Miscellaneous Newspaper Accounts

[mklhawley]

Wolf,

Oh, I love facts and I know you do, as well. I wish I had your level of research, writing, and debating skills. I merely question your judgement at times on how your facts reach to your conclusions. I admit my bias, but it is physically impossible for human beings not to be. Check out the cognitive neuroscience research. We are emotionally hardwired (some more than others). Once a person emotionally embraces any kind of conclusion as true, confirmation bias begins. This is the reason why science has peer review. Ripperology only has online forums and some journals. Because I admit my bias, I constantly evaluate to keep it in check. I believe your problem is you do not believe you have an "anti-Tumblety" bias, thus, see no reason to keep anything in check. Go back through your posts with me and count how many times you end with a one line personal attack. That is an emotional response from your limbic system, the same location of the brain that all bias originates.

Whatever response you have instore for Roger's part three must be welcomed, because truth the most important result. Facts are important, especially when new facts come up that need to be taken into account. Case in point: If Anderson took the time to request information from Brooklyn's Chief of Police, then Tumblety had to be on a JTR suspect list. Now, when we evaluate this, we need to look at plausibility. Would the Asst Commissioner waste his time and the time of Brooklyn's Chief of Police with a minor suspect?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

....Facts are important, especially when new facts come up that need to be taken into account. Case in point: If Anderson took the time to request information from Brooklyn's Chief of Police, then Tumblety had to be on a JTR suspect list. Now, when we evaluate this, we need to look at plausibility. Would the Asst Commissioner waste his time and the time of Brooklyn's Chief of Police with a minor suspect?

Sincerely,

Mike

(my emphasis)

Hello Mike,

Yes, facts are important, either way. "Had to be on a JTR Suspect list?" The trouble is, nobody has seen Tumblety's name on a "suspect list", except those of modern origin.

"Would the Assistant Commissioner waste his time"..."with a minor suspect?"

My view to that is our dear friend Melville MacNagthen, and the "suspect" Ostrog. MacNagthen became Ass Comm in 1908. He was (in 1894) Chief Constable, Scotland Yard. Based on current knowledge, I think Ostrog qualifies as "minor", in my honest opinion.

As far as Ass Commissioner Anderson... thereby hangs a (fairy) tale...

Hope you are well,

Best wishes,

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

How do you get from "If Anderson took the time to request information from Brooklyn's Chief of Police" to "then Tumblety had to be on a JTR suspect list"?

Walk me through your thinking.

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

How do you get from "If Anderson took the time to request information from Brooklyn's Chief of Police" to "then Tumblety had to be on a JTR suspect list"?

Walk me through your thinking.

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Sure, I am using a logical inference base upon what I've read and also based upon some personal experience. When I was a commander in the Navy and I wanted to express a higher level of importance on a request from another military unit, I would call the commanding officer directly. Keep in mind; my chiefs and other subordinates could have easily done the job, but it would not have given the same sense of urgency and level of importance. Notice the following excerpt from the Brooklyn Citizen on November 23, 1888:

“…Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault. Tumblety is referred to in the dispatch in the following manner: “He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty.”
Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed that he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. The superintendent gave the dispatch immediate attention…”

Are we to assume Anderson’s subordinates could not have done the job, especially if Tumblety was considered a minor suspect? Note Superintendent Campbell’s response, “The Superintendent gave the dispatch immediate attention.” Maybe it is because of my experiences of running a military unit, but to me this is a case of an intentional boss-to-boss correspondence.

By the way, Scotland Yard allowed it to be known publicly that Tumblety was “under arrest” for indecent assault, or gross indecency, yet the interest in Tumblety was a JTR suspect. Notice at the time Anderson requested information on Tumblety from the Brooklyn authorities, he believed Tumblety was in jail. The source the reporter used to reveal how Anderson knew to contact Brooklyn (“He also claimed that he was a resident of Brooklyn..." seems quite logically the same source that stated, "Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the suppose Whitechapel murderer.”

To completely deny the possibility that Tumblety was considered a serious JTR suspect after reading the Brooklyn Citizen article along the known supporting evidence (evidence which has caused many credible ripperologists to believe this prior to the knowledge of this article) just does not make sense.


Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Kind of like the inconvenient fact that Asst Commissioner Robert Anderson of Scotland Yard solicited information from Brooklyn Chief Patrick Campbell about Francis Tumblety, eh Wolf.


Well, tonight I asked Joe if he was merely "making it seem" that the July 1861 comments about Tumblety in The Knickerbocker magazine was the only existing hint that the 'doctor' was in New York during that particular month.

