Another Twomblety Oddity

[celee]

Hi Brad.

I’m not sure why you find it hard to believe that Macnaghten held different views about the identity of the Ripper at different times in his police career, especially since evidence (which supposedly pointed to Druitt) was “not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer.” We know nothing about Macnaghten’s earlier suspect other than what Browne wrote: “Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour at the Irish Office.” How you can connect this brief sentence with Druitt is beyond my meager abilities.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf,

Do not sell your self short, you have great abilities. So take a deep breath and forget about my opinions on Druitt. Concentrate on the sentence "Sir Melville Macnaughten appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour at the Irish Office." What does that sentence mean? Did Macnaughten identify the Ripper as the leader of such a plot or did he connect the Ripper with the leader of a plot against Mr. Balfour.

Druitt was a suspect at the time of the murders. Unlike you I feel information came fairly early concerning him.

Your friend, Brad

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Brad.

I would suggest that Browne is saying that Macnaghten thought that the Ripper was the leader of a plot to assassinate Balfour. This would indicate someone who was a high ranking member of either the Clan na Gaul or the Irish Invincibles, both of whom plotted to kill the Irish Secretary. It is likely, given those two terrorist organizations, that this leader was based in the U.S. (some have suggested Tumblety which is why this discussion is in this thread).

Your statement that Druitt “was a suspect at the time of the murders” amazes me and I have never seen any evidence that this is true. Especially since it was Macnaghten himself who wrote that evidence that the Ripper committed suicide shortly after the last murder (i.e. Druitt) was “not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer.” Apparently you know more about this than Macnaghten himself.

Wolf.

[celee]

Hi,

Thanks Wolf. I am a bright fellow.

Your friend, Brad

[celee]

Hi,

"All patrols to the east end stood down after the Kelly murder. In less time between the double event and the Kelly murder, after the Kelly murder patrols stood down."

I have watched ripper shows with the usual ripper experts and read books that claim since patrols stood down so soon after the Kelly murder the police must have known something. They must have been sure that no more murders would take place. They must have known who Jack the Ripper was.

What happend between November 9th 1888 and January 1st 1889? 1. Tumblety fled to America. 2. Druitt's body washed up.

Who knew? Well we know Abberline did not have a clue. Anderson and Swanson thought they knew. However, not until much later. James Monro would have known why patrols to the East end stood down and any information Monro knew he would have past on to his good friend Macnaughten.

Is it possible that Monro's suspect was Tumblety? Tumblety could have been the man that Macnaoughten connected to a plot against Balfour and later when the private information was recieved concerning Druitt he changed his mind. What a deep breath they must have taken when they relized their mistake.

It has been claimed that the evidence against a suspect would have to have been conclusive in order for them to reduce the patrols so quickly Since Druitt is Macnaughtens ultimate suspect, Druitt seems to be the choice. I feel it is posible that Druitt's family knew he committed suicide before the body washed up on the banks of the Themes. The private information concerning the family that Macnaughten writes about probably came from Momro's private secretary who was married to a distant relative of Druitts. Monro, out of respect for his friend and his wife's family, may have kept it hush from the Detectives who worked under him. Abberline, Swanson and Anderson may not have known all the facts regarding Druitt.

Any information that Macnaughten had concerning the case would have came from Monroe. So, if Monro felt he knew who Jack the Ripper was. If he was so confident that patrols were reduced in such a short time after the Kelly murder and if Druitt was Monro's suspect then Macnaughten would have known sooner then later about Druitt.

I know that it is the believe of many that patrols stood down because the department could no longer spend the money to keep them out. Maybe.

Your friend, Brad

[rjpalmer]

Wolf Vanderlinden writes:

There is actually no connection between Tumblety and the murders that we know of other than the suspicion of Littlechild (who didn’t say that Tumblety was the Ripper and, in fact, states that he wasn’t)

In case you’re left scratching your head by this odd claim about what Littlechild allegedly said, here is the sentence to which Wolf Vanderlinden is referring. It comes from the Littechild Letter:

"Although a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject [Tumblety] was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record.”


