More Tumblety in the Evening Post

[GUT]

For those still confused over primary and secondary sources, from Princeton University

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

It doesn't mention newspapers, but does mention creative works

And another source that does mention newspapers

https://www.sccollege.edu/Library/Pages/primarysources.aspx

Now the reliability of the evidence is another question.

[GUT]

Just a thought could the Tumblety / Kumblety have been as simple as an extra dot or dash in the morse code.

[GUT]

Well, as a librarian, you do make good points about sources, which we try to convey to our college students. Primary written sources are diaries, journals, autobiographies by the subject himself. Secondary written sources are interviews, biographies written during the subject's lifetime, newspaper articles written at the contemporary time,including quotations from people involved in the event, or information being generally given out to the press at that time. These are removed from primary because another person wrote them, but they can still be considered authoriative because they date from the era under research.
The third level of written sources is a book or article written many years after the event or the death of the subject, usually relying upon previous research, in which other authors have relied on primary and contemporary sources. The further away we get in time, the more we must rely on the interpretations of the authors of the non-primary sources, whether they are historians, biographers, or Ripperologists.
I have been looking at reports of a series of child murders in New York in 1915, and am using newspaper articles contemporary to the time, because they quote the investigators and recount things the reporter heard or (in the case of the funerals), actually witnessed. They are secondary sources, but the information is contemporary to the event, and lacking access to police case records, must suffice.

Wrong I'm afraid PCdunn a newspaper written at the time is in terms of historical research a primary source, my wife is a former lecturer in History has published work that is required reading around the world and her best friend is a professor in history and former dean of the Faculty they both confirm 100% that a newspaper from the time is a primary source.

I terms of historical research there are only the two categorisations, primary and secondary.

[Pcdunn]

I am making an effort, that being to understand why it is so important for you in particular feel the need to keep Tumblety alive as a suspect at all costs.

In particular the use of secondary newspaper articles which you keep on insisting are primary when they are not.

As an example take the new letters. First of all the article is days out of date. There is no corroboration to that article. How did the reporter come by that information?

If it was direct from Tumblety then yes it would be primary. If he were told by one of the officers who seized the letters from Tumblety then yes primary.

If from any other source not directly involved with either, then it is secondary because how could that reporter be certain that the information being given to him was correct?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, as a librarian, you do make good points about sources, which we try to convey to our college students. Primary written sources are diaries, journals, autobiographies by the subject himself. Secondary written sources are interviews, biographies written during the subject's lifetime, newspaper articles written at the contemporary time,including quotations from people involved in the event, or information being generally given out to the press at that time. These are removed from primary because another person wrote them, but they can still be considered authoriative because they date from the era under research.
The third level of written sources is a book or article written many years after the event or the death of the subject, usually relying upon previous research, in which other authors have relied on primary and contemporary sources. The further away we get in time, the more we must rely on the interpretations of the authors of the non-primary sources, whether they are historians, biographers, or Ripperologists.
I have been looking at reports of a series of child murders in New York in 1915, and am using newspaper articles contemporary to the time, because they quote the investigators and recount things the reporter heard or (in the case of the funerals), actually witnessed. They are secondary sources, but the information is contemporary to the event, and lacking access to police case records, must suffice.

[mklhawley]

This is just an idea I had, but do you think the four dates might be the dates on the letters they found on "Dr. T's" person? If they were all from different young men, and contained incriminating information of assignations, that might be enough to decide on four counts against Tumblety.

By the way, I came across a brief mention of Tumblety in an American paper in which his name is misspelled as "Trumblety"-- another version to add with "Kumblety", as down to inept reporting, perhaps?

Hi Pcdunn,

Possibly with the dates, but there certainly was an effort to contact these four and we know they contacted at least one, so it seems the dates came from the young men.

Howard Brown and others have found many variations, so 'Trumblety' seems to fit into the category of transmission mistakes or an editor making the mistake. The name 'Kumblety' is different. Even though the New York World's London correspondent transmitted the news cable of November 17, referring to 'Kumblety', they opted not to report the story on November 18 as other partnered papers did, such as the Boston Globe and SF Chronicle, although they did report the other two stories from the news cable. Note what they did print on November 19:

A special London despatch to THE WORLD yesterday morning announced the arrest of a man in connection with the Whitechapel crimes, who gave his name as Dr. Kumblety, of New York. He could not be held on suspicion, but the police succeeded in getting him held under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.

Dr. Kumblety is well known in this city. His name however is Twomblety, not Kumblety. Twenty-four years ago he made his advent in this city and was since then known only as "Dr. Twomblety" a most eccentric character. He formerly resided in Nova Scotia, where he practiced medicine under the name of Dr. Sullivan. About the time of his appearance in this city he was a fugitive from justice, having fled his Nova Scotian home to escape punishment for malpractice.



