Patricia Cornwell

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

Your thinly veiled insults on the male author Ally is 'cozy' with do you no favors. You should at least have the courage to write his name and face the consequences. You don't because you know that nobody on these boards will agree with your opinion of this person. And just for the record, I've never seen Ally show favor to any person based solely on his standing in the Ripper community. If you don't believe me, go ask Paul Begg over at the forums where all your fellow Casebook haters post.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Aarrh! so Norder ye does have some spunk in ye'

I shall be back...

[Stewart P Evans]

Facts

...some authors who have tinkered with the unknown facts to make them suit their suspect; and then presented them as the known facts.
Like Tumblety being out on police bail at the time of Kelly's murder.
Like Kelly wasn't murdered by the Whitechapel Murderer when it becomes questionable whether Tumblety was ever on police bail.
Like Tumblety lodged in Batty Street, etc. etc. & etc.

Any author who writes about about a suspect is, naturally, going to present the best possible case for the possibility of that suspect being the Ripper. We have seen it plenty of times in the past (A P Wolf provides an example in the Cutbush chapter of his book) and we will see it again in the future.

I wrote my Tumblety book in 1994 - 14 years ago - and there is a lot more information available now than there was then. When the information on Tumblety's gross indecency charges was found, the court calendar presented, prima facie, the possibility that he was in custody from 7 November 1888 - which would mean that he could not have murdered Mary Kelly. Littlechild stated that he considered Tumblety 'a very likely one [suspect]' which, of course, would be impossible if he was locked up.

Therefore I explored two scenarios which could explain this apparent anomaly in what Littlechild stated.

1. The first was that Tumblety may have been granted police bail for the misdemeanors and would thus have been free on 9 November. Research revealed a similar bail system in 1888 to that which we frequently use in modern times of a 7 day police bail and return to the police station for charging or no further action.

2. That Kelly was not a Ripper victim and this was another explanation for the puzzle. The idea that Kelly might not be a Ripper victim had occurred to me as a real possibility years before (around 1987) and had also been suggested by others, notably Bernard Davies whose grandfather was a police officer attached to the Ripper enquiry and who had been told by some detectives working on the Kelly case that they did not think it was the work of the Ripper. Bernard told this story at the Cloak and Dagger Club meeting when Robin Odell was the guest speaker.

Neither of these did I state as a fact and I merely presented the arguments as an explanation to address new information to hand. The Tumblety interview that has recently been found bears out my contention that he was not held very long - certainly not a week or longer. As regards the Batty Street lodger story, more press reports have been recently found on this from which different interpretations have been drawn. But in 1994 this story had never been published and I presented it as fitting the Tumblety scenario. This idea was reinforced after the book came out when I discovered the 1911 George R Sims article which recounted a very similar landlady story and where the suspect was categorically stated to be 'an American doctor', albeit the landlady thought the same man was then practising in north London.

But lets get this straight. I do not know and have no proof that Tumblety was out on bail at the time of the Kelly murder - I merely presented this possibility in response to the discovery of the court calendar by Mark King. Further I have never stated that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim. I have stated that she may not have been which is, of course, a fact. No one can prove that she was - they are all undetected murders with no known offender(s). An open mind should be kept and the same applies to Stride, again whom I have never stated (unlike A P Wolf) was not a Ripper victim, but that she may not have been. And I have given explanations for both possibilities. In the case of Stride I should say that I waver more towards the possibility that she was not a Ripper victim whereas in the case of Kelly I think it more likely that she was a Ripper victim (and hers would be the case that would militate more against the Tumblety theory than Stride would).

Obviously these are contentious points and many would argue strongly against them. Frankly I have to say that I simply do not know and as all the murders are unsolved no one can positively say who was killed by whom - Ripper or not. I was the first to point out there is no hard evidence against Tumblety - as is the case with all of the suspects. Finally I do not say that Tumblety was the Ripper - I merely presented an argument for that possibility. I do say he was a genuine contemporary police suspect. All my books since then have not been suspect related.

[Tom_Wescott]

Aarrh! so Norder ye does have some spunk in ye'

I shall be back...

You're a good guy, Jeff, so I'm gonna say that if you want to pick out a poster to lock horns with, you're better off picking someone other than Dan. You could argue that the sun is hot and he'd somehow prove you wrong. In any event, we drew names and it's your turn to go have fun with Perry Mason. Sorry, chap.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

I shall be back...

