Kosminski - Dead or Alive

[mklhawley]

Wolf! Simon!

Glad to see the two of you asking about Andrews and Tumblety again. The fact that Simon commented about Andrews never making it to New York City is clear evidence that he did not read Roger Palmer's articles. Andrews going to New York suggests that he was following Tumblety and that is farthest from the truth.

Evidence Wolf? The shortest answer is read Roger's three part article. The belief that Andrews came over to hunt down evidence against Parnell was not a recent discovery by any ripperologist, it was a defunct nineteenth century argument resurrected by ripperologists.

But Jonathan's correct. If you'd like to continue this on any Andrews or Tumblety thread, sounds great. Actually, some of them ARE on this issue.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Nice spin.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Off-Topic

Tumblety is rather off-topic for this thread, but it was not I who introduced him. I merely noted the importance of accuracy and that there is a difference between a mere 'likely' and the accurate 'very likely' of the quote.

This, of course, reflects on any interpretation of Littlechild's evaluation of Tumblety as a suspect. The words 'very likely' were written by Littlechild and historical accuracy demands that it is used in full when quoting Littlechild. Omission of the 'very' diminishes the status Littlechild's description of Tumblety's relevance as a suspect.

People will, as they do, put their own interpretation on these things. But, at least, they should do so from a full and accurate standpoint. There is no excuse or mitigation for leaving out the word 'very' in this context. It is noticeable that it is usually done by Tumblety detractors and may indicate bias rather than objectivity.

[Steve S]

I'm afraid the hi-jacking is my fault....Just spread from the the "who actually knew what in senior police ranks" idea..........Or,to be more precise,who knew what FROM who..On Koz,I'm not sure....Anderson implies all was known long before MacNaughton ever got involved...........??

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I’d like apologize right off the bat for being one of the posters who has hi-jacked this Kosminski thread but I’d like to respond here to a couple of things that Jonathon and Mike have stated.

First. I have noticed that Mike likes to make statements which have little or no basis in fact. Usually I point this out on the boards but it got so that Mike accused me of “cyber bullying” for correcting his mistakes all the time. I haven’t done this for a while because it was becoming more like a full time job but I thought I’d ask him about his statement, given as if it were a universally acknowledged fact, that Anderson had sent Inspector Andrews to Canada because of Tumblety. I asked for evidence to prove this “fact” but what I got in reply was:

“Evidence Wolf? The shortest answer is read Roger's three part article.”

Yes, Mike, I have read Palmer’s article in which he advanced the THEORY that Andrews was sent to southern Ontario to obtain information regarding Tumblety. Anyone who actually knows anything about Andrews’ trip, or the circumstances surrounding the Tumblety investigation, probably found, as I did, that the EVIDENCE Palmer used to back up his THEORY was less than convincing. Be that as it may, You have still to explain how Palmer’s THEORY becomes a FACT to be tossed lightly into your post as if it were true.

Second.

“The belief that Andrews came over to hunt down evidence against Parnell was not a recent discovery by any ripperologist, it was a defunct nineteenth century argument resurrected by ripperologists.” Mike Hawley, Post #61

“Yes, the local press which favoured the Irish-Catholic sectrian divide, turned Andrews' trip into a scurrilous bit of business to do with the Parnell imbroglio, but that makes no sense as a plausible politcal scenario -- to put it mildly.” Jonathan H, Post #52

The reason why it is believed that Andrews’ trip to southern Ontario concerned the gathering of evidence against Parnell and the Irish Nationalist Movement is simple: Inspector Andrews stated this in interviews with reporters that appeared in both Toronto and Montreal newspapers. If Andrews himself tells us that he had gathered evidence pertaining to the Irish Movement and Mike, Palmer and Jonathan say that he didn’t, that he was in Ontario investigating Tumblety instead, who do you think I, or anyone else, should believe?

Once again, sorry for the hi-jacking.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wolf,

Thank you.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Yes, Mike, I have read Palmer’s article in which he advanced the THEORY that Andrews was sent to southern Ontario to obtain information regarding Tumblety. Anyone who actually knows anything about Andrews’ trip, or the circumstances surrounding the Tumblety investigation, probably found, as I did, that the EVIDENCE Palmer used to back up his THEORY was less than convincing. Be that as it may, You have still to explain how Palmer’s THEORY becomes a FACT to be tossed lightly into your post as if it were true.

It's not surprising that you were less than convinced, because it was your claims that he debunked. Case in point: You stated that the last time Tumblety was in Toronto was years prior to the Ripper murders (hence, ridiculous for Andrews to investigate Tumblety in Toronto), and Roger demonstrated convincingly that Tumblety basically hung out in Toronto in the 1880s. Also, where again was Thomas Beach?

It's also not surprising that Simon couldn't agree with you more, because Roger debunked a number of his contributions from Smoke and Mirrors, as well.

Second.

The reason why it is believed that Andrews’ trip to southern Ontario concerned the gathering of evidence against Parnell and the Irish Nationalist Movement is simple: Inspector Andrews stated this in interviews with reporters that appeared in both Toronto and Montreal newspapers. If Andrews himself tells us that he had gathered evidence pertaining to the Irish Movement and Mike, Palmer and Jonathan say that he didn’t, that he was in Ontario investigating Tumblety instead, who do you think I, or anyone else, should believe?

Roger demonstrated convincingly that these sources had extreme simpathy for the Irish Nationalist movement, such as Patrick Boyle, Teefy, and Frank Millen. Why did you forget to mention this? You used tainted evidence.


