Tumblety in the Evening Post

[Batman]

1. Why would he have been taken into custody on suspicion of being JtR if he was in jail at the time MJK was murdered?

Your answer Trevor is "According to court records he was bailed on Nov 16 so he could not have been in jail on Nov 18th".

Maybe instead labelling my words as 'ramblings' as you can call them you could try reading them. That doesn't answer the question at all does it?

[mklhawley]

3. There is no other corroboration to the statement that his lodgings were
ever searched not even in connection with the indecency charges

The following is an excerpt from an article in the November 25, 1888, edition of the Boston Herald,

The Boston Herald, November 25, 1888., A WHITECHAPEL SUSPECT.

Dr. Tumblety, Once a Banisher of Pimples in Boston.

One of the Whitechapel murder suspects is a curious character known as Dr. Tumblety, who 15 years or more ago was considered an eccentric person of Boston. He was seen quite frequently on the streets and never without attracting attention. He did not live here permanently for any great length of time, but was a frequent sojourner, and subsequently took up his residence in New York. When the London police arrested him the other day on suspicion of being the murderer he said that he belonged in New York. The police found that they could not get enough evidence against him to hold him for trial, but they succeeded getting some sort of a charge sufficient to hold him under one of the special laws passed after the “modern Babylon” exposures, which created so much excitement a couple of years ago. The doctor’s identity was for a time concealed after his arrest, but the police, who took the liberty of hunting up his lodgings and ransacking his private effects, discovered easily who he was, and they say that he has been in the habit of making two trips yearly to this side of the water.

…A few years ago the doctor transferred his pimple banishing enterprise to London, where he appears always to have had plenty of money, though the source of supply is a mystery to Scotland Yard.



The information about Tumblety’s identity concealed and the police ransacking his London lodging was never reported in any New York papers AND could only have come from a London-based source. The Boston Herald certainly printed information in this article on Tumblety found locally in Boston, but the London information –at least in part- must have come out of London. Note the phrase, ‘to this side of the water’; clearly written by a reporter from ‘this side of the water’, i.e., London. Note the London information not found in the November 17, 1888, New York World news cable reporting the police finding and ransacking Tumblety’s lodgings. Where did this London-based information come from? Other than claiming that the Boston Herald made it up, the simplest explanation is that it came from the Boston Herald London correspondent, Arthur Warren.

Sorry Trevor, that's called corroboration.

[PaulB]

Newspapers are generally considered to be primary sources, not, as Trevor repeatedly states, secondary sources. A primary source is something written at a time contemporary with the events it describes, which newspapers obviously were.

[Trevor Marriott]

Newspapers are generally considered to be primary sources, not, as Trevor repeatedly states, secondary sources. A primary source is something written at a time contemporary with the events it describes, which newspapers obviously were.

Well I am sorry but I disagree, and furthermore your interpretration is also wrong. They are reports which in some case have purportedly come via primary sources, and in other cases as a result of hearsay, they cannot in either case be totally relied upon to be accurate as has been seen and shown many times.

Come to think of it sometimes the original primary sources are questionable

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The following is an excerpt from an article in the November 25, 1888, edition of the Boston Herald,

The Boston Herald, November 25, 1888., A WHITECHAPEL SUSPECT.

Dr. Tumblety, Once a Banisher of Pimples in Boston.

One of the Whitechapel murder suspects is a curious character known as Dr. Tumblety, who 15 years or more ago was considered an eccentric person of Boston. He was seen quite frequently on the streets and never without attracting attention. He did not live here permanently for any great length of time, but was a frequent sojourner, and subsequently took up his residence in New York. When the London police arrested him the other day on suspicion of being the murderer he said that he belonged in New York. The police found that they could not get enough evidence against him to hold him for trial, but they succeeded getting some sort of a charge sufficient to hold him under one of the special laws passed after the “modern Babylon” exposures, which created so much excitement a couple of years ago. The doctor’s identity was for a time concealed after his arrest, but the police, who took the liberty of hunting up his lodgings and ransacking his private effects, discovered easily who he was, and they say that he has been in the habit of making two trips yearly to this side of the water.

…A few years ago the doctor transferred his pimple banishing enterprise to London, where he appears always to have had plenty of money, though the source of supply is a mystery to Scotland Yard.



The information about Tumblety’s identity concealed and the police ransacking his London lodging was never reported in any New York papers AND could only have come from a London-based source. The Boston Herald certainly printed information in this article on Tumblety found locally in Boston, but the London information –at least in part- must have come out of London. Note the phrase, ‘to this side of the water’; clearly written by a reporter from ‘this side of the water’, i.e., London. Note the London information not found in the November 17, 1888, New York World news cable reporting the police finding and ransacking Tumblety’s lodgings. Where did this London-based information come from? Other than claiming that the Boston Herald made it up, the simplest explanation is that it came from the Boston Herald London correspondent, Arthur Warren.

Sorry Trevor, that's called corroboration.

There you go again quoting from the press you wouldn't know what corroboration is if it jumped up and hit you on the nose.

I also point out another issue with regards to his detention after his arrest.

The doctor’s identity was for a time concealed after his arrest,

Just another reason to keep him locked up !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Who was Arthur Warren's source?

And why was the press so consistent in getting Tumblety's arrest details and dates wrong?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Well I am sorry but I disagree, and furthermore your interpretration is also wrong. They are reports which in some case have purportedly come via primary sources, and in other cases as a result of hearsay, they cannot in either case be totally relied upon to be accurate as has been seen and shown many times.

Come to think of it sometimes the original primary sources are questionable

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Really Trevor; telling Paul Begg he's wrong on source material? Really? Let's see how much support you get there.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Who was Arthur Warren's source?