Did Joe purposely avoid any mention of Tumblety's September 1861 Baltimore experience, the ads in Harper's Weekly, etc. ?

Joe answered me just now. Here is what he said:

I mentioned the July 1861 comments made about Tumblety in The Knickerbocker because the time period of "July 1861" is the focus of our research and because that particular Knickerbocker comment is a reason why there is a belief that Tumblety was in New York in July 1861. I didn't mention Tumblety's September 1861 Baltimore experience or the November 1861 report in the Buffalo Express about a Tumblety/McClellan relationship because, once again, "July 1861" is the month that is the focus of our attention.

As for Harper's 1861 Tumblety ads, Tumblety's September 1861 Baltimore experience, the story in the Buffalo Express , etc... I have already addressed those occurrences. I don't seek ways in "avoiding" them. All anybody has to do is click the web link here and read Post 11.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=2880&page=2

That post was typed three years ago. I didn't "avoid" discussing those topics then, nor do I seek ways to "avoid" discussing those topics now.




I also asked Joe if he is engaging in any fantasy dreams about Conover and Tumblety getting together in Washington DC in July 1861. And did Joe present Bill Amos' 1860 U.S. Census findings on the Ripper Writer's web site for the sake of showing people that this will all fantastically lead to the conclusion that Conover and Tumblety actually had their famous dinner meeting in 1861?

Joe replied:


My words in regards to the Conover-Tumblety matter were well expressed in the last paragraph of the Jtrforums web link that I have already provided. There is no fantasy involved. And the reason why I shared the 1860 U.S. Census information was for the sake of us learning more about the "stablekeeper" mentioned in the Pittsburgh Dispatch article that you found, Mike.

June 9, 1860 was the date of the U.S. Census page that I worked from. The information on it appeared in small print on the computer that I'm using. I could only slightly magnify its words, and I transcribed them the best I could. At the bottom of the page, there was a 42 year old stable owner named James listed with his 42 year old wife and 22 year old son, who was also named James. The family's surname was not easy to read. It could be Kiliher, Keliher, or Keleher. If somebody has the capabilities of enlarging this image and distinguish the name more accurately than I ended up doing, then that is just fine.

As for the 22 year old "James", my first look at him caused me to believe that I was reading him to have been an "engineer in the U.S. Army." But if somebody has enlarged that image enough to show that the word was actually Navy instead of Army, then once again, that is just fine.

If I remember correctly, I believe Bill mentioned that he found the same young James in the (1870?) U.S. Census as a grocery store owner. He probably got a good price on beef from his Dad.

I will be at the Ripper Writers' web site if there is need of more discussion about this, Mike.

Oops. I re-read Joe's comments on Ripper Writers and misquoted him specific to James Keleher, Sr. His age was 46 years old and not 42. Joe also stated he will be talking to Bill Amos and review with him the information he had about "grocery store owner" James Keleher.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for that.

As the Ripper story was all over the US press it's odd that Anderson didn't pay Superintendent Campbell the professional courtesy of confirming Tumblety's suspect status. Odd, too, that Anderson didn't enquire if Tumblety had ever been implicated in any Brooklyn or New York prostitute slayings.

The worst accusation Anderson could level at Tumblety was "indecent assault", which is a far cry from serial murder and even less of a credible reason to consider him a Ripper suspect.

Why else might Anderson be interested in Tumblety? Who knows? Maybe the good doctor had paid a visit to 19 Cleveland Street.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon,

October is going to be a great time to continue this particular line of questioning!

Take care,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Mike.

You say that I have an “anti-Tumblety” bias. Roger Palmer has said the same thing on more than one occasion. I’m sure that if you asked Trevor Marriot he’d say that I have an anti-Feigenbaum bias; if you asked a Patricia Cornwell supporter they would say I have an anti-Sickert bias, if you asked a Diary supporter they would say I have an anti-Maybrick bias. This, of course, is a much easier label to throw around than to say that I have a bias against sloppy research, illogic, wishful thinking and downright deception.

It’s clear that you have little understanding of the ins and outs of studying the Whitechapel Murders. That’s not an attack on you but merely the truth based on your short time actually studying the case (or at least looking into Tumblety). What this field is filled with is people who allow their biases to cloud whatever they think or say on these boards. This is not a badge of honour. This is a sign of untrustworthiness. You, I’m afraid, are an untrustworthy poster. Everything you say must be taken with a huge mountain of salt because you tend to ignore the facts and see everything through Tumblety coloured glasses.

