Tweet
This is a response to Mike Hawley's post to me (#189) way back on page 19.
If you consider correcting or pointing out the errors in your posts to be “cyber-bullying” then perhaps you should reconsider posting here on Casebook. Your sensibilities would seem to be a bit too delicate for the strain of being wrong much of the time.
Your point was, I believe, that there is evidence outside of American newspaper reports that prove that Tumblety was arrested as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders and that the letter by Smith, a Canadian Government source, was proof of this. The fact that Smith’s information is wrong, and confuses Tumblety with another man entirely, is, I would think, a highly important detail and one that shows how reliable Smith’s information really is. To state that you edited this information out of your post because “it was not pertinent to my point” is disingenuous and misleading.
No, actually, I’m saying it outright.
Research in this field, as everyone knows, is ongoing. I have never stated that I, or anyone else for that matter, knows, or has discovered, every single last bit of information about Tumblety and I certainly have never suggested that my articles, published some 7 years ago, were the very last word on the subject and should be carved in stone for all eternity. However, much of what R.J. Palmer has written about my work is based on his Tumblety biases and the fact that I dared to point out errors in the accepted Tumblety theory. This, obviously, suits your purposes and you like to quote from Palmer’s writing, and believe everything he writes is Gospel, while, apparently, failing to see, or not wishing to see, the many errors in facts and logic found in those writings. Again, this suits your purposes.
Here is the huge difference between myself and someone like you, Mike: I am looking for the facts and the truth, as far as it can be known, and when new, and apparently factual, information is presented I adjust my ideas and views accordingly. This kind of mental flexibility is invaluable for anyone who wants to be a writer, researcher or historian, especially if they want to be trusted as a non biased source. You, much like R.J. Palmer, however, have absolutely no flexibility when it comes to this subject and you seem to think that anyone who does is somehow showing weakness and that this is some sort of victory for you if they “sing a different tune.” That you do not see this as one of the strengths of objectivity doesn’t surprise me.
Your narrow and rigid view, one that ignores information, facts, and data that go against, and even disproves, what you wish to believe, is the worst form of subjectivity and bias and you have proved yourself to be more a propagandist then competent writer/researcher. Almost everything you say about Tumblety must be read with caution and an Everest of salt because of this. Harsh? See below.
Actually, what I said was “the likely source” for Smith’s information was the Ottawa newspapers, which is true, but I hardly stated it as a fact.
The above is telling. I stated that Smith likely got his information from the Ottawa newspapers. You respond by posting one article from one Ottawa newspaper, which doesn’t mention Tumblety, and then state that since this one article from this one paper doesn’t mention Tumblety then, therefore, “the Ottawa papers did not discuss Tumblety.”
Unfortunately for you, however, in 1888 Ottawa had 8 newspapers – 6 English language and 2 French – so your “evidence” that the Ottawa papers didn’t discuss Tumblety is ludicrous, if not deceptive (much like your providing “evidence” that it was Anderson who contacted Chief Crowley of San Francisco by comparing only 2 San Francisco newspapers when there were at least 6 SF papers that ran articles on Crowley’s activities regarding Tumblety. Three of these state quite clearly that it was indeed Crowley who contacted Scotland Yard and not the other way around, and one of these, the one which perhaps offers the best evidence of this, was not even mentioned by Palmer. I have to wonder why both you and he ignored this inconvenient fact?).
You also seem unaware, or wish to ignore, that Canadian papers, then as now, subscribed to news services from around the world and so information from American and British sources was telegraphed to, and appeared in, Canadian newspapers on the same day that they appeared in the countries of origin. Smith’s incorrect information, therefore, didn’t have to come from actual US or British papers so the timing is not an issue.
This is false. We don’t “know” anything of the kind and I can think of no evidence to prove it. As you state, however, that I “conveniently failed to tell everyone about this” please provide me with the evidence is that this is true.
The above is also telling and typical. Smith’s information about Tumblety is wrong. This has been pointed out to you several times. You ignore this. Newspaper articles from Birmingham in which Birmingham reporters interviewed the Birmingham Police about their surveillance of the Euston Station Suspect (which prove that the man wasn’t Tumblety and so Smith was wrong); provide information about his professional background (which prove that the man wasn’t Tumblety and so Smith was wrong); and offer a description of the man (which prove that the man wasn’t Tumblety and so Smith was wrong), have been posted and discussed with you. You ignore these.
Instead you research and find extraneous and irrelevant details about Smith – his office was down the hall from the Prime Minister’s – and believe that this, somehow, makes the fact that his information about Tumblety is wrong magically disappear. This is delusional. Worse, it’s a delusion expressly designed to delude others. No wonder you want to publish this since you seem to have made it your mission to “mislead Tumblety nonexperts” with just this kind of crap offered as research and theory.
Wolf.
Wolf! How's it going? I see you're following me everywhere I post on Casebook. Participating in cyber-bullying are we?
The only reason I did not add this is because it was not pertinent to my point.
You are insinuating that I am hiding something.
Actually, people like Wickerman will automatically embrace your statement because he's a minimalist when it comes to Tumblety. Wickerman, why not read Roger Palmer's article to see the multiple factoids that Vanderlinden not only got wrong but used these misconceptions to bolster his arguments. So, do you still think Tumblety was never in Toronto for decades prior to the murders? I see you're now singing a different tune when it comes to Anderson soliciting information from US Chiefs of Police. ...yet you still think Crowley initiated. Amazing. So, do you still think Dunham was the origin of Colonel Sothern?
