Tumblety in the Evening Post

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi All,

I know where Dear Boss was prior to its return to Scotland Yard from Croydon.

But wild horses could not make me tell.

Regards,

Simon

Doing its 'rounds' at the Princess Alice?

Does Leather Apron know?

Jx

PS I'm dyslexic ,,, I'm not a loan shark but alone sharky thingy…i.e. I don't give people money

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I know where Dear Boss was prior to its return to Scotland Yard from Croydon.

But wild horses could not make me tell.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

My guess is that some tosser has informed Trevor '*wat' pot that at one point the Dear Boss letter was released into your care for a conference meeting..

I might add not one I attended…

But My guess is, and I don't know that Trevor is trying to suggest something based on that conference, he is after all a complete and utter swat, and I will probably be ban for saying so…

However casebook, I don't give a damn, (I'm a loan shark)

Trevor Marriot loves **** stirring, and I'm afraid Paul you are a victim of this tosser trying to make trouble about something which he is obviously jealous

Frankly i wish the authorities would have given me this honour

And I must say how privileged I was to see (Handle indirectly) The marginalia TLSOMOL… Fantastic.. only you...

You are and have always been a God…. and in Ripperology circles you are ZEUS…(of ripperology)

And if this is my last post on casebook (And lets face it they are going to 'need me' after my visit to surrey: watch this space)

….+uck was it worth it

Jeff Leahy
Producer/Director The Definative Story

PS don't know where that leaves Fido and Skinner…xxxx

[PaulB]

Just wondering what this is all about.

"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" ?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Getting back to David's find for a brief moment, if anyone is still interested.

The New York World's Dunham article, that was reprinted in the 13th December, 1888 issue of the Evening Post, also appeared in the 26th of December, 1888, issue of the Dundee Courier & Argus and probably in other British papers as well. This tends to prove that Tumblety's name, in connection with the Whitechapel Murders, appeared more than we had originally suspected in the British Press. This suggests that the original theory, that Tumblety was unknown in Britain in connection with the Whitechapel Murders because he was an important suspect who had embarrassingly slipped through Scotland Yard's fingers and they had hushed the whole thing up, is wrong. As is the theory that Tumblety's name didn't appear because of U.K. libel laws.

Sorry to interrupt.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

I'm outta here until such time as you get a new set of Duracells for your broken flashlight, or a brain transplant.

I don't care which.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Oh no, I know darn well Sir George Arthur was wearing a slouch hat and was arrested 'on suspicion' just like Tumblet was. The source of the Arthur story was the exact same source who discovered Francis Tumblety was arrested on suspicion, The New York World London correspondent. Thus, no cherry picking on my part.

I'm still perplexed as to why you think Assistant Commissioner Anderson would even have bothered to solicit information on Ripper suspect, Francis Tumblety, POST Kelly murder, if he would clearly have known Tumblety's time in jail. Anderson wasn't just looking for signatures, but ANYTHING the Brooklyn authorities had on Tumblety.


Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Let's get something straight. Aside from grammar, punctuation and the correction of a few literals I did not assist Trevor with his article.

You on the other hand have amply demonstrated your gullibility and also the fact that you are something of a law unto yourself. You unquestioningly accept all the Tumblety BS whilst dismissing out of hand the Sir George Arthur story.

So I could equally accuse you of cherry-picking.

In later years Sir George Arthur was Private Secretary to, and biographer of, Earl Herbert Kitchener and, according to private correspondence, one evening the two men had a relaxed conversation.

I'll leave you to guess which humorous anecdote Sir George Arthur imparted to the British military leader and statesman.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

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,

Facts fit?

They do if you take a sledge hammer and beat them into submission.

With all due respect to SPE, he is wrong. In 1888 the police bail mechanism he describes did not exist.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Simon and Trevor,

Since both of you wrongfully believe Tumblety was in jail after November 7th until the 14th, I'll post for both of you.

Just as the court calendar and reports support, Tumblety was arrested without a warrant on suspicion on November 7th (Court calendar: 'when received into custody'), on November 14th a warrant was issued for him (Court calendar: 'Date of warrant, Nov 16, 1888') and on the 16th, he paid bail and was released (Court calendar: 'Bailed Nov 16th'). Sorry, he was free on November 18th for another arrest WITHOUT a warrant.

Facts fit.

Simon, I can't believe you think Tumblety was in jail during the Kelly murder.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.