Case in point 1. The above. You begin by posting an oddly truncated version of the Pittsburgh Dispatch of 19 November, 1890. You then take some post, or posts, by Joe Chetcuti from some other site, apparently taken out of context, concerning a “Stablekeeper Keliher” (who seems to support “Colonel” Dunham’s dubious claim that Tumblety was in Washington at the time of the battle of Bull Run) which contains numerous errors and misidentifications and offer this as fact.

Case in point 2 (and obviously related to the above). The “Colonel” Dunham interview. I understand that this interview is a cornerstone of the pro-Tumblety theory. Unfortunately it is not worth the paper it’s printed on. That’s just the truth and shows no “bias” on my part. You, however, like to keep bringing it up as “evidence” of Tumblety’s guilt and, on several occasions, I have pointed out to you why it’s bogus:
1. Dunham was a liar, conman, perjurer and “reptile journalist” who, his own biographer (you know, the guy who knows more about Dunham then anyone else on the planet) has stated, can’t be trusted.
2. Everything that Dunham wrote about Tumblety’s time in Washington that can be checked has proven to be either a lie or Dunham got the facts totally wrong.

Add 1 and 2 together and what do you, Mike, get? You get this:

“The evidence for the uterus collection comes from a huge charlatan, Colonel Dunham (Conover). Not that the information is wrong, but because there is a high possibility Dunham lied for his own benefit arguments using his information will not convince the experts. Maybe you could focus your attention on Dunham and see if you can get a new angle to make it more convincing.” (my emphasis).

The above was in response to what a new poster (Siobhan) had written and soon, surprise, surprise, Siobhan wrote this on another thread:

“Tumblety may have been bisexual as he said he married and then turned against women because his wife was a prostitute..(according to Dunham who was a bit of a chancer but not always)…” (my emphasis)

And so the deceit gets passed on to the next Tumbletyite and the truth fades a little more from Tumblety World. This is why I expect we will soon see a post from you stating “Dunham was right! Tumblety was at the battle of Bull Run because a 22 year old US Army Engineer who ran a stable in Washington, and who later became a grocer, said he was! And if Dunham was right about that then he must have been right about the rest of it as well!” (which is why you probably posted the Pittsburgh Dispatch article and Joe’s posts in the first place.)

A final word. If Mr. Palmer’s second article is anything to go on then I don’t think you’re going to have a very good October.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Mike.

You say that I have an “anti-Tumblety” bias. Roger Palmer has said the same thing on more than one occasion. I’m sure that if you asked Trevor Marriot he’d say that I have an anti-Feigenbaum bias; if you asked a Patricia Cornwell supporter they would say I have an anti-Sickert bias, if you asked a Diary supporter they would say I have an anti-Maybrick bias. This, of course, is a much easier label to throw around than to say that I have a bias against sloppy research, illogic, wishful thinking and downright deception.

It’s clear that you have little understanding of the ins and outs of studying the Whitechapel Murders. That’s not an attack on you but merely the truth based on your short time actually studying the case (or at least looking into Tumblety). What this field is filled with is people who allow their biases to cloud whatever they think or say on these boards. This is not a badge of honour. This is a sign of untrustworthiness. You, I’m afraid, are an untrustworthy poster. Everything you say must be taken with a huge mountain of salt because you tend to ignore the facts and see everything through Tumblety coloured glasses.

Case in point 1. The above. You begin by posting an oddly truncated version of the Pittsburgh Dispatch of 19 November, 1890. You then take some post, or posts, by Joe Chetcuti from some other site, apparently taken out of context, concerning a “Stablekeeper Keliher” (who seems to support “Colonel” Dunham’s dubious claim that Tumblety was in Washington at the time of the battle of Bull Run) which contains numerous errors and misidentifications and offer this as fact.

Case in point 2 (and obviously related to the above). The “Colonel” Dunham interview. I understand that this interview is a cornerstone of the pro-Tumblety theory. Unfortunately it is not worth the paper it’s printed on. That’s just the truth and shows no “bias” on my part. You, however, like to keep bringing it up as “evidence” of Tumblety’s guilt and, on several occasions, I have pointed out to you why it’s bogus:
1. Dunham was a liar, conman, perjurer and “reptile journalist” who, his own biographer (you know, the guy who knows more about Dunham then anyone else on the planet) has stated, can’t be trusted.
2. Everything that Dunham wrote about Tumblety’s time in Washington that can be checked has proven to be either a lie or Dunham got the facts totally wrong.