Here is the huge difference between myself and someone like you, Mike: I am looking for the facts and the truth, as far as it can be known, and when new, and apparently factual, information is presented I adjust my ideas and views accordingly. This kind of mental flexibility is invaluable for anyone who wants to be a writer, researcher or historian, especially if they want to be trusted as a non biased source. You, much like R.J. Palmer, however, have absolutely no flexibility when it comes to this subject and you seem to think that anyone who does is somehow showing weakness and that this is some sort of victory for you if they “sing a different tune.” That you do not see this as one of the strengths of objectivity doesn’t surprise me.
Your narrow and rigid view, one that ignores information, facts, and data that go against, and even disproves, what you wish to believe, is the worst form of subjectivity and bias and you have proved yourself to be more a propagandist then competent writer/researcher. Almost everything you say about Tumblety must be read with caution and an Everest of salt because of this. Harsh? See below.
Nowhere does it say Smith got his information from the Ottawa article on Tumblety. Vanderlinden states it as if it were fact, but it actually does not stand up to scrutiny.
I can only make one reply, but there's more. Read the article again, it says nothing about Tumblety:
The Ottawa Free Press (Canada)
19 November 1888
HAVE THEY GOT HIM NOW?
A Doctor Arrested by Scotland Yard Detectives
IS HE THE WHITECHAPEL FIEND?
He Resembles the Gentleman Seen With the Latest Victim
London, Nov.19--[Special]--Over London the Whitechapel murders wtill hang like a pall. Arrests of suspect have ben numerous, but one after another they have been discharged. Great importance, however is attached to an arrest made on Saturday. The Birmingham police have lately watched a man whom they suspected because of his habit of travelling to London on Saturdays. On the arrival of the train at Euston station he stepped out of the carriage briskly and was at once arrested and taken to Scotland Yard for examination. What gives particular force to the suspicion is that the prisoner is a doctor formerly holding a good position and large practice, but recently living in lodging houses. He greatly resembles the "gentleman" seen in company with the latest victim on the morning of the murder. Should he prove to be the criminal, the police will at once be rehabilitated.
So, how did Smith even know about Tumblety when Ottawa papers did not discuss Tumblety? You brush this off by saying newspapers in North America, but how did a man from Ottawa receive the US papers so quickly? If he did somehow find out about Tumblety, then why did he connect it with the Eutson Station story?
The Ottawa Free Press (Canada)
19 November 1888
HAVE THEY GOT HIM NOW?
A Doctor Arrested by Scotland Yard Detectives
IS HE THE WHITECHAPEL FIEND?
He Resembles the Gentleman Seen With the Latest Victim
London, Nov.19--[Special]--Over London the Whitechapel murders wtill hang like a pall. Arrests of suspect have ben numerous, but one after another they have been discharged. Great importance, however is attached to an arrest made on Saturday. The Birmingham police have lately watched a man whom they suspected because of his habit of travelling to London on Saturdays. On the arrival of the train at Euston station he stepped out of the carriage briskly and was at once arrested and taken to Scotland Yard for examination. What gives particular force to the suspicion is that the prisoner is a doctor formerly holding a good position and large practice, but recently living in lodging houses. He greatly resembles the "gentleman" seen in company with the latest victim on the morning of the murder. Should he prove to be the criminal, the police will at once be rehabilitated.
So, how did Smith even know about Tumblety when Ottawa papers did not discuss Tumblety? You brush this off by saying newspapers in North America, but how did a man from Ottawa receive the US papers so quickly? If he did somehow find out about Tumblety, then why did he connect it with the Eutson Station story?
Unfortunately for you, however, in 1888 Ottawa had 8 newspapers – 6 English language and 2 French – so your “evidence” that the Ottawa papers didn’t discuss Tumblety is ludicrous, if not deceptive (much like your providing “evidence” that it was Anderson who contacted Chief Crowley of San Francisco by comparing only 2 San Francisco newspapers when there were at least 6 SF papers that ran articles on Crowley’s activities regarding Tumblety. Three of these state quite clearly that it was indeed Crowley who contacted Scotland Yard and not the other way around, and one of these, the one which perhaps offers the best evidence of this, was not even mentioned by Palmer. I have to wonder why both you and he ignored this inconvenient fact?).
You also seem unaware, or wish to ignore, that Canadian papers, then as now, subscribed to news services from around the world and so information from American and British sources was telegraphed to, and appeared in, Canadian newspapers on the same day that they appeared in the countries of origin. Smith’s incorrect information, therefore, didn’t have to come from actual US or British papers so the timing is not an issue.
We do know Tumblety hung out in Birmingham on the weekdays and went to London on the weekends. You conveniently failed to tell everyone about this? How did Smith know this in order to connect him with the Euston station arrest?
Wickerman, I have a number of additional discoveries about Smith that I will eventually be publishing about. First and foremost, you'll see Vanderlinden has mislead Tumblety nonexperts again.
Instead you research and find extraneous and irrelevant details about Smith – his office was down the hall from the Prime Minister’s – and believe that this, somehow, makes the fact that his information about Tumblety is wrong magically disappear. This is delusional. Worse, it’s a delusion expressly designed to delude others. No wonder you want to publish this since you seem to have made it your mission to “mislead Tumblety nonexperts” with just this kind of crap offered as research and theory.
Wolf.
Comment