Tumblety in the Evening Post

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Au contraire, it is plainly simple as has been explained but you cant grasp it.

As to my silence you can view that whichever way you want I don't have to discuss my business on here certainly not with the likes of you.

Just for the record the tune is not the original recording and I did pay for it.

Now as you seem hell bent on trying to discredit me yet again on here with your cheap shots by asking questions not relevant to casebook. Let me ask you one that is relative to casebook, and be guarded in your answer because I may no the answer. The question is

"What do you know about the removal of the Dear Boss letter from the archives, and what happened to it thereafter before it was returned" ?

Have a nice day !

[PaulB]

Au contraire, it is plainly simple as has been explained but you cant grasp it.

As to my silence you can view that whichever way you want I don't have to discuss my business on here certainly not with the likes of you.

Just for the record the tune is not the original recording and I did pay for it.

Now as you seem hell bent on trying to discredit me yet again on here with your cheap shots by asking questions not relevant to casebook. Let me ask you one that is relative to casebook, and be guarded in your answer because I may no the answer. The question is

"What do you know about the removal of the Dear Boss letter from the archives, and what happened to it thereafter before it was returned" ?

Have a nice day !

First of all, you are wrong, but if you don't want to accept that then it's up to you. I don't much care. Folk can decide for themselves.

Two, I don't have to discredit you, you do that excellently yourself.

Three, I don't make cheap shots. Unlike you, I don't have to.

Four, I asked about the X-Files to alert you to something youmay not have known. A lot of people don't. And you have admitted loudly and often that you were/are naive about copyright.

Five, I don't have to be guarded in any of my answers to you. What do you mean about the removal of the Dear Boss letter from the files? What removal are you talking about?

[mklhawley]

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 !!!!

Shooting yourself in the foot? Oh yah, like claiming the November 17, 1888, New York World article (which first revealed that Tumblety was arrested on suspicion for the Ripper murders) is bunk, but that very same article which revealed Sir George Arthur was arrested on suspicion (something you discuss actually did occur in your Doctor at Sea article) is not bunk. You even claimed US papers were bunk because British papers did report on Tumblety (yet this thread proves you wrong), yet they absolutely did not report on the Sir George Arthur incident.

This proves one thing - Your judgement is clouded with anti-Tumblety bias. Why are you not using these same arguments on Sir George Arthur?

[mklhawley]

Honestly Trevor, your whole argument is that newspaper articles are secondary sources, thus, cannot be trusted, but the Sir George Arthur incident came not only from what you say is a secondary source but the very same source that started the Tumblety arrested on suspicion issue. There are no primary sources (Trevor's definition) confirming the Sir George Arthur incident, yet you wrote on it as if it actually occurred.

You'd best ignore the argument and sidestep it with trying to bash Paul Begg.

[Trevor Marriott]

Honestly Trevor, your whole argument is that newspaper articles are secondary sources, thus, cannot be trusted, but the Sir George Arthur incident came not only from what you say is a secondary source but the very same source that started the Tumblety arrested on suspicion issue. There are no primary sources (Trevor's definition) confirming the Sir George Arthur incident, yet you wrote on it as if it actually occurred.

You'd best ignore the argument and sidestep it with trying to bash Paul Begg.

I don't need to bash anybody the facts speak for themselves as does the interpretation I gave.

I think you must have me confused with another over this Sir George Arthur incident I dont know what you are talking about.

The waters have been muddied yet again, because forget about how when or where Tumblety was arrested or for that matter what for. The point is that he was arrested on Nov 7th. The issue is what happened to him thereafter and was he free to roam the streets on Nov 8th.

The only bail the police could consider was to the next available court not to come back in a weeks time after further enquirers had been carried out. There was no facility in place for that to happen in 1888.

In any event having been arrested on warrant for the indecency offences the warrant specified that after arrest he was to be taken before the next court which was Nov 8th.

At that court on that date he was remanded in custody for the reasons I have previously given

Neither you or anyone else for that matter has been able to prove he was bailed by the magistrate on Nov 8th and free to roam the streets that night.