Bluntly put, no competent reader would translate the above passage as meaning “Littlechild said Tumblety was not the Ripper.”

It’s not even remotely what he is saying.

Littlechild is stressing that Tumblety was a proven misogynist. His feelings about women were ‘bitter in the extreme.’ It was a ‘fact on record.’ It was ‘remarkable.’

As if to say: ‘No, my dear Sims, it was not proven sadism, but it was pretty frickin’ weird.’

And, of course, we already know what Littlechild believed...he said so only two sentences earlier: Tumblety was not only ‘among the suspects,’ he was ‘a very likely one.’

It doesn’t get much simpler than that.


So, in short, while, like any good Chief Inspector, Littlechild is admitting that there was no direct evidence that Tumblety was a sadist (‘He was not known as a sadist which the murderer unquestionably was’ ) on the otherhand, there was evidence that he was a misogynist. It was ‘a fact on record.’

But hey, why argue? Feel free to pop down to your local university and show the Littlechild Letter to five different Professors of English (or Linguistics, or even trusty librarians). See if any of them would be willing to translate it as “Littlechild said Tumblety was not the Ripper.”

RP

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Excellent, Mr. Palmer, you took the bait!

I hoped, given your typical knee-jerk response to anything that even remotely goes against your chosen suspect, that you would actually appear on the boards and direct some of your idiocy my way. And you did.

Here’s the thing I wanted to ask you about Mr. Palmer. Back in December of last year Jonathan Menges started a thread titled “Tumblety, Melville and Le Havre.” This was an update of his research into the radio broadcast that was supposed to have aired on Radio Station 2YA, New Zealand, commencing on the 24th of August 1937. Mr. Menges, who contacted sources in New Zealand and also author Andrew Cook, was unable to find any trace of this radio program.

Now, I’m sure you remember the discussion Jonathan and I were having about this, one now lost due to the last meltdown, where we pointed out that nobody, not even author Cook, seems to have heard its contents. At this point you hiked up your skirts and came rushing over to quash any talk that the program might not exist by claiming:

“It was a specific radio interview wherein a son simply and without adornment informed the listeners that his father had worked the Whitechapel Murder investigation. No more, no less.”

This seemed to indicate that you had heard the radio program, or at least, knew of its contents which you describe as having been given “simply and without adornment.” I asked you then, and you refused to respond, and I ask you now, since Jonathan has shared his research into the matter: Where did you hear the radio program? Can you tell us what’s the correct date of its airing? Can you provide a transcript of the program or even a general idea of what was said? Why have you stayed away from the “Tumblety, Melville and Le Havre” board when you can simply clear up the whole matter?

Or, as I suspect, were you once more just barging into a conversation that was debunking so called evidence against your precious Tumblety and using any measure you could – lies, misdirection, half truths – in order to attempt to stop the conversation?

As I have said in the past you have zero integrity and zero credibility but you can at least partially change that by simply tell us about that radio program. Can you do that, Mr. Palmer? Thanks for responding.

Wolf.

[perrymason]

Brad,

Although it may appear that police "stood down" as you put it after Kellys murder, they ramped up after her death, and it was not until January that numbers were greatly reduced, and by February there were still more men assigned to Metro than was the norm.

I had a talk with our member SPE about this issue when I first joined here....and I was mistaken, as you now are.

Kellys or Druitts death did not end the investigation at all...and the gradual decrease of men on the streets likely had more to do with budgets and workable leads than a conclusion that the series had ended.

Plus....and damning for the Druittites, is the fact then when Alice Mckenzie is killed the Ripper-like numbers of police were activated again.

Best regards

[celee]

Brad,

Although it may appear that police "stood down" as you put it after Kellys murder, they ramped up after her death, and it was not until January that numbers were greatly reduced, and by February there were still more men assigned to Metro than was the norm.

