More Tumblety in the Evening Post

[Howard Brown]

Thank you, Mike.

I know the problems other researchers face with multiple edition newspapers ( The World being one of them over here in the States...and The Echo being one in the U.K.)...but I'm optimistic that there are other newspapers which will be found that contain different accounts such as this one about Tumblety in the future as more papers become digitized.

On the other hand, the archive I accessed does not have any of the articles transcribed here on Casebook from the New York World. Only this one and another with a poem from Tumblety in February of 1889, which Casebook doesn't have. That indicates multiple editions.

Thanks again...I hope the article is of use.

[PaulB]

When a newspaper published an article on the first year anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, reviewing the sinking in the writers own words, the newspaper is not a Primary source.
Yet, in this same newspaper we have the story of the fire at the docks overnight where the reporter was present, in this case the newspaper is a Primary source.

It cannot be both at the same time, which is why I say it is not the newspaper that is to be regarded as the Primary document, it is the article of concern within.
This is why it is essential to determine what the subject matter is and that due to the fact a newspaper contains a wide range of stories, it cannot itself be regarded a Primary source simply because it is a newspaper.

A novel can contain factual information, yet the story is fictional. Exactly what this novel is supposed to be a Primary source for must be cleared up first. Simply calling a novel a Primary source is incorrect.

The last fictional story I read was The Alienist (though some Ripper books I have read since would better fit that category). Although there are factual elements within this fictional story, the novel itself is not a Primary source, and cannot be regarded as such.
However, if research was conducted on some factual element within the story then that subject, or more properly, the work conducted by the author to included a factual background may be regarded as a Primary source for that specific issue, not the story as a whole, therefore not the novel itself.

I think what we are missing in this is the comment, "may contain".
A newspaper, like a novel, or even a tabloid, "may contain" information which, depending on the contents and how it was written, could be regarded as a Primary source.

Hi Jon
Actually, what distinguishes the two stories is that the first was produced after interpretation and analysis, whereas the second hasn't.

The anniversary report of the sinking of the Titanic has been constructed after and from the interpretation and analysis of primary sources.

The report of the dock fire is a primary source (whether the reporter was present or not) because it is constructed from what witnesses told the reporter and before the facts of the case could be established. In other words the details have not undergone interpretation and analysis, but is raw data.

Unfortunately, in certain circumstances a secondary source can become a primary source, as would be the case if a modern historian was studying how perspectives of the disaster have changed down the decades. The first anniversary report of the sinking would then very definitely be primary.

As you say, newspapers are composed of lots of different stories, some primary, others not, and an individual story must be categorised as one or the other, but the question being addressed here is how newspapers as a whole should be categorised and the answer to that they are a product of the time they were written and are clearly and simply primary

Paul

[Trevor Marriott]

The part I don't understand is all of it, in the sense that I don't understand why you are telling me this at all. I asked you to provide evidence in support of your statement that indecency cases were "normally" held in camera. I most certainly did not ask you to provide me with the basis of the legal authority of a magistrate to hold committal proceedings in camera, nor an explanation of what "in camera" means, so I cannot understand why you have done so. For the reasons GUT has already pointed out to you, you have simply not answered my question. Further:

1. Whatever document you were quoting from in #55 it was most certainly not the Indictable Offences Act 1848. Far be it for me to explain standard referencing procedure to you but, with the greatest respect, it is essential that, if you quote from a document, you provide the reference to the actual document you are quoting from, not the document you would have liked to have quoted from, nor the document that has been referenced or summarised in whatever book or article you took the quote from. Believe it or not, I think this golden rule even applies to internet postings.

2. If that is really all you are able give me in answer to my questions then I am absolutely bound to conclude that the correct answer to my first question "Can you supply more evidence of this Trevor?" was "No" and the correct answer to my second question "how does that even begin to support the statement that "committal for these types of offences were normally held in camera"?" was "It doesn't".

3. Let's cut to the chase and avoid any further nonsense. Clearly, what you were trying to say (or should have said) in response to my post #39 was: "One possible reason why the committal hearing of Tumblety was not reported is that the magistrate had the discretion to hold the hearing in camera". That would have avoided a pointless waste of time on all sides.

Well I knew what I meant, and you knew what I meant in fact everyone knew, why do you need to be pedantic ?

[Trevor Marriott]

You stiil fail to address the points made, make no effort to defend your position, and you are still profoundly ignorant about history and historians. But you can be what you want to be. That's fine. But in simple terms newspapers are still primary sources.

But, hey, you have now resorted to sarcasm,

Au contraire, I have simply put forward a simple explanation that all can understand and apply to the newspaper reports, well almost all !

[David Orsam]

Well I knew what I meant, and you knew what I meant in fact everyone knew, why do you need to be pedantic ?

I absolutely did not know what you meant, Trevor. I assumed that if you posted something on this forum it was accurate and you could back it up. It was only in the light of your answers to my questions, or rather non-answers, that I realised the truth. I'm now not sure you even know what the word "pedantic" means but perhaps, in using it, you mean something completely different to what the word actually means.

