I am sorry I have to disagree

And unfortunately you are utterly wrong to do so.

Where Paul and I disagree -- we agreeably disagree about everything -- is that I do not see Dr. Tumblety as a suspect but rather the police suspect of 1888.

Had perhaps an academic historian, with the time and the resources of a college or university, tackled this topic Tumblety would have been inevitably found in the US newspapers -- and then in the more oblique fragments in the UK press.

I have said before what was written by the press cannot be safely relied upon yet people still want to use it as primary sources


And as has been pointed out to you time and time again, the only - only - evidence for the past you possess are the voices of those who were there and who speak to us through what has survived, and that includes newspapers. As for 'safely relied upon', do you imagine that is a thought original to you?

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

Well, we agree to disagree.

The notion of a suicided doctor as chief suspect was propagated by Macnaghten via George Sims.

Of course, the 'drowned doctor' was, by implication, an Englishman who took his own life in the Thames. On the other hand, Like Tumblety he was a police suspect in 1888, very affluent, friends no family and was out of action after the Kelly murder.

The Littlechild Letter, with Tumblety as a potetnial suicide when he was nothing of the kind, arguably shows how much Sims' Ripper was a fusion of Druitt and Tumblety -- with a perplexed Jack Littlechild in 1913 recognising some of the American suspect's features.

Your notion -- and it's a widely believed mistake -- was that the police thought that Kelly was the last murder and that 'Jack' was gone, either made, fled or dead at the time.

Hence the myth that the timing of Druitt's suicide put him in the frame. A rigorous examination of the primary sources shows that this is, to use your word, 'rubbish'.

These were all later notions, post-dating 1891 and the Coles murder, which were backdated into the initial investigation. All of the police sources do this, except Macnaghten (in his own name, in public) and Reid.

Let me try a circuit-breaker here, Trevor.

It's 1891, and you're the second-in-command at CID, and you investigate the unlikely tale of a tragic chappie as the fiend, a gentleman who is long deceased and by his own hand. This is, by the way, in the immediate aftermath of the Tom Sadler disappointment.

Unexpectedly you are totally convinced by what you learn about this deceased man, who can never never be arrested, or tried, or convicted.

What do you do next ...?

[Trevor Marriott]

Littlechild said Tumblety as suspected and he gave it as his opinion that Tumblety was 'a very likely one'. Either he was or he wasn't.



Er, yes. So they were suspects. There was reason, albeit rubbishy ones, for suspecting them. Therefore they were - suspects. Not very good ones, admittedly, but that's presumably what distinguished Tumblety from them, at least in Littlechild's eyes. What is your point.

You keep missing the point and are bgetting carried away with the term suspect "people who are investigated" and "very likley suspects" are one and and the same.

The catergory of people who were "investigated" as I have said is vast they would not be elevated to a "likley suspect"unless enough information or evidence was obtained from them being "initially investigated"


Assuming Tumblety wanted it. How much do you know about him. But what you think without evidence what Tumblety was doing, as opposed to what Littlechild thought of the reasons why Tumblety was suspected, are two entirely different things.



Sorry, you're wrong Trevor, and you have been answered already. This isn't a court of law, if it was then the onus would be on Littlechild because he is the person making the claim. But Llttlechild is long dead. We have only got the material which has survived and on that a conclusion must be based. Asking for material which has not survived is a bit silly when you know my time machine is in the shop...



Nope. Who is saying any of them were? As said in an earlier post, I don't even think Littlechild was saying it.



Well, actually, it is. In one sense anyway. Because the source, who was there, who had access to the facts, is telling you something. You are challenging it. You are the prosecution. You are the one who must prove the source wrong.

The reality, of course, is that what everyone should be doing is trying to establish the facts and get at the truth.

That what we are trying to do but that wont happen whilst people keep citing newspapers and opinions of the likes of Littlechild and using them as primary sources along with their own wild speculative theories.