I had a talk with our member SPE about this issue when I first joined here....and I was mistaken, as you now are.

Kellys or Druitts death did not end the investigation at all...and the gradual decrease of men on the streets likely had more to do with budgets and workable leads than a conclusion that the series had ended.

Plus....and damning for the Druittites, is the fact then when Alice Mckenzie is killed the Ripper-like numbers of police were activated again.

Best regards

Hi Perry.

Thanks for the information. I have read it before. It is a easy mistake to make. When you watch documentaries with respected men in the field claiming that aid to the East end stood down and you read books with respected researchers making the same claim. It is enough to make you wonder.

Your friend, Brad

__________________________________________________ _______________
"You told me to bring you Jack the Ripper. You sighn that piece of paper and I will, tonight!"

[celee]

Hi,

Another thing that is interesting is the fact that Macnaughten and Anderson claim that Kelly was the last Ripper victim and yet they have Different suspects. They both claim to know the identity of the Killer. If they have different suspects then why are they both so sure that the Kelly murder was the last committed by Jack the Ripper? I guess Swanson would also agree Kelly was the last murder and if Macnaughten thought Kelly to be the Rippers last victim then I would be willing to bet Dollars to Doughnuts that Monro also believed Kelly to be the last Victim.

I guess my question would be Why did the Detectives who worked the case seem to sure that Kelly was the last Ripper victim? Although other murders took place after Kelly was killed.

If Kelly was indeed that last Ripper victim then again we are looking for something that happend after Kelly was murdered that made the murders stop.

1. Tumblety flees to America. 2. Druitt commits suicide. If there something that happend that I missed then someone let me know. I guess Anderson claimed that the Ripper was watched so he could not commit any more murders. We can eliminate alot of suspects.

I am guessing that after the private information was obtained. When ever it was obtained, the Detectives came to their conclusions.

Your friend, Brad

[perrymason]

Hi Brad,

Something that Wolf addressed earlier is nagging at me...regarding your comment that Druitt was a suspect at the time of the murders.

That cant be accurate.

I know he is one of three men indicated by the authorities as being a likely suspect.....but there was no discussion of Druitt at all until after he disappears and is found drowned, was there? Do we have a date that discussions of him surfaced, that predates his suicide?

Im quite interested by the fact that US papers had picked up on Londons interest in Dr T as a suspect, yet no local papers seemed to be on that,... plus,... 2 books concerning Vasiliev as a possible Ripper by an American author were rushed to press in late 1888...but neither of those two are mentioned in that manner by the local police at the time. What we have... from documents that survived, reason to believe that the most likely men the Police believed were responsible were a hairdresser, a cricket-playing lawyer that committed suicide after the murders, or a petty thief who it turns out was incarcerated at the time.

Why wouldnt the local press be following the same suspects the US was? How did information crossing the pond suddenly make T and V more viable to US journalists than men believed likely by the authorities?

Thanks in advance Brad, best regards.

[rjpalmer]

Vanderlinden, old bean,

Since the demise of Ripper Notes, you seem to have become increasingly angry and unhinged. It's odd that so much of this new anger has surfaced on the Tumblety threads...

One would have thought from Dan Norder's example, that you would have realized by now that chosing the path of self-importance, accusation, aggression, and bombast is not a particularly good long-term strategy. It only makes you look like childish, and usually ends in self-destruction.

You see, old man, I remember the converstation very differently, though I have no desire to relive it. Is it possible that I make mistakes? Or phrase things a little awkwardly? Absolutely. I have not yet reached your level of divinity.

But what I seem to recall was a certain self-important Canadian chap characterizing Melville's connection to the Ripper case as a 'hazy family rememberance."

I merely pointed out that, since you had never actually heard the tapes alluded to by Cook, you had no information by which to make this claim, and it seemed little more than the usual, run-of-the-mill, unexamined knee-jerk skepticism so cherished by a certain type of "Ripperologist."

