More Tumblety in the Evening Post

[David Orsam]

When I found the previous two articles about Tumblety in the London Evening Post, it was late in the day at the British Library so I didn't have a chance to do a thorough search of all other issues - nor could I check the 1889 volume - but I have now and this has resulted in the discovery of three new articles, which may be of interest.

The first is from the Evening Post of 3 December 1888. After referring to a JTR imitator in Boston, the following appears:

"It is reported by cable from Europe that a certain person, whose name is known, has sailed from Havre for New York, who is famous for his hatred of women, and who has repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character."

I will post the next two articles in separate posts.

[David Orsam]

Second article is from the Evening Post of 17 December. Headlined "TUMBLETY SLIPS AWAY AGAIN", the first sentence says:

""Dr." Thomas F. Tumblety, the notorious Whitechapel suspect, who slipped his bail at the Old Bailey the other day and went to New York, via Havre, was watched to his former lodgings, 79, East Tenth-street, by two New York detectives and an English detective. "

[David Orsam]

Third article is from the Evening Post of 16 February 1889. It's quite long and most of it seems to have been reproduced from the New York World which I assume is online. So I have cut off the image at the end of the first paragraph. It is the first sentence which is of interest:

"A WHITECHAPEL SUSPECT.

"Sketch and Life of the Gifted, Eccentric, and World-famed, Dr. Tumblety."

The New York World devotes considerable space to a notice of an autobiography just published in America by Dr. Francis Tumblety, who was arrested in London on suspicion in connection with the Whitechapel murders, but who was released immediately it was found there was no evidence to incriminate him. The World is probably not aware that Dr. Tumblety was afterwards taken into custody on another charge, arising out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession, that he was committed for trial at the Old Bailey, and that on the day fixed for the trial he failed to appear to his bail."

[mklhawley]

...murders, but who was released immediately it was found there was no evidence to incriminate him. The World is probably not aware that Dr. Tumblety was afterwards taken into custody on another charge, arising out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession, that he was committed for trial at the Old Bailey, and that on the day fixed for the trial he failed to appear to his bail[/I]."

Hi David,

Outstanding finds, especially the last. Not only does it state Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion (RELEASED IMMEDIATELY) and only later re-arrested, the reporter stated that 'the World is probably not aware of', meaning was wasn't merely a retransmission of a World article.

Just as Colin pointed out, these reporters are using primary sources for this information.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

We're not done with the significance of David's find:

…taken into custody on another charge, arising out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession…

The Evening Post investigative reporter states that how they knew about the four young men was not because of an earlier investigation on Tumblety but because of correspondences with these young men in his pocket!

Again, the reporter stated the World is probably not aware of this...

Beautiful find David.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Could I prevail upon you to reconcile these two newspaper articles.

Evening Post, 10th December 1888—

"Tumblety was taken into custody on November 18 on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer . . ."

Evening Post, 16th February 1889—

"The World is probably not aware that Dr. Tumblety was afterwards taken into custody on another charge, arising out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession, that he was committed for trial at the Old Bailey . . ."

All this apparently took place after Tumblety had already been bailed on 16th November on the indecent assault charges.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi David,

Outstanding finds, especially the last. Not only does it state Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion (RELEASED IMMEDIATELY) and only later re-arrested, the reporter stated that 'the World is probably not aware of', meaning was wasn't merely a retransmission of a World article.

Just as Colin pointed out, these reporters are using primary sources for this information.

Sincerely,

Mike

Well I am sorry to dissapoint you but Colin is wrong and so are you in your misguided belief

"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"


Now what bit of that do you not understand ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

...And this argument is relying upon the November 18th date? Seriously?

First, let's clarify the Evening Post, December 10, 1888, article. It's in two parts. The second was taken from the source of this news cable:

The Daily Sun, St. John, New Brunswick, Canada, 22 November 1888
A St. John Acquaintance Arrested
The Notorious Dr. Tumblety
A few days ago the cable despatches announced the arrest of a Dr. Tumblety in connection with the Whitechapel murders. Dr. Tumblety is quite well known in St. John and by the older residents of this city. In 1860 or 1861, the doctor cut a great dash here. He purported to be an eclectic physician; he lodged at a leading hotel, and he acquired a large practice. Loudly dressed, mounted on a white horse and followed by one of more hounds, he made quite a sensation when going through the streets on his way to his patients. He was considered a "quack" by many, but that did not prevent him from doing a good business.

The New York Herald of Tuesday says: Dr. Tumblety, alias Blackburn, the person who was arrested in London a week ago on suspicion of being "Jack the Ripper," was a well known character in Brooklyn many years ago. Early in the sixties he used to ride down Fulton Street dressed in a hunting coat covered with gold braid and followed by several valuable hunting dogs. The boys used to guy him and call him "Humpty Dumpty," which name seemed to please him. He opened an office in Washington Street, near Fulton Street, and carried on business as an herb doctor, and it is said made plenty of money. At this time he boarded with a Mrs. Foster at No. 95 Fulton Street.
Dr. Blackburn, as he was then known, had several preparations for beautifying the skin, and fashionable ladies were in constant attendance at his

Notice the similarities? This was to give the British reader further info on the Tumblety character.