Well, if you were casting doubt on the evidence and applying sensible and logical reasoning then you might have a point, but you're not. Not by a long way. You haven't cast any doubt at all on the Littlechild Letter, the Swanson Marginalia, or the Macnaghten Memorandum. You've done little more than cite some of the long recognised problems with these documents as if they were new and hitherto unconsidered and answered, but which i any case don't prove in any way that these documents aren't authentic and the genuine reflection of what their authors thought and believed at the time of writing. And to use Tumblety as an example, you fly in the face of Littlechild, the US press, and Tumblety himself, to argued that there is no evidence that Tumblety was ever suspected in 1888. And in order to do that you seek to redefine the meaning of 'suspect'. That's a fairly long way from sensible and logical...

I simply asked for you or anyone else for evidence to show Tumblety was regarded as a police suspect at the time of the murders and before he absconded. because if there is none all the rubbish that is suggested happened with him after he absconded has no relevance.

Problems I think you should have said major problems with regards to those docunents you mentioned above

What those authors thought and belived and wrote is unreliable and uncorroborated by official documents and as I said previous should not be relied upon as primary sources.

The trouble with historians as I see it is they automatically accept without question as gospel what has been written in the past and wont accept new things which have a modern day impact on those past historical facts.

[PaulB]

Littlechild didnt have to be specifically lying did he if as I said previous Tumblety was a person investigated and not regarded as a suspect then would that not categorise him as "A very likely suspect" its a play on words you should know that better than anyone.

Littlechild said Tumblety as suspected and he gave it as his opinion that Tumblety was 'a very likely one'. Either he was or he wasn't.

The existing files are littered with persons who were investigated but none of those were elevated to suspect status. Many of those were as a result of the persons concerned telling others that they were the ripper and for those persons to then tell the police. The result being is that they were eliminated from any further suspicion

Er, yes. So they were suspects. There was reason, albeit rubbishy ones, for suspecting them. Therefore they were - suspects. Not very good ones, admittedly, but that's presumably what distinguished Tumblety from them, at least in Littlechild's eyes. What is your point.

Now didnt Tumblety do that with his press interview in a simliar way by telling the press he had been suspected of being the infamous JTR. Thats the kind of publicity money couldnt buy.

Assuming Tumblety wanted it. How much do you know about him. But what you think without evidence what Tumblety was doing, as opposed to what Littlechild thought of the reasons why Tumblety was suspected, are two entirely different things.

And i am stil waiting for you to provide the evidence to show he was a suspect. It goes back to the burden of proof not just with Tumblety but will all the other suspects. The onus is on those who champion the various suspects to prove the cases against them beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sorry, you're wrong Trevor, and you have been answered already. This isn't a court of law, if it was then the onus would be on Littlechild because he is the person making the claim. But Llttlechild is long dead. We have only got the material which has survived and on that a conclusion must be based. Asking for material which has not survived is a bit silly when you know my time machine is in the shop...

After all they cant all have been JTR could they ?

Nope. Who is saying any of them were? As said in an earlier post, I don't even think Littlechild was saying it.

If I am and others are saying they are not JTR its not for us to prove them innocent.

Well, actually, it is. In one sense anyway. Because the source, who was there, who had access to the facts, is telling you something. You are challenging it. You are the prosecution. You are the one who must prove the source wrong.

The reality, of course, is that what everyone should be doing is trying to establish the facts and get at the truth.

But by casting a doubt about the "evidence and facts" you and others seek to rely on and applying sensible and logical reasoning there can only be one ending "no case to answer" against them

Which leaves us with

No prime suspects

Very few likely suspects

and a plethora of names of people who were investigated and eliminated

Well, if you were casting doubt on the evidence and applying sensible and logical reasoning then you might have a point, but you're not. Not by a long way. You haven't cast any doubt at all on the Littlechild Letter, the Swanson Marginalia, or the Macnaghten Memorandum. You've done little more than cite some of the long recognised problems with these documents as if they were new and hitherto unconsidered and answered, but which i any case don't prove in any way that these documents aren't authentic and the genuine reflection of what their authors thought and believed at the time of writing. And to use Tumblety as an example, you fly in the face of Littlechild, the US press, and Tumblety himself, to argued that there is no evidence that Tumblety was ever suspected in 1888. And in order to do that you seek to redefine the meaning of 'suspect'. That's a fairly long way from sensible and logical...