Of course, you quickly took the opportunity to twist things around saying I had claimed to have heard the program, when I was actually merely paraphrasing what Cook wrote.


J. Menges then bailed you out (no fault of his) by pointing out there was a problem with Cook's footnote. Then we were treated to that deep thinker, Dan Norder, who rushed forward in that charming style of his, ranting and raving (having done no original research) that it was all "lies" and "fabrications" and I was "fool to believe it."

Sigh. All par for the course

In truth, I have long known there is a problem with Cook's statement in his book, and it might surprise you to know that I already contacted Mr. Cook several months before J. Menges did, and even managed to trace his original notes. Unlike your own good self, I found Cook to be a friendly gentleman, who was very helpful and honest, and I felt that the attitude taken towards him on this forum appeared to be more in line with a desire to embarrass him in public, than to examine the possible importance of his original research, despite whatever shortcomings it contained.

Ripperologists are alot like the Ripper...very eager to rip some poor soul to pieces, but very hesitant to see the little bit of good in folks.

In short, I owe you nothing Vanderlinden--certainly not an explanation. I find your attitude remarkably arrogant. Always did. You seem to think you know more about the events of 1888 then a Chief Inspector who was actually at Scotland Yard at the time. And arrogance, I might point out, is absolutely the worst trait a historian can have--far worse than buying the Brooklyn Bridge on occasion

My reasons for taking Cook's statement seriously are based on a source independent of Cook that is entirely unknown to you, and which I have no intention of handing you on a platter. I might even be willing to pass on some of my information to Menges, as he seems to be a decent bloke, but I certainly feel very hesitant to cooperate with you or anyone associated with you, when you are so eager to fly off the handle whenever someone challenges your interpretations. If you want an echo chamber, Vanderlinden, find wherever Dan Norder is hiding and curl up beside him.

And what, dare I ask, is this bizarre comment about me "hiking up my skirts?" Are you in the third grade, Wolf? As a society, are we perhaps beyond using women, or the traits of women, as objects of ridicule? Considering that we are dealing with a topic where a man tore women to little bits, I think you'd be a little more careful about your submerged sexism.

As for me being a liar, etc., this is the same drivel that directly led to the crash and burn of Ripper Notes. Your colleague loved to toss out similar accusations with anyone who didn't agree with his ideas, or who questioned his often bizarre logic, and, as a result, in time there was simplyy not enough people left willing to work with him. When contributors didn't come forward, the magazine perished. That's the sad truth, Vanderlinden. It should have stood as an object lesson to you, yet clearly you dont' wish to learn.

Rather than play your silly games, hoping someone will "take the bait," perhaps you'd be wiser to start rethinking some of you own assumptions about the case. Pissed-off men seldom think clearly, and, from where I'm sitting, you're not thinking very clearly.

Someday I'd like to have more civil discourse with you, Vanderlinden, but I suspect that day will never arrive, and I have no intention of putting up with your nonsense in the meantime.

RP

[celee]

Hi Brad,

Something that Wolf addressed earlier is nagging at me...regarding your comment that Druitt was a suspect at the time of the murders.

That cant be accurate.

I know he is one of three men indicated by the authorities as being a likely suspect.....but there was no discussion of Druitt at all until after he disappears and is found drowned, was there? Do we have a date that discussions of him surfaced, that predates his suicide?

Im quite interested by the fact that US papers had picked up on Londons interest in Dr T as a suspect, yet no local papers seemed to be on that,... plus,... 2 books concerning Vasiliev as a possible Ripper by an American author were rushed to press in late 1888...but neither of those two are mentioned in that manner by the local police at the time. What we have... from documents that survived, reason to believe that the most likely men the Police believed were responsible were a hairdresser, a cricket-playing lawyer that committed suicide after the murders, or a petty thief who it turns out was incarcerated at the time.

