Mike
I could just as easily accuse you of confirmation bias – even though you say you consciously seek to check your own – hmmm we are seldom really self-aware.
But I will stick to examining the various accounts and let them speak.
I’m still not clear why you think I have a ‘vindictive’ agenda.
But never mind.
On Siobhan’s thread I pointed out some errors in the newspaper article to which she provided a link. How can that be described as derailing? It may have been a bit like pulling the wings off a butterfly and I may have been a bit ungallant in pointing these errors out but I most certainly was not derailing the tread.
You also accuse me of ‘trolling’ because I didn’t just roll over and accept your version of events with respect to how the news of Tumblety’s arrest and his subsequent ‘secret’ flight (actually I haven’t gone into that much yet) leaked out. I am not the first person to suggest that Tumblety himself was responsible for leaking the information to cover up for his actual arrest for gross indecency.
You have provided instances of Tumblety being described as a woman hater – without being in a position to know what the writer meant by that expression.
You have provided instances of his young male targets stating that Tumblety warned them off against going with fallen women by using horrid language about these ladies of the night. You do not acknowledge that this may just have been part of a gambit by Tumblety to seduce these youths into his clutches.
Let’s take your latest account, from The Inter Ocean (Chicago, Illinois) 4th December 1888
‘A few years after reaching manhood, he evinced a great dislike for women, and constantly spoke of the gentler sex as a curse to the land.’
The significant thing to ask is where did the Inter Ocean get this information from? Only then can we evaluate its worth.
You say that Tumblety had two personas - public and private.
Then you quote from the Philadelphia Times of 8th December which supposedly discussed (very publicly) his private feelings. Can you see the inherent contradiction there?
It also discussed the possibility that Tumblety would go to Chicago to escape his notoriety in New York. Rather like a modern celeb going out in massive sun glasses to escape the attention of the paps.
Yeah a real recluse.
So before the advent of ‘Yellow Journalism’ the New York World was a beacon of truthful reportage?
On 22nd December 1888 it reported a very detailed account of Inspector Andrews’ movements while he was based in Toronto.
Inspector Andrews was the Scotland Yard detective sent to escort a prisoner back to Canada.
They claimed to have interviewed Andrews just as he was departing for Halifax (Nova Scotia) from Montreal, while on his train journey to get his ship back to England.
“It is generally understood, Mr. Andrews, that your stay in this country has been lengthened by certain work you have been doing in connection with the Parnell Commission. Is there any truth in the rumor?”
“I had rather not answer that question,” he replied.
“Will you deny that such was your mission or part of your mission here?”
“Why do you press me? You ought to know that I cannot divulge the secrets of my office.”
“But won’t you say yes or no?”
“No, I will not deny the statement.”
“It is said that you have been very unsuccessful in your efforts; that to try and find bona-fide evidence detrimental to the league is lost time in this country. What has been your experience?”
“I may not have been as successful as could be wished, neither do I think, from my experience, that I have been very unsuccessful. As for its being lost time to look for evidence in America, that is all rot. I am pretty certain that a continual correspondence has gone on for years between Parnell, O’Donovan Rossa and others in this country and western America, who I am not prepared to name, and much of this correspondence will naturally fall in line as evidence against Parnell when the proper time comes to present it.”
“When will that be?”
“I cannot tell you, but it will likely be given within a month, at the next sitting of the Commission.”
“Don’t you want to know something about the Whitechapel murders?”
“No, thank you.” replied the reporter, “I have got quite enough,” and the interview ended.
All true?
I will come onto the text in Littlechild’s letter when I get a chance.
I could just as easily accuse you of confirmation bias – even though you say you consciously seek to check your own – hmmm we are seldom really self-aware.
But I will stick to examining the various accounts and let them speak.
I’m still not clear why you think I have a ‘vindictive’ agenda.
But never mind.
On Siobhan’s thread I pointed out some errors in the newspaper article to which she provided a link. How can that be described as derailing? It may have been a bit like pulling the wings off a butterfly and I may have been a bit ungallant in pointing these errors out but I most certainly was not derailing the tread.
You also accuse me of ‘trolling’ because I didn’t just roll over and accept your version of events with respect to how the news of Tumblety’s arrest and his subsequent ‘secret’ flight (actually I haven’t gone into that much yet) leaked out. I am not the first person to suggest that Tumblety himself was responsible for leaking the information to cover up for his actual arrest for gross indecency.
You have provided instances of Tumblety being described as a woman hater – without being in a position to know what the writer meant by that expression.
You have provided instances of his young male targets stating that Tumblety warned them off against going with fallen women by using horrid language about these ladies of the night. You do not acknowledge that this may just have been part of a gambit by Tumblety to seduce these youths into his clutches.
Let’s take your latest account, from The Inter Ocean (Chicago, Illinois) 4th December 1888
‘A few years after reaching manhood, he evinced a great dislike for women, and constantly spoke of the gentler sex as a curse to the land.’
The significant thing to ask is where did the Inter Ocean get this information from? Only then can we evaluate its worth.
You say that Tumblety had two personas - public and private.
Then you quote from the Philadelphia Times of 8th December which supposedly discussed (very publicly) his private feelings. Can you see the inherent contradiction there?
It also discussed the possibility that Tumblety would go to Chicago to escape his notoriety in New York. Rather like a modern celeb going out in massive sun glasses to escape the attention of the paps.
Yeah a real recluse.
So before the advent of ‘Yellow Journalism’ the New York World was a beacon of truthful reportage?
On 22nd December 1888 it reported a very detailed account of Inspector Andrews’ movements while he was based in Toronto.
Inspector Andrews was the Scotland Yard detective sent to escort a prisoner back to Canada.
They claimed to have interviewed Andrews just as he was departing for Halifax (Nova Scotia) from Montreal, while on his train journey to get his ship back to England.
“It is generally understood, Mr. Andrews, that your stay in this country has been lengthened by certain work you have been doing in connection with the Parnell Commission. Is there any truth in the rumor?”
“I had rather not answer that question,” he replied.
“Will you deny that such was your mission or part of your mission here?”
“Why do you press me? You ought to know that I cannot divulge the secrets of my office.”
“But won’t you say yes or no?”
“No, I will not deny the statement.”
“It is said that you have been very unsuccessful in your efforts; that to try and find bona-fide evidence detrimental to the league is lost time in this country. What has been your experience?”
“I may not have been as successful as could be wished, neither do I think, from my experience, that I have been very unsuccessful. As for its being lost time to look for evidence in America, that is all rot. I am pretty certain that a continual correspondence has gone on for years between Parnell, O’Donovan Rossa and others in this country and western America, who I am not prepared to name, and much of this correspondence will naturally fall in line as evidence against Parnell when the proper time comes to present it.”
“When will that be?”
“I cannot tell you, but it will likely be given within a month, at the next sitting of the Commission.”
“Don’t you want to know something about the Whitechapel murders?”
“No, thank you.” replied the reporter, “I have got quite enough,” and the interview ended.
All true?
I will come onto the text in Littlechild’s letter when I get a chance.
Comment