It seems Tumblety himself gave the name of Kumblety. Notice how the New York World believed his real name was 'Twomblety'. They pushed this for at least a week of Tumblety reporting.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Pcdunn]

Hi Howard,

I don't believe they waited for anything, since this is an assumption there was an earlier investigation. Tumblety was a quack even in their eyes, so why would they expend the effort? He was arrested on suspicion near November 7, they are very suspicious of this 'American doctor' and considered him a hot suspect (for whatever reason), and since they had correspondences in Tumblety's possession of a clear violation of gross indecency, they got the idea to hold him on this (couldn't hold him on the Ripper case just like anyone else). These dates (July 27, August 31,October 14, Nov.2) could have easily come from their interviews with these young men between November 7 and November 14 (thus the reason why they didn't put Tumblety in front of Hannay on the 7th to be transferred to Central Criminal Court because they had yet to speak to the four young men).

Again, they didn't know these dates until AFTER November 7th and the first investigation on this no nothing quack was when they considered him a potential Ripper suspect.

I see the Victorian World attempting to ignore the homosexual undertones of such a male dominated society, but came to a head only AFTER the Cleveland Street scandal. Tumblety was before this, so I see them preferring to ignore it. ...but of course, the quack caught their interest.

Sincerely,

Mike

This is just an idea I had, but do you think the four dates might be the dates on the letters they found on "Dr. T's" person? If they were all from different young men, and contained incriminating information of assignations, that might be enough to decide on four counts against Tumblety.

By the way, I came across a brief mention of Tumblety in an American paper in which his name is misspelled as "Trumblety"-- another version to add with "Kumblety", as down to inept reporting, perhaps?

[GUT]

If Abberline disclosed that to the reporter himself then that would be primary.

If the reporter was told that by another source secondary !

voila simple !

That`s just it I dont keep using historical terms !

Yes whenever you say Primary source or Secondary source you are using historical terms, but obviously are unable to grasp that simple fact.

[Trevor Marriott]

Wrong yet again but obviously a waste of time telling you.

The feeling is mutual !

[GUT]

If Abberline disclosed that to the reporter himself then that would be primary.

If the reporter was told that by another source secondary !

voila simple !

Wrong yet again but obviously a waste of time telling you.

[Trevor Marriott]

You're the one who keeps using historical terms and saying things are secondary sources.

That`s just it I dont keep using historical terms !

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor will surely describe that as an uncorroborated newspaper report by an American reporter who appears to be guessing in any case.

If Abberline disclosed that to the reporter himself then that would be primary.

If the reporter was told that by another source secondary !

voila simple !

[GUT]

That`s all you keep saying. I am not confusing anything, it is you that is getting confused. I posted the two differences which clearly apply. Forget all the historical crap that's just muddying the waters, lets stick to simply the newspaper reports and how the articles were obtained and from whom and when.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You're the one who keeps using historical terms and saying things are secondary sources.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are joking aren't you, I couldn't give a rats about Tumblety as a suspect [or any other suspect for that matter] let alone keep him alive at all costs, what I object to s you constantly saying that clearly primary sources are secondary sources, I am interested in the truth.



Why are you the only one that doesn't seem able to grasp that a newspaper from the day is a Primary Historical source, you may disagree with what it says, you may say the writer was full of BS, you may say he was smoking something, but it is still a primary source.



Who knows? But is is still an historical primary source, it is that simple.

You love going off and asking experts go and ask any historian and they'll tell you this, it really that simple.




Nope absolutely totally and 100% wrong.



As I and others have tried to point out to you before you are confusing second hand hearsay with primary or secondary sources, they are totally different things.

That`s all you keep saying. I am not confusing anything, it is you that is getting confused. I posted the two differences which clearly apply. Forget all the historical crap that's just muddying the waters, lets stick to simply the newspaper reports and how the articles were obtained and from whom and when.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

There you go !

In cases which fell outside a magistrate's summary jurisdiction [cases upon which he could pass sentence] "The room in which the examination (Committal Proceedings) is held is not to be deemed an open court; and the magistrate may exclude any person if he thinks fit." [11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 19, Indictable Offences Act, 1848].

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry Trevor, how does that even begin to support the statement that "committal for these types of offences were normally held in camera"?

In-camera describes court cases, parts of it, or process where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process.

Now what part of that do you not understand ?

And as David asks how does the magistrate having a discretion to close the Court if he thinks fit in any way support your claim "that committal for these types of offences were normally held in camera", all it does is shows that it was an option open to the magistrate.

What David asked you was where is the support that it was normally n these type of cases, a question which rather than answering you have told us that the Magistrate had the power to do so.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry Trevor, how does that even begin to support the statement that "committal for these types of offences were normally held in camera"?

In-camera describes court cases, parts of it, or process where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process.

Now what part of that do you not understand ?