All other facts which are supported by the police and judicial system of the day tend to show that he was remanded in custody and not bailed until Nov 16

As to the newspaper being primary sources if that were the case there would not be all the inconsistencies and errors which we have seen.

I will explain again to you
"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."

[mklhawley]

I think you must have me confused with another over this Sir George Arthur incident I dont know what you are talking about.

Hey, it was your article. So you don't know what I'm talking about?


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-

Just think of it ! One of the Prince of Wales' own exclusives, a member of his household and cavalry and one of the best known swells about town who glory in the glamor of the Guelphs, getting into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of all clubdom tonight.
Just now it is a fashionable fad to slum it in Whitechapel and every night scores of young men who have never been in the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders talking with frightened women. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves, the police do not interfere with them. But if a man goes off alone and tries to lure a woman off the street into a secluded corner, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.

This was the case of Sir George Arthur of Prince Wales set. He put on an old coat and slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the description of Jack The Ripper and they watched him and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested and threatened them with the vengeance of the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End Club and prove his identity and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspaper, but the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club considered the joke too good to keep quiet.

Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumbelty of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial, under a special law passed soon after the modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name as proved by letters in his possession from New York and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.



Your own article:


“On 30 November 1888, the Wrexham advertiser, Clwyd, Wales, Britain, also published the story, but withheld Sir George Arthur’s name. Wild coincidences aside, Tumblety seems to have appropriated it, complete with slouch had, for himself. His story would appear to have been an elaborate fiction.” (Lost at Sea, p. 44, Rip 127) Trevor Marriott


Liar.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hey, it was your article. So you don't know what I'm talking about?


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-

Just think of it ! One of the Prince of Wales' own exclusives, a member of his household and cavalry and one of the best known swells about town who glory in the glamor of the Guelphs, getting into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of all clubdom tonight.
Just now it is a fashionable fad to slum it in Whitechapel and every night scores of young men who have never been in the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders talking with frightened women. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves, the police do not interfere with them. But if a man goes off alone and tries to lure a woman off the street into a secluded corner, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.

This was the case of Sir George Arthur of Prince Wales set. He put on an old coat and slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the description of Jack The Ripper and they watched him and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested and threatened them with the vengeance of the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End Club and prove his identity and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspaper, but the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club considered the joke too good to keep quiet.

Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumbelty of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial, under a special law passed soon after the modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name as proved by letters in his possession from New York and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.



Your own article:


“On 30 November 1888, the Wrexham advertiser, Clwyd, Wales, Britain, also published the story, but withheld Sir George Arthur’s name. Wild coincidences aside, Tumblety seems to have appropriated it, complete with slouch had, for himself. His story would appear to have been an elaborate fiction.” (Lost at Sea, p. 44, Rip 127) Trevor Marriott


Liar.

I vaguely remember the reference now that was a long time ago.

But here you go again going off on a tangent quoting insignificant material stick to the facts.

[mklhawley]

But, I am sticking to the facts. Assistant Commisioner Anderson, himself, solicited information from US Chiefs of Police on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety POST Kelly murder. Proof that Tumblety was more than just a suspect to be brushed off the next day. You don't accept this, because it was reported in a 'secondary source'. The Sir George Arthur arrest was ONLY reported from these very secondary sources, yet you accepted it beyond question.

?

[Trevor Marriott]

But, I am sticking to the facts. Assistant Commisioner Anderson, himself, solicited information from US Chiefs of Police on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety POST Kelly murder. Proof that Tumblety was more than just a suspect to be brushed off the next day. You don't accept this, because it was reported in a 'secondary source'. The Sir George Arthur arrest was ONLY reported from these very secondary sources, yet you accepted it beyond question.

?