[Trevor Marriott]

To Trevor

Paul is correct about historical methodology being the only science-of-detection left to us.

I am sorry I have to disagree

Where Paul and I disagree -- we agreeably disagree about everything -- is that I do not see Dr. Tumblety as a suspect but rather the police suspect of 1888.

Had perhaps an academic historian, with the time and the resources of a college or university, tackled this topic Tumblety would have been inevitably found in the US newspapers -- and then in the more oblique fragments in the UK press.

I have said before what was written by the press cannot be safely relied upon yet people still want to use it as primary sources

Then Inspector Andrews' investigation of Tumblety in Canada, and Walter Dew's comments about Andrews, and the secondary source Logan. Littlechild's memoirs would have proven a disappointment, but if the celebrated letter had turned up -- bingo!

In 1888, the police were pursuing a middle-aged doctor but he fled abroad. In 1898, it was propagated to the public that a middle-aged doctor was the chief suspect of 1888, and that he was hotly pursued by the police -- but he took his own life. By the time this Yard-friendly, parallel tale reaches Littlechild in 1913 he writes that it was 'believed' that the American Confidence Man had also taken his own life.

Where does it say this sorry Jonathan but you are talking rubbish

Tumblety is not an eccentric adendum; he is the Jack the Ripper mystery. Ironically, subsequent Whitechapel murders cleared him. Then in 1898 it allegedly turned out that Mary Kelly was the final victim, just before the quack fled.

Tumblety is far from being The JTR mystery as you suggest and in the light of all that is now known should be a forgotten part.

The police had a habit of changing the goalposts to suit themselves. Druit commits suicide aftetr the Kelly murder, cue grounds for suspecting he was the killer, Tumblety absconds cue grounds for suspecting him add to his CV doctor to bump it up.

Add to all that what went on after the murders and all that was said by the officers of all ranks that they did not have a cluel leaves only one beleif that the police in 1888 or thereafter did not have a suspect in the true sense.

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

Paul is correct about historical methodology being the only science-of-detection left to us.

Where Paul and I disagree -- we agreeably disagree about everything -- is that I do not see Dr. Tumblety as a suspect but rather the police suspect of 1888.

Had perhaps an academic historian, with the time and the resources of a college or university, tackled this topic Tumblety would have been inevitably found in the US newspapers -- and then in the more oblique fragments in the UK press.

Then Inspector Andrews' investigation of Tumblety in Canada, and Walter Dew's comments about Andrews, and the secondary source Logan. Littlechild's memoirs would have proven a disappointment, but if the celebrated letter had turned up -- bingo!

In 1888, the police were pursuing a middle-aged doctor but he fled abroad. In 1898, it was propagated to the public that a middle-aged doctor was the chief suspect of 1888, and that he was hotly pursued by the police -- but he took his own life. By the time this Yard-friendly, parallel tale reaches Littlechild in 1913 he writes that it was 'believed' that the American Confidence Man had also taken his own life.

Tumblety is not an eccentric adendum; he is the Jack the Ripper mystery. Ironically, subsequent Whitechapel murders cleared him. Then in 1898 it allegedly turned out that Mary Kelly was the final victim, just before the quack fled.

[Trevor Marriott]

I really can't be bothered with this sort of nonsense, Trevor. As already explained, the past is constructed from evidence available to us. It cannot be otherwise. And the evidence available to us is the statement by Littlechild, a senior and informed policeman, that Tumblety was a suspect, and this is supplemented by Tumblety's own admission that he was a suspect and by newspaper reports from across the United States that Tumblety was a suspect. If you want to demonstrate that Littlechild was lying through his teeth, that Tumblety lied, and that the newspapers got it wrong, please feel free. I look forward to your evidence.

