More Tumblety in the Evening Post

[Jonathan H]

To Hercule

Yes, I made the same argument some time ago.

That the evidential bar for an historical opinion is much lower because the opinion is provisional, not absolute. It has to be.

But Trevor is, somewhat quixotically, trying to gather evidence for a legal solution to the case which is impossible at this distance (if the real killer was dead, fled or mad then it was impossible then too).

Historical methodology is all that we have, which is fine for me but some want an absolute solution, and are distressed and uncomfortable if others can live with 'just' a probable one--until a new source is discovered that sets it on its ear.

I argue that it is not a 'mystery' at all. That it has been classified in the wrong true crime genre since about 1923.

[Hercule Poirot]

Exactaiment mon cherie.

I don't think you'll find a reliable primary source or any circumstantial evidence for that matter supporting your answer as being a quote from any Hercule Poirot movie. LOL

[Jonathan H]

To GUT

Sims is a primary source on being in London during the murders, he even traveled to the East End one night..

But I also now know that Sims met directly with the family of the murderer, and was not just a third-hand source: e.g. from a Druitt, to Macnaghten, to Sims.

That makes the famous writer, along with the police chief, a first-hand primary source about the posthumous investigation into Druitt as the Ripper.

The limitation of Anderson is that whilst he is a primary source on the Polish suspect his information arguably came second hand--from Macnaghten--who was I believe from the evidence misleading his boss (Swanson is a third hand primary source because he is, probably, simply repeating what Anderson told him)

[Hercule Poirot]

Source confusion

After reading the comments, I searched for a good definition of the concept of sources even if some references have already been given. I tend to believe that there's a confusion between sources used for legal evidence purposes (direct indirect and circumstantial proof) and sources for historical research purposes. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method) gives a rather good explanation of the historical method most guys here use which is quite different from legalistic considerations given to court evidence which Trevor, amongst others, seems to be using.

Wikipedia also gives a rather extensive definition of 'primary source' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source)

"Whether a source is regarded as primary or secondary in a given context may change, depending upon the present state of knowledge within the field. For example, if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source; but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary"". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source)

In other words, I think many have been fighting for two valid approaches each one serving different purposes. Wouldn't it be easier to simply state that what one comes up with wouldn't meet the 'legal' definition of direct evidence but could however be historically valid when used to support a theory.

[GUT]

The same could be said about circumstantial evidence stronger than direct evidence. Reliability and provenance: two sides of a coin.

Exactaiment mon cherie.

[Hercule Poirot]

And a secondary source can be more reliable than a primary source, the two do not indicate reliability or otherwise they are issues to be decided separately.

The same could be said about circumstantial evidence stronger than direct evidence. Reliability and provenance: two sides of a coin.

[GUT]

The other thing is that Sims is primary as to Mac's thoughts on Druitt but maybe not on the actual murders.

[Jonathan H]

To GUT

Absolutely!

To Jeff

As usual, you're wrong.

George Sims is a primary source for the POSTHUMOUS investigation of Montague Druitt because he also interviewed members of the Druitt family.

His information was certainly second-hand.

Just As Anderson's and Swanson's are primary but may well be second-hand too, as they may not have been at the alleged identification.

By the way, I am flattered that you have begun to absorb elements of my theory into yours. Especially as you have expended such energy denouncing them as a conspiracy -- and therefore beyond the pale.

e.g. A Police Chief who confers with the murderer's family and then, to protect all concerned, conceals the solution from other significant figures at Scotland Yard.

[GUT]

Got it.

And a secondary source can be more reliable than a primary source, the two do not indicate reliability or otherwise they are issues to be decided separately.

[Hercule Poirot]

To Hercule

No, it's a primary source but second-hand, not secondary, maybe even third-hand.

As I wrote before, just because a source is primary does not make it reliable. It might be, but that will have to be assessed usually against other data...

Got it.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Hercule

No, it's a primary source but second-hand, not secondary, maybe even third-hand.

As I wrote before, just because a source is primary does not make it reliable. It might be, but that will have to be assessed usually against other data.

Jack Littlechild is a prinary source about Dr. Tumblety even in 1913 because he was a police chief at Scotland Yard in 1888, albeit not in CID.

Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson are primary sources about the Polish suspect, even though the former did not mention this solution until 1895 (in the extant record) and the latter, in writing, until 1910 or there after, at least definitively (e.g. 'Kosminski was the suspect').