Hi Simon, who? Warren doesn't say, specifically, but research into Warren's time in London is quite revealing. Later discussion.

And why was the press so consistent in getting Tumblety's arrest details and dates wrong?

Were there occasions that dates were wrong? Absolutely, but being consistent with wrong dates is just plain wrong. You're clearly suggesting that since there's one error in the article, we can reject the entire article. That's foolhardy, since it doesn't take into account the various sources to create an article. This type of convoluted argument does help one try to discount newspaper reporting, but sadly, it doesn't work.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Really Trevor; telling Paul Begg he's wrong on source material? Really? Let's see how much support you get there.

Well I tell you that you are wrong and I am right why shouldn't Paul Begg be told when he is wrong is he exempt from ever being wrong ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Simon, who? Warren doesn't say, specifically, but research into Warren's time in London is quite revealing. Later discussion.




Were there occasions that dates were wrong? Absolutely, but being consistent with wrong dates is just plain wrong. You're clearly suggesting that since there's one error in the article, we can reject the entire article. That's foolhardy, since it doesn't take into account the various sources to create an article. This type of convoluted argument does help one try to discount newspaper reporting, but sadly, it doesn't work.

Sincerely,

Mike

You have shot yourself in the foot again

You quote"it takes many various sources to create an article"

Making that article a secondary source !!!!

[PaulB]

Well I am sorry but I disagree, and furthermore your interpretration is also wrong. They are reports which in some case have purportedly come via primary sources, and in other cases as a result of hearsay, they cannot in either case be totally relied upon to be accurate as has been seen and shown many times.

Come to think of it sometimes the original primary sources are questionable

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor
You are rather confused. To begin with the accuracy of a source is irrelevant to whether or not it is a primary, secondary or tertiary. So if that's the reason why you diagree with me and categorically state that my interpretation is wrong, it is you who is wrong.

However, I know you don't read books, so I won't cite any in my defence, but will cite some sources from the internet:

https://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html

A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event.

http://www.lib.umd.edu/tl/guides/primary-sources

Primary sources are original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation. Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based. They are usually the first formal appearance of results in physical, print or electronic format. They present original thinking, report a discovery, or share new information.

The above site actually lists 'newspaper articles written at the time'.

http://www.primarysource.org/what-is-a-primary-source

Primary sources that are thoughtfully selected can help to bring history and cultures to life for students. Most basically, they are defined as the direct evidence of a time and place that you are studying – any material (documents, objects, etc.) that was produced by eyewitnesses to or participants in an event or historical moment under investigation. Secondary sources, in contrast, are interpretations – often generated by scholars – that are based upon the examination of multiple primary sources.

Now, newspaper reports are admittedly a grey area because much can depend on what sort of report you are using, but broadly speaking the newspapers reported what was believed at the time.

By the way, I'm curious, but are you paying for or do you ptherwise have permission to use the X-Files theme on your website and on theatre websites you have supplied it to? I imagine that comes expensive? Or are websites exempt from copyright?

[PaulB]

You have shot yourself in the foot again

You quote"it takes many various sources to create an article"

Making that article a secondary source !!!!

Mr Hawley hasn't exactly shot himself in the foot because a lot depends on what the sources used were.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor
You are rather confused. To begin with the accuracy of a source is irrelevant to whether or not it is a primary, secondary or tertiary. So if that's the reason why you diagree with me and categorically state that my interpretation is wrong, it is you who is wrong.

However, I know you don't read books, so I won't cite any in my defence, but will cite some sources from the internet:

https://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html

A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event.

http://www.lib.umd.edu/tl/guides/primary-sources

Primary sources are original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation. Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based. They are usually the first formal appearance of results in physical, print or electronic format. They present original thinking, report a discovery, or share new information.

The above site actually lists 'newspaper articles written at the time'.

http://www.primarysource.org/what-is-a-primary-source

Primary sources that are thoughtfully selected can help to bring history and cultures to life for students. Most basically, they are defined as the direct evidence of a time and place that you are studying – any material (documents, objects, etc.) that was produced by eyewitnesses to or participants in an event or historical moment under investigation. Secondary sources, in contrast, are interpretations – often generated by scholars – that are based upon the examination of multiple primary sources.

Now, newspaper reports are admittedly a grey area because much can depend on what sort of report you are using, but broadly speaking the newspapers reported what was believed at the time.

By the way, I'm curious, but are you paying for or do you otherwise have permission to use the X-Files theme on your website and on theatre websites you have supplied it to? I imagine that comes expensive? Or are websites exempt from copyright?

As far as the interpretation as to what is primary and secondary newspaper sources. For your benefit and others here is a simple explanation, which I am sure even you will be able to grasp.

"If a reporter witnesses an event and writes about it, it is a primary source. If the same reporter receives the information from witnesses or the police, or any other source it is secondary"

[Trevor Marriott]

Mr Hawley hasn't exactly shot himself in the foot because a lot depends on what the sources used were.

Secondary !

[PaulB]

As far as the interpretation as to what is primary and secondary newspaper sources. For your benefit and others here is a simple explanation, which I am sure even you will be able to grasp.

"If a reporter witnesses an event and writes about it, it is a primary source. If the same reporter receives the information from witnesses or the police, or any other source it is secondary"

A good effort, but no cigar. A primary source is not necessarilly a witness to the event it describes. Pepys' Diary is indisputably a primary source, but he frequently records what other people had told him. Similarly, a journalist reports what he has been told, as does a policeman when he takes down a witness's statement (which, incidentally, is regarded as a primary source), or a military commander when he debriefs and reports on what he was told by his men.

As said, newspapers are grey areas and present the historian with a variety of problems. It's not as simple as you think.

I take it from your silence that you haven't got permission to use the X-Files music on your wbsite(s). I gather that an infringement of the music copyright can by costly.