It has been explained to you at length that people aren't saying his file went missing, but hey, if you repeat it often enough then bibbity bobbity boo, maybe the magic will work and you'll make it true.

Littlechild didnt have to be specifically lying did he if as I said previous Tumblety was a person investigated and not regarded as a suspect then would that not categorise him as "A very likely suspect" its a play on words you should know that better than anyone.

The existing files are littered with persons who were investigated but none of those were elevated to suspect status. Many of those were as a result of the persons concerned telling others that they were the ripper and for those persons to then tell the police. The result being is that they were eliminated from any further suspicion

Now didnt Tumblety do that with his press interview in a simliar way by telling the press he had been suspected of being the infamous JTR. Thats the kind of publicity money couldnt buy.

And i am stil waiting for you to provide the evidence to show he was a suspect. It goes back to the burden of proof not just with Tumblety but will all the other suspects. The onus is on those who champion the various suspects to prove the cases against them beyond a reasonable doubt.

After all they cant all have been JTR could they ?

If I am and others are saying they are not JTR its not for us to prove them innocent.

But by casting a doubt about the "evidence and facts" you and others seek to rely on and applying sensible and logical reasoning there can only be one ending "no case to answer" against them

Which leaves us with

No prime suspects

Very few likely suspects

and a plethora of names of people who were investigated and eliminated

[PaulB]

I would suggest that historical facts will and must change over the years because new facts will emerge which will cast a doubt about the original facts. Many on here seek to use hypothetical facts by using "What if`s" "could have" and "maybe" and these should not be taken as factually correct to prop up the original historical facts because they cant be proved.

On the other hand if historians seek to rely on a fact from the past and then in later years this fact is questioned and a doubt cast upon it, then surely that original fact cant be relied upon as being historically or factually correct.

As far as suspects are concerned and the historical facts surrounding each ones viability it is plain to see that now in the present those facts cannot be relied upon as being historically accurate.

A classic example The MM a historial document from 1894 sometime therefater that was proved innacurate by another historical document the Aberconway Verison and also by researchers over the ensuing years. In the true sense both those documents will still remain categorized as historical documents but will anyone seek to rely on them now as being historically accurate.

The Canoncial Five is another example I for the life of me cannot see why all these years people have wanted to belive that the killer only killed five, when there were other murders in an and around the same area. In modern times we take a closer look at those and we see that some of the later ones the police did beleive that the same killer was resposnible. In fact Swanson even belived that Tabram was killed by the same hand as the others.So the canonical five as a historical fact is down the drain.

I mention briefley the swanson Marginalia which you and others suggest is now an historical document. In my opinion having regard to what i know etc etc. There has to be a doubt about saying that this is historically accurate and should be totally relied on.

Then we have the organ removal for 123 years it had been readily accepted as historically accurate and written many time in books etc that the killer removed the organs. Current research shows that not to be the case.

All of the above are historical facts which people have relied on and belived to be historically correct. Well as you know history books are not cast in stone, they can be re written as a "historian" you should perhaps make this you next project.

This is basically a repetition of the points made in your previous post, to which I clearly stated 'of course we should question the accepted thinking and conclusions of those who have assessed the evidence before us, but it is how we go about doing that that matters and it isn't done by somebody who thinks that newspaper reports and statements by respected senior policemen don't constitute good, solid historical evidence.'

What I asked of you was to define what you think a 'historical fact' is.

[PaulB]

Well enlighten us with true facts not newspaper articles and the such like which all appeared after he absconded.