The facts are as I stated in an earlier post, they supersede any third rate newspaper article. You have no answer to the facts because there is no answer, the facts are correct you are wrong. Tumbelty was in jail the night Kelly was murdered, and the night Nicholls was murdered the evidence shows that he was likely as not otherwise occupied in a male brothel in the west end and no where near Whitechapel

[Robert]

Joe Chetcuti recommends that we take a look at the Tuesday Nov 27, 1888 article in the Evening Star of Washington D.C.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_star/881127.html

Joe said, "The Evening Star was the first to report of a November 18th arrest. The 8th paragraph in that news report is similar to what was written in the Dec 10, 1888 Evening Post of London. A correspondent working for the New York World was probably the author of both articles."

[mklhawley]

The facts are as I stated in an earlier post, they supersede any third rate newspaper article. You have no answer to the facts because there is no answer, the facts are correct you are wrong. Tumbelty was in jail the night Kelly was murdered, and the night Nicholls was murdered the evidence shows that he was likely as not otherwise occupied in a male brothel in the west end and no where near Whitechapel

Sorry, Chris, David, Batman, and others clearly demonstrated that the facts support Stewart Evans' initial explanation that the December 7th arrest was 'on suspicion for the Ripper murders', therefore, arrested WITHOUT a warrant. It was then discovered that you were quoting from the incorrect source. Can we now trust your interpretation when it doesn't fit the corroborating evidence?

Now, onto something more important and pertinent to this thread; a possible November 18, 1888, arrest. Yes, a third possible arrest of Francis Tumblety and David's new find supports this. Why was this arrest not on the November and December criminal court calendar? Because it did not pertain to the case going to Central Criminal Court. Even before David's find, Joe had intriguing evidence to consider it.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Joe Chetcuti recommends that we take a look at the Tuesday Nov 27, 1888 article in the Evening Star of Washington D.C.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_star/881127.html

Joe said, "The Evening Star was the first to report of a November 18th arrest. The 8th paragraph in that news report is similar to what was written in the Dec 10, 1888 Evening Post of London. A correspondent working for the New York World was probably the author of both articles."

We need to repost, so it's on this page.

[Trevor Marriott]

Joe Chetcuti recommends that we take a look at the Tuesday Nov 27, 1888 article in the Evening Star of Washington D.C.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_star/881127.html

Joe said, "The Evening Star was the first to report of a November 18th arrest. The 8th paragraph in that news report is similar to what was written in the Dec 10, 1888 Evening Post of London. A correspondent working for the New York World was probably the author of both articles."

This goes to show how unreliable these newspaper article are. He was bailed on Nov 16 and did a runner thereafter. He could not have been arrested on Nov 18th. I would suggest that the date is wrong as it is in the Dec 10th article.

Clearly both articles are secondary evidence

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry, Chris, David, Batman, and others clearly demonstrated that the facts support Stewart Evans' initial explanation that the December 7th arrest was 'on suspicion for the Ripper murders', therefore, arrested WITHOUT a warrant. It was then discovered that you were quoting from the incorrect source. Can we now trust your interpretation when it doesn't fit the corroborating evidence?

Now, onto something more important and pertinent to this thread; a possible November 18, 1888, arrest. Yes, a third possible arrest of Francis Tumblety and David's new find supports this. Why was this arrest not on the November and December criminal court calendar? Because it did not pertain to the case going to Central Criminal Court. Even before David's find, Joe had intriguing evidence to consider it.

Sincerely,

Mike

You just don't listen, and its a waste of time trying to point things out to you your are completely deluded with all of this, you see it how you want to see it and not as the facts tell it. Now you want to introduce a third arrest.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

The story goes that Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders and then, once that wouldn't stick, the police got him on the Maiden Tribute charges.

The press got events arse about face.

Sunday 18th November was the day before Tumblety's appearance at the Old Bailey on the gross indecency charges, by which time he had been arrested [7th], remanded in custody, committed for trial [14th] and bailed [16th].

The newspaper got the date wrong, as did all the other newspapers who reported his non-existent Ripper arrest as having been on 16th, 17th and 19th November.

Regards,

Simon