Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Mayerling]

Trevor!

I see you're trying to ignore my posts. Too bad, since it certainly shows how you cherry pick the evidence and create points masked by the word, 'facts'.

But people like Phil wasn't privy to your bias - caught red-handed. Notice the proof of your anti-Tumblety bias. in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18, 1888:

BOSTON GLOBE, November 18,1888

DOING WHITECHAPEL
TWO ARRESTS ON SUSPICION MADE YESTERDAY.
ONE A CHUM OF THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE OTHER AN AMERICAN PHYSICIAN.

London, Nov. 17-

Leon Rothschild has offered an income of 2 pounds a week for life for the man who gives the information leading to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.

:

I know this is a bit off topic here, but why on earth would any member of the Rothschild family get involved offering such a really nice financial insentive to catch Jack? Has anybody looked into this business?

There was a story that Mary Kelly had worked in the West End as a servant a year or so before she became a prostitute. Can there be a connection here?

Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

I'll try again.

Was the Sir George Arthur story true?

If not, why not?

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

I know this is a bit off topic here, but why on earth would any member of the Rothschild family get involved offering such a really nice financial insentive to catch Jack? Has anybody looked into this business?

There was a story that Mary Kelly had worked in the West End as a servant a year or so before she became a prostitute. Can there be a connection here?

Jeff

Or could it just be public spirit?

Or even outrage?

Or because the finger was being pointed at Jews and he figured either way to would prove not to be a Jew or show that the Jewish people were willing to even offer a reward that saw the capture of one of their own.

[mklhawley]

Hi Jeff,

Was this a response to the British government not offering a reward earlier?

It is intriguing.

Mike

[jerryd]

Hi Phil,

Not that I fingered Fred Abberline for cover-up king (although one might make an effort to do so).

I think you are on track, actually, Jeff.

First of all, read about Police in the Pay in the Pall Mall Gazette articles. Second, Jack Saul, a man very deep in the Cleveland Street Scandal, testified in the Earnesr Parke trial that the police turned their heads to more than him. Jack was interviewed by Abberline's assistant during that trial.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

I'll try again.

Was the Sir George Arthur story true?

If not, why not?

Regards,

Simon

Let me get this straight, I asked you a simple question on January 26, post #48, on the Tumblety in the Evening Post Thread, on this very subject and you refused to answer. I think I'll repeat my more appropriate answer:

For me, I have no issues, because that very November 7, 1888, New York World cable also reported about 'Kumblety' being first arrested on suspicion and then AFTER being charged with gross indecency in order to hold him due to the Ripper case. This was the only report of Sir George Arthur.

You, along with Trevor, claim the London correspondent is dead wrong about 'Kumblety', because we can't trust secondary sources, yet is dead right about Sir George (even though it's the very same secondary source). Further entrenching your biasness is the fact that the London correspondent has been corroborated by the charge sheet, the court calendars, the Boston Herald correspondent, the AP correspondent, Littlechild, AND Assistant Commissioner Anderson. It's not that the London correspondent story had no corroboration.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Third time lucky.

Was the Sir George Arthur story true?

If not, why not?

It's a simple enough question.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Third time lucky.

Was the Sir George Arthur story true?

If not, why not?

It's a simple enough question.

Regards,

Simon

My question that you refused to answer earlier was simple, too. Why won't you? Answer mine, and I'll gladly answer yours. Simple, isn't it?

Oh, maybe you forgot the question. I'll repost:

So, let me get this right, Simon. I don't think it's a coincidence that you have always pushed the Sir George Arthur issue and it was in the article you helped Trevor with. Why have you automatically accepted the Sir George Arthur story, but don't accept that Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion when the New York World November 17 article speaks of both? Either you accept the Sir George Arthur story AND Tumblety first being arrested on suspicion or you reject both. Or, you're cherry picken'. Hmmm.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Which question of yours did I refuse to answer?

Please table it once again.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

You are relying on secondary evidence from newspapers which we know is unsafe.

Now please be kind enough to answer the questions without posting extracts from newspapers.

www.trevormarriott.co.

Except that the newspaper account quoted is clearly based on a primary source - information supplied by a senior New York police officer of correspondence between himself and Anderson. It's not something they could have guessed is it? Newspaper evidence, like any other source, has to be evaluated, not simply dismissed out of hand. It is quite clear, from a simple reading of the article, that Tumblety was suspected at the time. The newspaper article, offered in response to your challenge, answered your challenge more than adequately.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Colin,

Anderson neglected to mention the Whitechapel murders in his telegram to Superintendent Campbell.

A puzzling omission, n'est-ce pas?

Regards,

Simon

[Barrister]

When was Sir George Arthur arrested? Was he in custody at the same time as Tumblety? What is the source of information about when Sir George was taken to jail? Thanks.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Barrister,

All the requisite reports are freely available on-line.

Regards,

Simon

[Barrister]

Are you referring to arrest reports? Where can I locate them? thanks.

[Simon Wood]

No. Press reports only, I'm afraid.