The first part was from a London source, possibly this particular Evening Post investigative reporter.

I'll answer it in two ways: First, the date is just plain wrong, since we know he was taken into custody before November 7. It wouldn't be the first time a small date was incorrectly transmitted. If this is the case, are you suggesting we scrap the entire article, because of one typo or transmission error? Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, eh, Simon. The problem is everything else has corroboration, and to use this kind of guiding principle would only be a ploy in rejecting the truth.

Second, there is evidence that a third arrest of Tumblety may have happened on Saturday, November 18. This may further corroborate this.

But, before you muddy the waters with a November 18 counter argument, let's get back to the reality of how the four young men were discovered.

Great job, again, David,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Well I am sorry to dissapoint you but Colin is wrong and so are you in your misguided belief

"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"


Now what bit of that do you not understand ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor logic: secondary source equates to being wrong. You still haven't explained to me why you believe the Sir George Arthur story, yet the only source is a secondary source. Cherry picking are we?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

"First, the date is just plain wrong [correct], since we know he was taken into custody before November 7" [incorrect].

"Second, there is evidence that a third arrest of Tumblety may have happened on Saturday, November 18" [balderdash].

I duly note your use of the weasel word "may."

I know that the November 18 arrest date is bunkum, so you'll get no argument from me.

Don't try to change the subject.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

"First, the date is just plain wrong [correct], since we know he was taken into custody before November 7" [incorrect].

"Second, there is evidence that a third arrest of Tumblety may have happened on Saturday, November 18" [balderdash].

I duly note your use of the weasel word "may."

I know that the November 18 arrest date is bunkum, so you'll get no argument from me.

Don't try to change the subject.

Regards,

Simon

Let us both assume the November 18 date is incorrect, this means the argument you bring up is baseless. Sorry.

Of course we know why you brought this up. My weasel word to your weasel post. Fair, eh.

[mklhawley]

Let's bring this post to page two:

…taken into custody on another charge, arising out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession…

The Evening Post investigative reporter states that how they knew about the four young men was not because of an earlier investigation on Tumblety but because of correspondences with these young men in his pocket!

Again, the reporter stated the World is probably not aware of this...

Beautiful find David.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

If the 18th November arrest date is incorrect, why did you say that a third Tumblety arrest may have taken place on that day?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

If the 18th November arrest date is incorrect, why did you say that a third Tumblety arrest may have taken place on that day?

Regards,

Simon

Either you didn't get my point or you're up to your red herring ploy. Any further discussion about a possible third arrest, we can continue here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5093

So Simon, we have a British source explaining how Scotland Yard received their clue about Tumblety's gross indecency cases involving the four young men, correspondences in his pocket discovered upon his initial arrest on suspicion. If I am correct, you, Trevor, and company, believed there was some sort of gross indecency investigation prior to November 7, even though nothing supported this, especially now.

[Jonathan H]

Primary versus Second-Hand

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the definition of primary and secondary sources bouncing around these Boards.

A primary source is a source that was from the time being studied.

That includes newspapers.

You have to then judge their reliability based on the particular primary source's strengths and weaknesses, e.g. a newspaper is there to tell a good story, and so on.

A primary source does not have to be an eyewitness to an event.

Not at all.

Sir Robert Anderson in 1910 is a primary source for the [alleged] identification of a Polish suspect. Whether he was there or not.

What is being misunderstood is the element of second-hand information, of people at the time learning about events that they were not a witness to. But second-hand is not a secondary source, which is a source created not from the time being studied, or not by a person who had been there during the era or event being studied--e.g. likely an historian.

There are important considerations and tensions as to the veracity of a primary source. How did they know what they claimed to know? Is it self-serving, or not? Is it both self-serving and probably correct too? Has a fading memory taken its toll, or not?

But somebody being there is no guarantee of an absolute truth.

For example, we have in 2015 two ex-Navy SEALS who both claim to have been the soldier who shot and killed Osama Bin Laden in 2011.

Sir Winston Churchill is a primary source about Britain in the Second World War. But in his own account of that event he reported on events that he was himself not a witness to, and yet nobody suggests he is not a primary source. He was there and he was a key player, obviously. But he is, at times, a second-hand primary source.

Dr. Tumblety was a suspect by Scotland Yard for the Ripper murders. A strong case can be mounte, based on a range of primary and [early] secondary sources, that he was the leading police suspect of 1888, but that for most police he did not retain that status -- probably due to subsequent Jack murders which appeared to clear him.

Had the American been in a cell during Kelly's murder he would have been 'cleared' earlier.

Is that a fact? No it is an interpretation of limited material, but a logical one nonetheless.