Tumblety, Melville and Le Havre

[jmenges]

Right.

There is the possibility that the series of talks commenced during what the station called it's 10 minute Breakfast Session. There is the possibility that the series commenced at the evening 10 minute news segment. There is the possibility that listeners, tuning into Jumbo's Children's Hour were instead surprised to be treated to the reminisces of William Melville Jr. (kids with tears in their eyes across the country) and the station changed its programming, causing a misprint in the Wellington newspaper and the Radio Record. These are all possibilities, and I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

But for the author to state "anecdotal accounts within the family relate that he was indeed involved in the hunt for Jack the Ripper" with the footnote citing the eldest son's radio broadcasts...what is really being said by the author here is that the "anecdotal account" is about the radio broadcast occurring, not that Wm Melville Jr's statements on said broadcast constitute the "anecdotal account within the family".

To me, at least, this is misleading. Especially given the specificity of the footnote.

JM

[Simon Wood]

Hi JM,

It makes perfect sense to me.

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

If one weighs a family's "reminisces" against published documentation and find that the documentation refutes the "reminiscing" the logical conclusion can be drawn that memories are faulty and the broadcast did not take place.

Or of course he could have done a series of broadcasts on cousin bob's ham radio and they are trying to say it took place in a venue it did not, but either way, I think anyone at this point, looking at the evidence would be completely safe in saying that the broadcasts did not take place.

[Chris]

Jonathan

As I keep saying, the only thing I was querying was your flat statement that the broadcast "did not take place".

As you have just told us that "all you can say" is that "what is claimed in the book does not match the record", I'm not sure why you seem disposed to keep arguing with me.

[Chris]

If one weighs a family's "reminisces" against published documentation and find that the documentation refutes the "reminiscing" the logical conclusion can be drawn that memories are faulty and the broadcast did not take place.

Of course not. You can logically conclude that the broadcast did not take place on the date or dates you have checked. You can't conclude that it didn't take place at all. It could simply be that there has been a mistake over the date.

[jmenges]

I'm not sure why you seem disposed to keep arguing with me.

I'm not arguing, but you keep replying!

I'm not sure how many other ways I can say that the radio broadcast does not exist in the manner claimed by the author. ie as a series of talks commencing on 24 August 1937.



JM

[Ally]

Considering that JM has checked the dates in several years, and found nothing, one can logically conclude that the broadcast, as referenced in the book, did not take place.

And attempting to say well it could have happened at another time is irrelevant when we are discussing supposedly referenced and sourced work.

We are discussing facts and the fact is, no such broadcast took place. There is a date given, there is a reference given and they do not check out.

Whether the interview took place on bob's ham radio is irrelevant. The referenced broadcast did not occur. Period.

[Chris]

Jonathan

No, it doesn't appear to have taken place on the date claimed. But that doesn't mean it didn't take place at all. It could have taken place on another date.

That is all I am saying. If you accept it, why not say "Yes, I accept that"? The fact that you keep coming back and repeating something that's not actually at issue makes me think you must have misunderstood the point I'm making. Or something.

[Chris]

Considering that JM has checked the dates in several years, and found nothing, one can logically conclude that the broadcast, as referenced in the book, did not take place.

Yes, as referenced in the book. With that proviso, there is no argument (unless the talk was one of the unidentified ones).

And if the whole point of this discussion is simply to criticise Andrew Cook's scholarly standards, that's as far as it needs to go.

But if anyone is interested in the substantive question, then the distinction between "the broadcast did not take place" and "the broadcast did not take place on the date given" is obviously an important one.

[Ally]

Sure. And with absolutely no documented evidence that the broadcast took place having been found, I am perfectly comfortable saying the broadcast didn't take place. Considering the research has been done, the records are available, and nothings been found....

Broadcast did not take place.

[jmenges]

Jonathan

No, it doesn't appear to have taken place on the date claimed. But that doesn't mean it didn't take place at all. It could have taken place on another date.

That is all I am saying. If you accept it, why not say "Yes, I accept that"? The fact that you keep coming back and repeating something that's not actually at issue makes me think you must have misunderstood the point I'm making. Or something.

I did. Here is the last time I did. Maybe you missed it.

Right.

There is the possibility that the series of talks commenced during what the station called it's 10 minute Breakfast Session. There is the possibility that the series commenced at the evening 10 minute news segment. There is the possibility that listeners, tuning into Jumbo's Children's Hour were instead surprised to be treated to the reminisces of William Melville Jr. (kids with tears in their eyes across the country) and the station changed its programming, causing a misprint in the Wellington newspaper and the Radio Record. These are all possibilities, and I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

And here as well...

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).

JM

[Cap'n Jack]

Chris is old school and old cool, he wants Melville in Le Havre escorting Tumblety onto the ship, legions of top Scotland Yard officers pursuing him across the Atlantic; and then Melville's ancestors broadcasting the hunt for 'Jack the Ripper' many years later on a New Zealand radio station.
How far from reality is this guy?
I'll give him a crumb.

[Chris]

Jonathan

Yes, I read those comments the first time. It was the ones in the subsequent posts that I couldn't quite see the point of. Anyhow, it seems we are agreed that, after all, the broadcast could have taken place on a different date from the one given by Cook. That was all I wanted to point out in the first place.

AP Wolf

Outlandish as it may seem to you, I don't approach this subject wanting things to be true or false. In fact it's entirely immaterial to me whether Melville escorted Tumblety on to a ship in Le Havre, or whether he never met Tumblety in his life. Why should it be otherwise?

But I know you have a very different approach to things.

[Cap'n Jack]

Chris, you use smoke and mirrors to obscure very real detail. Just as you do here with your pedantic pursuit of clarification in regard to something that doesn't really matter one jot, as any rational and realistic researcher does know that Melville had no connection whatsoever with the Whitechapel Murders, and that includes Cook and SPE.
But you play a line.
I wonder for what purpose?
It obviously is not a truth.

[Chris]

Chris, you use smoke and mirrors to obscure very real detail.
...
But you play a line.
I wonder for what purpose?
It obviously is not a truth.

As has been said elsewhere, you really should stop judging others by your own deplorable standards.