And all of the evidence points to Andrews' mission was against Parnell?

(Montreal, Dec. 20th). It was announced at police headquarters today that Andrews has a commission in connection with two other Scotland Yard men to find the murderer in America. His inaction for so long a time, and the fact that a man, suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this side three weeks ago, makes the London police believe “Jack” has left that country for this. St. Louis Rep. Dec 22, 1888

In order to believe Andrews and company violated British Law to drum up evidence against a standing member of Parliament with no one blowing the whistle, one has to be a huge conspiracy theorist. Just as Simon likes to use, Occam's Razor clearly favors Andrews coming to Canada for the Ripper investigation, as opposed to propping up a huge conspiracy.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

As usual, you're high on belief and low on facts.

I suggest you re-read "Smoke and Mirrors."

Also, you may have not yet read the second part of Wolf Vanderlinden's "Inspector Andrews in Canada" article which, I understand, has not yet been published, but which he was generous enough to send to me.

Give him a call.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

And you'll enjoy my next few articles, as well. It will be interesting when Wolf and I compare notes in the future.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

My nipples are aflame with anticipation.

I can't wait to hear how you finally contrive to spin Tumblety as a viable Ripper suspect.

Bonne chance, mon ami.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

My nipples are aflame with anticipation.

Oh, how discusting!

[Jonathan H]

I agree with Wolf that what we have here are contradictory primary sources which require an either-or interpretation.

I thought that Wolf's articles were well written and well argued, and would recommend them to anybody interested in history, and I look forward to reading Simon's rebuttal to the rebuttal because I find his pieces to be thought-provoking and sophisticated.

I found Palmer's brilliant articles to be judicious in the sense that they weighed up bits and pieces from a variety of angles but came down on the side of Andrews definitely investigating Tumblety.

Is bias involved?

Bias is involved in all sources, primary and secondary -- because they are created by human beings (even reference books make choices about what to include and what not to, and that is due to human opinion too. Other homo sapiens can disagree with those choices).

What counts is the veracity of an argument. As in, does an argument trasncend it's obvious bias and still convince?

My judgement is that Palmer provided the stronger argument for a number of reasons, one of them being because he considered the element of bias by the contemporaneous pro-Irish media, and that the complex, sectarian, of often bare-knuckled politics of the era made it much less likely that Tumblety was the 'cover' story.

Partisan newspapers made up stuff all the time to suit their own agendas, and please their readers -- and, today, in too many cases, that has not changed -- and even alleged interviews-scoops which never took place.

People have a right to their own opinions, and the discovery of new sources can show that an earlier argument -- perhaps initially much dismissed -- was more likely to be correct after all.

We see this with arguments put by Fido, and Begg, and Scott Nelson has a terrific new article pondering the enigma of the Polish Jewish suspect.

I myself have tried to show that Sir Melville Macnaghten was just as convinced about Druitt's culpability as Anderson was about his preferred suspect, and that he likely did know Montie's particulars (that he was not a doctor, that his brother was frantically trying to find him, that he did not kill himself on the night of the final murder as the MP asserted, and so on).

To what degree of success I have done this is entirely in the eye of the beholder (many believe that the theory is original but unconvincing, and that's their right).

Dr. Tumblety was a Ripper suspect in 1888, and 25 years later the retired head of the Irish Branch did not claim to a famous journalist that he was minor, or that he was cleared. Instead he was '... very likely ...' Other sources show, on balance, that he was important enough to have a detective sent abroad to check him out.

Whether by accident or design elements of Tumblety's profile -- a middle-aged, sexually deviant medico permanently off the scene after Kelly -- resurfaced in the public sphere during the Edwardian Era. In fact, to many Brtis of that time this was the solution -- it was not a mystery.

Therefore I disagree with those who argue that Tumblety was unaccountably forgotton until 1993. Whole this is true of his specific identity, his generic DNA is arguably an essential part of the 'drowned doctor', and evey other dodgy doctor suspect who supplanted Sims' scoop.

Furthermore, Tumblety seems to have been cleared in 1889 for the wrong reason: that there 'Jack' murders after Kelly. His suspect status for some police, or at least Littlechild, was subsequently reinstated only when Kelly was, rightly or wrongly, decided to be the final victim.

I think that it is of course fair and reasonable to mount an argument which debunks the conventional wisdom about a suspect. I do it too. I just find the arguments against Tumblety not being a major (if not the) police suspect of 1888 to be less convincing than the arguments that he was.

It's no big deal. Many people say the same about my revisionist Druitt arguments.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

No need to get outraged; it was mere hyperbole.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Mke starts a Kosminski thread and we end up discussing Dr T. How'd that happen.

Oh yes he was a suspect all right. With Francis Tumblety it was a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In his younger days the doctor always had a steady boyfriend. But he was getting up in years, and on this sojourn to London he engaged in risky behavior to fulfill his desires. Which got him popped by the bobbies. And he was also given a lookover for the Ripper murders. Why? For one thing, when you are around a person, you get a certain 'vibe' from them. We don't know just what vibe Tumblety gave off because we weren't there. But the police were. He could very well have struck them as a dangerous person. Impulsive, unpredictable, odd. Said to be a 'doctor.'

Roy

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

No need to get outraged; it was mere hyperbole.

Regards,

Simon

Not outraged at all. It just gave me too many visuals.

Very insightful Jonathan. Roy, we agree on much.

Sincerely,

Mike