Sir Melville Macnaghten and George Sims are primary sources about their posthumous investigation into Montague Druitt as the Ripper, arguably dating from early 1891. Their information was, of course, second hand (but not necessarily third hand. There was probably only one degree of separation between the pair and the deceased murderer.)

Congratulations on the wondeful find of the latest primary source about Dr. Tumblety, the leading Ripper suspect of 1888 at least for some at the Yard.

Anderson and Swanson were Primary sources

Simm's is a Secondary source

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Hercule

No, it's a primary source but second-hand, not secondary, maybe even third-hand.

As I wrote before, just because a source is primary does not make it reliable. It might be, but that will have to be assessed usually against other data.

Jack Littlechild is a prinary source about Dr. Tumblety even in 1913 because he was a police chief at Scotland Yard in 1888, albeit not in CID.

Sir Robert Anderson and Donald Swanson are primary sources about the Polish suspect, even though the former did not mention this solution until 1895 (in the extant record) and the latter, in writing, until 1910 or there after, at least definitively (e.g. 'Kosminski was the suspect').

Sir Melville Macnaghten and George Sims are primary sources about their posthumous investigation into Montague Druitt as the Ripper, arguably dating from early 1891. Their information was, of course, second hand (but not necessarily third hand. There was probably only one degree of separation between the pair and the deceased murderer.)

Congratulations on the wondeful find of the latest primary source about Dr. Tumblety, the leading Ripper suspect of 1888 at least for some at the Yard.

[mklhawley]

As sent, the first sentence could have been an interpretation by the author of what had been mentioned in another article or by someone else which would be considered a secondary source or hearsay making it less reliable but not necessary false. The second one referring to what the police said make it 'authoritative', to use your word.

Hi Hercule,

This revelation about 'Kumblety' being arrested on suspicion was never in an earlier article. It was the first. Notice the date of the cable (November 17, which was the day after Tumblety posted his bail, the very first time his arrests became public record. It also conforms to the second sentence.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Hercule Poirot]

I don't want to get into this 'primary-secondary source' debate, but it would have been cool it if the cable would have been using words like those in the second sentence:
...The police said they could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial in the Central Criminal Court under a special law passed soon after the Modern Babylonian 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.

As sent, the first sentence could have been an interpretation by the author of what had been mentioned in another article or by someone else which would be considered a secondary source or hearsay making it less reliable but not necessary false. The second one referring to what the police said make it 'authoritative', to use your word.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not dismissing the cable but simply expressing an opinion as a non-expert in these matters.

[mklhawley]

Here is a good example of why we cannot generally accept newspapers as a Primary source.

Jon,

Here is a good example why we can accept certain facts in newspapers as authoritative:


Chicago Daily Tribune, 18 November 1888
GOSSIP SENT BY CABLE.
A BARONET GOES ON A LARK THAT GETS HIM IN TROUBLE.
Slumming in the Whitechapel District, Once of the Prince of Wales’ set Is Arrested on Suspicion of Being “Jack the Ripper” – French Hunting Parties Meeting with great Success – Gossip of the Parisian Capital – Dramatic notes – The Movements of Americans.
SPECIAL CABLE DISPATCH TO THE TRIBUNE.
[Copyright, 1888, by the Press Pub. Co., N.Y. World.]
LONDON, Nov. 17. – Just think of it. One of the Prince of Wales’ own exclusive set, a member of the Household Cavalry, and one of the best known of the many swells about…

Another arrest was a man who gave the name “Dr. Kumbletty of New York.” The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial in the Central Criminal Court under a special law passed soon after the Modern Babylonian 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.

A score of other men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion of being the murder (sic), but the right man still roams at large and…



The author of this news cable was the chief London correspondent for the New York World, Tracy Greaves. He took over from TC Crawford in August 1888. Crawford in his autobiography about his London experience between 1885 and 1888 stated how US reporters had to get their London news of interest for Americans (such as an American arrested on suspicion for the Ripper murders). He said he had to speak to the Sergeant at the desk and even police blogs, searching for anything newsworthy.

Tracy Greaves didn't even know this was Francis Tumblety, but a New Yorker named Dr. Kumblety. Tumblety was yet reported anywhere specific to the Ripper murder. Note that the VERY SAME source that informed him of Kumblety being arrested on suspicion of the Ripper murders also told him he was committed for trial on gross indecency in order to 'hold' him. ...THE VERY SAME SOURCE, and they were spot on with the gross indecency source.

Talk about authoritative and absolutely NOT hearsay.

Sincerely,

Mike