Tumblety, Melville and Le Havre

[jmenges]

And the page from Cook's book where he mentions the anecdote (1st sentence of the last paragraph), with the footnote #26 that claims it came from the non-existent radio broadcast.





JM

[Cap'n Jack]

That's it, JM, the devil is in the detail, and so do giants fall, and fail.

[Scott Nelson]

I am a student writing my last examination to get degree on Jack the Ripper

I too, want degree on Jack the Ripper. What are prerequisites?

[Mitch Rowe]

I too, want degree on Jack the Ripper. What are prerequisites?

Thats easy. Write a book that names the Ripper! To get to the head of the class you need to accuse someone famous though. Thats why Im writing a book accusing God! I figure he killed them for their sins. Thats why no one saw anything.

[Chris]

Although I personally like Andrew Cook, and he has been very forth coming with his opinions and research into Wm. Melville, I was disappointed to discover that the connection he makes to Wm. Melville's involvement in the hunt for JtR, a New Zealand radio broadcast supposedly given by his son years later, did not take place.

I'm a bit confused. Previously, you wrote "It is possible that Willaim Melville Junior's series of talks about his father's illustrious career as one of Great Britian's foremost Secret Agents filled one of these two time slots [unspecified sessions]." It sounds as though your opinion has hardened for some reason. Or maybe that was just intended as sarcasm.

In any case, your conclusion does appear to depend on the accuracy of the date of the broadcast supplied by the family. Given the fact that there's no advertised broadcast fitting the description on that date, do you think it's possible the date is simply wrong?

[jmenges]

Hi Chris,

As I said in my above post, nearly the entire month of August and September 1937 was checked, as well as those months in the preceding and subsequent years. When I asked Andrew Cook about this, he stated that

"We undertook a search in conjunction with the broadcasting authorities in New Zealand prior to publication and there is certainly no record of the nature you suggest. However, the family are most insistent that these talks were given live during this time frame. However, both the family and the broadcasting authorities believe that the most likely scenario is that William was a guest/interviewee on a regularly scheduled programme rather than being given a slot of his own."

So, I took the statement that "the family was most insistent" and the possibility that the programme was not announced as such but on a "regularly scheduled programme" on or around that date to mean just what he said.

I do find it highly unlikely that the Melville Jr. series of broadcasts took place in the ten minute "Breakfast" break and even more unlikely in the later 10 minute news break on these dates given there was more pressing news to discuss on the later news slot in 1937 than Wm. Melville.

I could be wrong, but all I can do is take what was said in his book and then later to myself, look at the record, and judge for myself the possibilities.

He certainly seems to be putting more stock in the most insistent family memory than he does in the evidence supplied by the Radio Record.

I, for one, have found no evidence that this program occurred around the dates claimed by the family.

Thanks,

JM

[jmenges]

Given the fact that there's no advertised broadcast fitting the description on that date, do you think it's possible the date is simply wrong?

And, just to be a bit more clear, I agree that the above scenario is possible, but, according to Mr. Cook himself, it cannot be verified. Yet as we can see he states it in his book as a fact.

JM

[Chris]

I do find it highly unlikely that the Melville Jr. series of broadcasts took place in the ten minute "Breakfast" break and even more unlikely in the later 10 minute news break on these dates given there was more pressing news to discuss on the later news slot in 1937 than Wm. Melville.

So, to be fair, you can't really say the broadcast "did not take place", only that there's no record of it on the date stated by the family. Despite their "insistence" on the time frame, to my mind it seems more likely that there's a problem with the date than that the family simply imagined William Melville junior giving a series of talks on the radio.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hmm. So if the family got the dates wrong, and it looks as if they did, does this mean that their rememberance of the facts were hazy?

Wolf.

[jmenges]

So, to be fair, you can't really say the broadcast "did not take place", only that there's no record of it on the date stated by the family. Despite their "insistence" on the time frame, to my mind it seems more likely that there's a problem with the date than that the family simply imagined William Melville junior giving a series of talks on the radio.

Right, I can say that the broadcast did not take place on 24 August 1937, nor anytime else "during this time frame". Nor in August or September of 1936, 1938 or 1939. Unless, his "series of talks" commenced under the title of the 10 minute Breakfast Session. It could have occurred in January of 1937, for instance, though I don't know how extensive Cook's search was in comparison to mine (I stuck to the months of August and September).

The point was brought up on another thread about the author's research capabilities. I thought it should be pointed out that in this instance, although he admitted to not to finding evidence of the broadcast either, the footnote states the date of 24 August as a fact.

JM

[Chris]

The point was brought up on another thread about the author's research capabilities. I thought it should be pointed out that in this instance, although he admitted to not to finding evidence of the broadcast either, the footnote states the date of 24 August as a fact.

It was really your flat statement on that other thread that the broadcast "did not take place" that I was querying.

[jmenges]

At this point in time, no evidence has surfaced that it did, save for a family recollection.

JM

[Chris]

At this point in time, no evidence has surfaced that it did, save for a family recollection.

But, of course, even if you discounted the information from the family - and I still have trouble with the idea that the family could have completely imagined or invented a series of radio broadcasts - "no evidence that it did" would be quite different from "evidence that it did not".

[jmenges]

I'm not saying that the family invented this radio broadcast, used as the lynch pin for Cook to claim that Melville was involved in the Jack the Ripper investigation. Nor am I saying that Cook invented it. All I can say is what is claimed in the book does not match the record (in 2 published sources), and that when asked, Cook admitted as much.

JM

[Chris]

I'm not saying that the family invented this radio broadcast, used as the lynch pin for Cook to claim that Melville was involved in the Jack the Ripper investigation. Nor am I saying that Cook invented it. All I can say is what is claimed in the book does not match the record (in 2 published sources), and that when asked, Cook admitted as much.

Precisely. That was why I was querying your original statement - that the broadcast "did not take place" - which went beyond that, and which would imply that someone had either imagined or invented the series of broadcasts. But I think there is a danger of going round in circles here.