Once you get directions from whomever be pulling your strings?

[c.d.]

Hi Stewart,

I would be very interested to hear your views as to whether Tumblety being arrested on charges of gross indecency was merely a pretext for questioning him indirectly about the murders and perhaps catching him off-guard. Or do you think it could have been a way of saying perhaps you would be better of leaving England for good?

Thanks for your response.

c.d.

[Dan Norder]

The "Yankee" term isn't strictly limited to New England and north-east states, although that area is probably the most stereotypically "Yankee". I'm from the Midwest, but I'm definitely considered a Yankee now that I live in Tennessee. Good luck finding a definition that will fit all the various things people mean by it, though.

[Stewart P Evans]

Speculation

Hi Stewart,
I would be very interested to hear your views as to whether Tumblety being arrested on charges of gross indecency was merely a pretext for questioning him indirectly about the murders and perhaps catching him off-guard. Or do you think it could have been a way of saying perhaps you would be better of leaving England for good?
Thanks for your response.
c.d.

The trouble with arguing the case for any suspect is that you are going to find yourself within the realms of speculation. Also arguing the case for a suspect appears to be more emotive than any other aspect of this subject.

Littlechild tells us that Tumblety was arrested for the indecency (unnatural) offences, whilst Tumblety himself claimed to have been arrested in Whitechapel on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper (New York World, January 29, 1889). The arrest reports and other police documentation regarding Tumblety has never been found so we do not know exactly the circumstances of his arrest. In view of all the adverse response to any speculation on what may or may not have happened I would recommend a reading of all the reports, including the Tumblety interview in the New York World, and leave interpretation to the individual.

[jmenges]

Peter Ackroyd claims that Brits still call Americans "Colonists".

And we know from his introduction in the docklands exhibit book, he is not one to make mistakes.

JM

[Dan Norder]

And how on Earth can someone even compare Stewart Evans to Patricia Cornwell? Man, that's messed up.

I disagree with Stewart on a few things (but then I don't agree with anyone all the time, not even myself some days), but, come on. He's got, what, four or more Ripper books that don't try to advance any suspect.... has found, preserved and shared countless (literally countless, take a month to try to do it nonstop and you couldn't count them all) Ripper-related documents, images and facts... has provided input and assistance to the authors behind a high percentage of all the other important books released in the last decade or more... and on top of that is one of the few Ripper authors who stops by these boards to contribute information now and again.

Cornwell on the other hand, has contributed... well... at best she usually serves as one of the few people who most of the people can agree has contributed absolutely nothing of any value to the field, except perhaps for introducing some people to the Ripper who wouldn't otherwise have been interested and who then went on to learn more about it from far more reliable sources. Can't name any of those people offhand, but surely there are some...

[Jeff Leahy]

Once you get directions from whomever be pulling your strings?

You dont need to be a genius to know who pulls your string Ally?

[Ally]

Right... I am the one here dancing to someone else's tune. Yep.

what's the point of making a post that essentially says nothing. You've done it twice on this thread. A post that says nothing but: I'll come back and post something. That's useless, and a waste of space. If you have something real to say, say it., but posting just to say eventually you are going to say something is retarded.

[Tom_Wescott]

Nobody who's done a responsible job of it should be made to feel he should apologize for having written a suspect-oriented book. That's the lifeblood of Ripperology. Druitt, the Royal Conspiracy, Maybrick. Ripperology would be dead or dying without their respective authors.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Right... I am the one here dancing to someone else's tune. Yep.

what's the point of making a post that essentially says nothing. You've done it twice on this thread. A post that says nothing but: I'll come back and post something. That's useless, and a waste of space. If you have something real to say, say it., but posting just to say eventually you are going to say something is retarded.

I'll leave blurting things out until you've checked the facts to the expert

[Ally]

SO I don't suppose you could consider following the policy if you have nothing to say, say nothing? What do you call a statement of

"I'll be back" to be but blurting out something when you've got nothing real to say? And you are a master of blurting out things without checking facts, like your entire defense of Cornwell, and the history of the animosity that existed between her and Ripperologists which you had to hastily modify once you know...you actually got the facts. Then there's the whole watermark dating thing...yeah...a master of checking the facts FIRST.