Why wouldnt the local press be following the same suspects the US was? How did information crossing the pond suddenly make T and V more viable to US journalists than men believed likely by the authorities?

Thanks in advance Brad, best regards.

Hi Perry,

First, Druitt in my opinion would have become a suspect after he committed suicide. It is posible the family knew Druitt committed suicide before his body washed up. So his involvment may have been known before the body was discovered. Again, in my opinion, Druitt was a suspect no later then January 1889. I doubt the family would come forward years after Druitt committed suicide to implicate him. I think that he may have left a note that was kept by the family. I feel what ever evidence that pointed to Druitt was given to Monro by the family.

People who take their own life often leave a note and it would have been odd for Druitt not to leave one. Why would Druitts own family suspect him? What could the private information have been that Macnaughten later burned?

Why Dr. Tumblety was never picked up on by the London papers is beyond me. Not only did Tumblety's name apear as a suspect in the US papers, he was written about in papers all over the world.

Your friend, Brad

[celee]

Hi Perry,

Just up a little late watching youtube videos and I watched an old documentary that makes the case against Tumblety. I found it interesting. I had never seen the show before. I do not know how acurate the show is but it has all the ripper experts that always pop up on such programs. The program touches base about the newspaper reports and lack of press coverage in London concerning Tumblety as Jack the ripper.

Take care, Brad

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Mr. Palmer.

I’m surprised you actually felt the need to sign your last post. Your writing style is so predictable that the chore was totally unnecessary. Take this last one, for example, so true to form that one wonders if you use fill in the blanks or a computer program which does this sort of thing for you (less taxing on your brain I suppose).

First we have the usual sneering superiority; the lecturing tone whereby R.J. Palmer will instruct us on what is right and proper in life let alone Ripperology. Add to this the self delusion whereby Palmer is unable to remember the actual conversation itself but assures us that he is the total innocent who is hard done by. Next, throw in some odd statements which bear no relation to the truth and we left with a typical Palmer post.

Since the demise of Ripper Notes, you seem to have become increasingly angry and unhinged.

First, I had no notion that Ripper Notes was gone, but then I’m only an editor of the magazine. Perhaps you can tell us all where you get your apparently inside information from? Second, “you seem to have become increasingly angry and unhinged .” Really? I had no notion. Perhaps you can provide some examples of this because, having read back on my posts of the last several months, I can’t seem to find any evidence of this myself (word of advice. If you wish to make statements that are easily proved to be untrue then you only make yourself look like an idiot. Again).

You see, old man, I remember the converstation (sic) very differently, though I have no desire to relive it. Is it possible that I make mistakes? Or phrase things a little awkwardly? Absolutely. I have not yet reached your level of divinity.
But what I seem to recall was a certain self-important Canadian chap characterizing Melville's connection to the Ripper case as a 'hazy family rememberance (sic)."
I merely pointed out that, since you had never actually heard the tapes alluded to by Cook, you had no information by which to make this claim…

This is vintage “Palmer.” Some one brings up something you have said in the past, in this case using your actual quote, and you “remember the conversation differently,” or you deny that it ever happened, or you claim that you have been misunderstood. I’m not surprised that you “remember the converstation (sic) very differently” since it once more exposed your lack of integrity and credibility.

Firstly, I originally posted that Andrew Cook’s theory, as it appears in his book M, MI5’s First Spymaster, that William Melville’s connection with the Whitechapel Murders might have had something to do with Tumblety; that he may have arrested Tumblety in Le Havre and that he might have been forced by the French authorities to release him was “surmise based on a hazy family remembrance which Cook doesn’t seem to even know the gist of.” There is no evidence that Cook’s theory is true, let alone that this theory had anything to do with the Melville family’s story, which it is obvious that Cook never heard. Conveniently you have forgotten this and confuse an unknown family reminiscence with an author’s assumptions (par for the course with you, I’m afraid).