Add 1 and 2 together and what do you, Mike, get? You get this:

“The evidence for the uterus collection comes from a huge charlatan, Colonel Dunham (Conover). Not that the information is wrong, but because there is a high possibility Dunham lied for his own benefit arguments using his information will not convince the experts. Maybe you could focus your attention on Dunham and see if you can get a new angle to make it more convincing.” (my emphasis).

The above was in response to what a new poster (Siobhan) had written and soon, surprise, surprise, Siobhan wrote this on another thread:

“Tumblety may have been bisexual as he said he married and then turned against women because his wife was a prostitute..(according to Dunham who was a bit of a chancer but not always)…” (my emphasis)

And so the deceit gets passed on to the next Tumbletyite and the truth fades a little more from Tumblety World. This is why I expect we will soon see a post from you stating “Dunham was right! Tumblety was at the battle of Bull Run because a 22 year old US Army Engineer who ran a stable in Washington, and who later became a grocer, said he was! And if Dunham was right about that then he must have been right about the rest of it as well!” (which is why you probably posted the Pittsburgh Dispatch article and Joe’s posts in the first place.)

A final word. If Mr. Palmer’s second article is anything to go on then I don’t think you’re going to have a very good October.

Wolf.

Wolf,

I only live an hour and a half away from you. I'll come up there and be that "neighbor that wouldn't leave" and force you to have one of my home brews. My last batch was an awesome honeybrown. I believe you're irritated that there is now two separate sources for Tumblety being a woman hater that predate the Dunham interview, and you are probably irritated by Littlechild's comment "bitter to the extreme" supporting this and making more sense referring to an actual woman hater than your theory. This certainly suggests Tumblety theories do not hinge upon Dunham. Did he exploit Tumblety theories already around. That make alot more sense than Dunham being the source of Tumblety's headaches.

I also know you are aware that if Andrews certainly did come to American because of Tumblety, your pet Parnell theory now becomes suspect. Because of this, your anti-Tumblety bias is certainly quite understandable. than a newbe's biases such as myself.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

...please excuse the typos.

[mklhawley]

The "grocery store" question has been solved. Joe asked me to pass this along:


I heard back from Bill Amos. He truly is helpful. He is a retired gentleman who has done genealogy work for years. He has no preferences in "Ripper" matters, but he is very willing to help researchers when need be.

If you look at Post 10 on this thread, you will see that James and Honora Keliher were briefly mentioned. Bill told me today that this was the man who was a retail grocer in Washington DC according to the 1880 U.S. Census. Bill then shared that census page with me. James and Honora were both listed, and their names appeared as Keleher. James was born in 1837.

James T. Keleher Jr. was born around 1838, and that is why a slight misunderstanding temporarily arose between Bill and I. But as you can tell, this has been easily straightened out now.

I think one of the key things that has been learned this week is that James T. Keleher Sr., (the stable owner) was still alive when the Pittsburgh Dispatch reported of Stablekeeper Keliher's testimony in November 1890. (His son James Jr. would not have been the stable owner.) So it makes sense to eliminate James T. Keleher Jr. as having been the man who made that pro-Tumblety testimony to the Washington DC judge . At first, I had James Jr. as the top candidate. But I was willing to learn more about this story, so I brought up the matter at two Ripper web sites.

I agree that James T. Keleher Sr. can now be considered as the top candidate when we attempt to identify the " Stablekeeper Keliher " who spoke in support of Tumblety. It may have been a case where the Pittsburgh Dispatch slightly misspelled the surname of James Sr.

It could also be said that Robert Linford has found a small handful of additional articles where James Keleher was mentioned as a Washington DC stable owner.

Thanks again to Bill and to those who have helped out with the research during this week.

As for the comment about how facts can be an "inconvenience" to certain researchers, I agree that it's important not to look upon facts while being in that frame of mind. Historical facts are something that we should try to acquire, share, and save. If you find yourself inconvenienced because you learned of a new fact, then it's very likely that you're more interested in promoting a personal cause than you are in acknowledging the truth. As for myself, I was not inconvenienced when it was shown that James Keleher Sr. was the man who probably gave testimony to a judge in November 1890. I think the best way to proceed is to just accept the facts as they emerge and process them in a smart way.

Thanks again for everyone's help, and thanks for sharing the Pittsburgh Dispatch article with us, Mike. As I said from the very start, the purpose of this research had nothing to do with Conover's claim that he met Tumblety after the first Battle of Bull Run. There should not be a need for me to repeat that statement a third time.

The purpose of this research was to try to identify the man who gave testimony before a Washington DC judge in November 1890.

Sincerely,

Mike