You show me one piece of direct evidence from 1888 at the time of the murders to show that Tumblety was ever a police suspect for the Ripper murders or are we going to use the old nutmeg "His file went missing with the others"

I really can't be bothered with this sort of nonsense, Trevor. As already explained, the past is constructed from evidence available to us. It cannot be otherwise. And the evidence available to us is the statement by Littlechild, a senior and informed policeman, that Tumblety was a suspect, and this is supplemented by Tumblety's own admission that he was a suspect and by newspaper reports from across the United States that Tumblety was a suspect. If you want to demonstrate that Littlechild was lying through his teeth, that Tumblety lied, and that the newspapers got it wrong, please feel free. I look forward to your evidence.

It has been explained to you at length that people aren't saying his file went missing, but hey, if you repeat it often enough then bibbity bobbity boo, maybe the magic will work and you'll make it true.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, it wouldn't be 'worthless' if it was nothing more than a personal opinion, because it would be the personal opinion of a police officer who was there, who was in a position to know the facts, and who was able to reach what was therefore an informed opinion.

And we can study his career and writings (both public and private, insofar as they survive) and what others said and wrote about him privately and publicly, and we can see if he voiced other opinions and if they were considered and if they were generally accurate.

Well enlighten us with true facts not newspaper articles and the such like which all appeared after he absconded.

You show me one piece of direct evidence from 1888 at the time of the murders to show that Tumblety was ever a police suspect for the Ripper murders or are we going to use the old nutmeg "His file went missing with the others"

You also have to look at evidence and the use of to catch criminals in 1888 the only way police could secure a conviction was

1, catch the criminal committing the crime

2. having the criminal confess after arrest.

3. having a witness or witnesses see the crime being committed.

Anyhthing else is not evidence letters newspaper articles personal opinions and beleifs can only be used in the suggestion that a person was investigated as a result o thosef. Thats a long way from suggesting that someone came under suspicion or was a likely suspect from those examples.

In murder investigations many people are investigated but very few are thenelevated to status of likely or prime suspects

[Trevor Marriott]

What is a historical fact, Trevor?



No. But you should ask yourself why the history books say there were only five murders, that is to say, on what authority was that conclusion based and was it a good and fair conclusion at the time it was reached, and what information do we have today to argue that it should be revised?



I ask again, what do you think a historical fact is, Trevor? Yes, of course we should question the accepted thinking and conclusions of those who have assessed the evidence before us, but it is how we go about doing that that matters and it isn't done by somebody who thinks that newspaper reports and statements by respected senior policemen don't constitute good, solid historical evidence.

I would suggest that historical facts will and must change over the years because new facts will emerge which will cast a doubt about the original facts. Many on here seek to use hypothetical facts by using "What if`s" "could have" and "maybe" and these should not be taken as factually correct to prop up the original historical facts because they cant be proved.

On the other hand if historians seek to rely on a fact from the past and then in later years this fact is questioned and a doubt cast upon it, then surely that original fact cant be relied upon as being historically or factually correct.

As far as suspects are concerned and the historical facts surrounding each ones viability it is plain to see that now in the present those facts cannot be relied upon as being historically accurate.

A classic example The MM a historial document from 1894 sometime therefater that was proved innacurate by another historical document the Aberconway Verison and also by researchers over the ensuing years. In the true sense both those documents will still remain categorized as historical documents but will anyone seek to rely on them now as being historically accurate.

The Canoncial Five is another example I for the life of me cannot see why all these years people have wanted to belive that the killer only killed five, when there were other murders in an and around the same area. In modern times we take a closer look at those and we see that some of the later ones the police did beleive that the same killer was resposnible. In fact Swanson even belived that Tabram was killed by the same hand as the others.So the canonical five as a historical fact is down the drain.

I mention briefley the swanson Marginalia which you and others suggest is now an historical document. In my opinion having regard to what i know etc etc. There has to be a doubt about saying that this is historically accurate and should be totally relied on.

Then we have the organ removal for 123 years it had been readily accepted as historically accurate and written many time in books etc that the killer removed the organs. Current research shows that not to be the case.

All of the above are historical facts which people have relied on and belived to be historically correct. Well as you know history books are not cast in stone, they can be re written as a "historian" you should perhaps make this you next project.