Secondly, you interrupted a discussion about a radio program – which no one can now find any evidence that it actually existed – with the claim that “It was a specific radio interview wherein a son simply and without adornment informed the listeners that his father had worked the Whitechapel Murder investigation. No more, no less.” When asked to explain this statement, since by claiming that the information was given “simply and without adornment…no more, no less” you appear to have heard the program and thus were able to comment on its contents, you refused and it became clear that you have not heard the missing program but were merely attempting to lead the conversation away from the truth (again, typical “Palmer”).

In short, I owe you nothing Vanderlinden--certainly not an explanation. I find your attitude remarkably arrogant. Always did.

No explanation is necessary Mr. Palmer. I already know what you stand for.

Wolf.

[caz]

Hi Wolf,

Giving RJ the benefit of the doubt in his absence, I’d say he probably meant that after conducting his own research he concluded (ie independently of Jonathan Menges) that: “It was [presumably] a specific radio interview wherein a son simply and without adornment informed the listeners that his father had worked the Whitechapel Murder investigation. No more, no less [because not finding it itemised anywhere I deduced that it was broadcast as part of a 10 minute Breakfast Session or evening news segment and as such there would have been no time for frills.”

All perfectly reasonable, but I expect RJ will eventually return with a far more concisely worded explanation that ticks all the right boxes, if you only wate a whil longer. I do have reason to believe he has been very busy with something I asked him to do for me ages and ages ago, so I have to take some responsibility for keeping him from more pressing matters.

I was rather hoping RJ might have identified for me by now just one or two examples, from a certain handwritten document, of the very distinctive way a named individual - someone he suspects of criminal activity - wrote a specific letter of the alphabet (Exhibit Special k). RJ claimed that examples of Special k could be found throughout this document, and while I may not have spent nearly as much time poring over it as he has (or perhaps he is admirably waiting for a professional opinion that he is prepared to pass on), and my copy may have the odd cornflake stuck to it, and a froot loop on every page, I have been unable to find a single solitary example of the specific cereal offending that RJ reckoned would serve up the culprit and his document for breakfast.

If it takes much longer, I will have to wonder if RJ’s Special k is just another product of one of those 10 minute Breakfast Sessions. Or maybe a switch to All-Bran would hurry things along a bit and get them out of his system.

I guess my question would be Why did the Detectives who worked the case seem to sure that Kelly was the last Ripper victim? Although other murders took place after Kelly was killed.

If Kelly was indeed that last Ripper victim then again we are looking for something that happend after Kelly was murdered that made the murders stop.

1. Tumblety flees to America. 2. Druitt commits suicide. If there something that happend that I missed then someone let me know. I guess Anderson claimed that the Ripper was watched so he could not commit any more murders. We can eliminate alot of suspects.

I am guessing that after the private information was obtained. When ever it was obtained, the Detectives came to their conclusions.

Your friend, Brad

Hi Brad,

Well I suppose it could have been quite useful to have an heir and one or two spares lined up at some point, in case questions were asked about whether the police had managed to identify any promising suspects at all, or had followed any promising leads, or had just been fannying about without a clue about who might have murdered a single one of the Whitechapel victims.

Each senior policeman could have had his own idea of who would make the most suitable heir or spare, and it’s easy to see where the main suspects could have fit into such a line-up. Obviously MJK would have had to be the final victim for certain suspects to qualify for a place. But anyone who had committed suicide or fled abroad to escape justice, at a ‘significant’ time; or was safely caged in an asylum, or otherwise known to be of unsound mind; or was a known criminal or alleged sexual pervert, would have fit the bill without too much explanation necessary or too many awkward questions about hard evidence behind the selections. A cosmetic exercise all round if you will, although I'm not suggesting it actually went down that way.

Today, we’d just see a different line-up of victims linked to one killer and a somewhat different bunch of fall guys.

Love,

Caz
X