[Trevor Marriott]

the question being addressed here is how newspapers as a whole should be categorised and the answer to that they are a product of the time they were written and are clearly and simply primary

Paul

Thats not the question, clearly there are throughout this mystery primary newspaper reports. However the vast majority of reports I would suggest are secondary for the reasons previously given

Therefore each report a researcher is referring to should be looked at in that light by the researcher before they go out on a limb citing that article as a primary source.

Clearly not only ripper researchers, but other eminent scholars outside of ripperology also have different interpretations as to primary and secondary newspaper sources.

Surely a newspaper article published four weeks after an event, which has been reported by other newspapers soon after the event cannot be regarded as primary can it ?

Unless it contains first hand information obtained by the reporter who was either present and witnessed the event, or spoke to a witness who witnessed the event happening, anything else must be secondary

[Trevor Marriott]

I absolutely did not know what you meant, Trevor. I assumed that if you posted something on this forum it was accurate and you could back it up. It was only in the light of your answers to my questions, or rather non-answers, that I realised the truth. I'm now not sure you even know what the word "pedantic" means but perhaps, in using it, you mean something completely different to what the word actually means.

Oh I know what it means and it describes you to a T

I would suggest before you embark on another mission you go away and read up on police procedures and how the judicial system worked in 1888 clearly your ignorance has shown up twice now in recent weeks on here.

[David Orsam]

I would suggest before you embark on another mission you go away and read up on police procedures and how the judicial system worked in 1888 clearly your ignorance has shown up twice now in recent weeks on here.

I can only assume you have now started writing posts to yourself.

[Wickerman]

Hello Paul.

Hi Jon

As you say, newspapers are composed of lots of different stories, some primary, others not, and an individual story must be categorised as one or the other,

Yes Paul, and that has been my point. It is the article contained within the newspaper that is important, not the fact the paper is current to the event.

.......but the question being addressed here is how newspapers as a whole should be categorised and the answer to that they are a product of the time they were written and are clearly and simply primary

There is an implied assumption in that categorization, an assumption that is not always true.
It would be deceptive to claim a source as Primary in order to legitimize a theory, when the article of interest within the newspaper was secondary, ie; nothing in the first-person, and perhaps in paraphrase, or given in what would be otherwise termed hear-say format.
It is this situation that I am trying to draw attention to. It is because of this that we must be careful not to be deceived by a claim of Primary, when in fact it is secondary, regardless of how the newspaper is viewed.

[Wickerman]

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

If I am not mistaken within this Tumblety debate we have a copy of the Evening Post dated 16th Feb. 1889, which in turn is referring to an older source of the New York World dated 2nd Dec. 1888, which in turn is drawing on even older sources which occurred in mid November 1888.
Why would anyone regard either of these newspapers as a Primary source?

The Evening Post of the same date also draws some of its information from an unnamed source that appears to be closer to the Courts in referring to Tumblety's arrest on charges of indecency, but these also occurred in November 1888, close to 3 months previous.

This is why Newspapers cannot be regarded carte blanche as Primary sources when:
- The reporter was not a direct witness to the events being described or,
- The story is not using direct quotations from the actual witness/suspect concerned or,
- The events being described are not contemporary with the publication of either of these press sources.

However, this does not detract from the possibility that the Evening Post used a Primary source when it referred to the arrest of Tumblety on charges of indecency. Though the possibility remains that this particular detail came from another unnamed press source.

[Jonathan H]

Some posters get this and some do not.

The concept of second-hand data is still being confused with seconday sources--the latter referring to a source not from the time being studied.

Another aspect that is not well understood by some is that primary does not mean better or automatically unimpeachable.

Nothing of the kind.

They are a mixture of accuracy and bias, values and limitations, and so on. It takes an investigator using historical methodology to try and measure to what degree and in what proportions.

Due to the subjective nature of such a science then of course people will disgree with each other as to whether a source is more important, or reliable than another.

A newspaper is a primary source, full stop.

Then it becomes a question as to what degree individual press sources may, or may not be reliable.

Perhaps the judgement will be, as with some of the American press trumpeting that Inspector Andrews was in Canada to find evidence against Charles Parnell, that they are not reliable at all. Others will interpret the same material diametrically; that it was a press beat-up claiming that Andrews was after Tumblety. It is a matter of interpretation, probabaility and the most persuasively mounted argument.

But the newspapers remain a primary source even if what they communicate is second or third hand.

Major Griffiths' (aka Alfred Aylmer) first piece about the un-named Kosminski, in his interview with Dr. Robert Anderson in 1895, is a primary source about the investigation by Scotland Yard into the Whitechapel murders--because Anderson was there (despite absences abroad). It is also second-hand as it is not a source created or controlled by Dr. Anderson, but it is still primary--in fact the first time the Polish suspect entered the public domain in the extant record.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Here's the Ripperological rule of thumb—

Press reports, medical opinions and public clocks are unfailingly accurate when promoting theories but hopelessly inaccurate when disputing them.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

There are contemporaneous newspaper reports that have Andrews investigating Tumblety as the fiend, and others that have him investigating Parnell.

You have to make a choice, and then argue your case.

The real rule-of-thumb is that you can favour any Ripper suspect you like, anybody at all -- so long as it is not Tumblety and most certainly not Druitt.

[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

[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.