More Tumblety in the Evening Post

[mklhawley]

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

Hi GUT,

Read my earlier post. The November 19 New York World report explains it was not a mere mistake. The NY World London chief correspondent, Tracy Greaves, sent to the US the name of 'Kumblety' in the November 17 news cable and he did not know who this American from New York was. The World did indeed publish the news cable on November 18 just like the Boston Globe and SF Chronicle, but they opted to take out the 'Kumblety' story (they kept in the Sir George Arthur story). Why? Because they found out who this 'Kumblety' was, but called him Twomblety. They spent the extra day digging up more info.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wickerman]

Actually Jon we can define a newspaper report as primary or secondary, if it is contemporary it is primary, historically speaking that is, within the article itself rests the question of weight not of classification.

Just look at the link I posted from Princeton even a novel published at the time is historically a primary source, now is it necessarily right? No. But it is still a primary source.

Hi GUT.
You may notice that second link you offered, in the Primary section we read:
"Published materials can be viewed as primary resources if they come from the time period that is being discussed, and were written or produced by someone with firsthand experience of the event."

In the Secondary section a similar acknowledgement is given:
"A secondary source is generally one or more steps removed from the event or time period and are written or produced after the fact..."

This is the principal difference between a Primary source and a Secondary source, the fact one is essentially eyewitness, the other is at arms length.

Referring to a Newspaper as a Primary source when reporting on the incident in question in paraphrase (accurate or not), is a contradiction in terms.
This is why it is the article in question that is either Primary or Secondary, not the Newspaper.

[GUT]

Hi GUT.
You may notice that second link you offered, in the Primary section we read:
"Published materials can be viewed as primary resources if they come from the time period that is being discussed, and were written or produced by someone with firsthand experience of the event."

In the Secondary section a similar acknowledgement is given:
"A secondary source is generally one or more steps removed from the event or time period and are written or produced after the fact..."

This is the principal difference between a Primary source and a Secondary source, the fact one is essentially eyewitness, the other is at arms length.

Referring to a Newspaper as a Primary source when reporting on the incident in question in paraphrase (accurate or not), is a contradiction in terms.
This is why it is the article in question that is either Primary or Secondary, not the Newspaper.

G'day Jon

As I said everyone that have ever spoken to, who has qualifications in history, including Dr's Lecturers and Professors says that any Newspaoper article published at the time is Primary.

Can you explain how a novel is primary if a newspaper report isn't?

I sure can't.

[GUT]

From Robert C. Williams, The Historian's Toolbox: A Student's Guide to the Theory and Craft of History, p.58

"A primary source is a document, image, or artifact that provides evidence about the past. It is an original document created contemporaneously with the event under discussion. A direct quote from such a document is classified as a primary source. A secondary source is a book, article, film, or museum that displays primary sources selectively in order to interpret the past."

[GUT]

But isn't the real issue it's reliability and not its classification.

[Monty]

Trevor

Please give us YOUR definition of primary and secondary sources.

I suspect here.

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/newspapers-considered-primary-source-secondar-401844

However, in Trevors defence, he is correct in his definition from a legal point of view.

Question is, are we debating the legal or historical here?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I suspect here.

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/newspapers-considered-primary-source-secondar-401844

However, in Trevors defence, he is correct in his definition from a legal point of view.

Question is, are we debating the legal or historical here?

Monty

Thank you for your support

The answer surely depends on what side you are on, the historians or the investigators.

[GUT]

I suspect here.

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/newspapers-considered-primary-source-secondar-401844

However, in Trevors defence, he is correct in his definition from a legal point of view.

Question is, are we debating the legal or historical here?

Monty

Which I've already said it is second hand hearsay, there is actually no such thing in law as a secondary source.

[Monty]

Re the correspondence

Do we know the nature of the correspondence?

I suspect it would be in the form of telegrams and, purely going by the ages of Brice and Doughty (around 19 in 88 if Chris Scotts research is spot on), could we be dealing with Telegram Boys a la Cleveland Street?

Just random thoughts.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Which I've already said it is second hand hearsay, there is actually no such thing in law as a secondary source.

What a ridiculous statement !

[Monty]

Which I've already said it is second hand hearsay, there is actually no such thing in law as a secondary source.

That being a fairly recent thing. Hearsay is only admissible in certain circumstances, however this is not the point I'm trying to make.

I am stating that there may be some confusion of the terms used, and contexts, when dealing with different posters. Secondary sources to Paul and Jonathan may mean something different to Trevor.

I don't wish to get into a debate on this, so please accept my apologies as I withdraw on the subject.

Monty

[Debra A]

Do we know the nature of the correspondence?

I suspect it would be in the form of telegrams and, purely going by the ages of Brice and Doughty (around 19 in 88 if Chris Scotts research is spot on), could we be dealing with Telegram Boys a la Cleveland Street?

Just random thoughts.

Monty

Hi Neil
Good thought but looking at the Postal Service Appointment Books (in which the names of all the telegram boys who were involved in the Cleveland St scandal do appear) there are none of the names associated with Tumblety's charge.

[PaulB]

Thank you for your support

The answer surely depends on what side you are on, the historians or the investigators.

There are no "sides" Trevor. Trying to understand the past is history. The investigators are the people properly equipped to do that job and they are historians.

[Monty]

There are no "sides" Trevor. Trying to understand the past is history. The investigators are the people properly equipped to do that job and they are historians.

Hear hear.

Monty

[Monty]

Hi Neil
Good thought but looking at the Postal Service Appointment Books (in which the names of all the telegram boys who were involved in the Cleveland St scandal do appear) there are none of the names associated with Tumblety's charge.

Thanks Debs,

Please bear with me, as Im unaware of the Postal Service Appointment Books but...

...Given the date difference between Tumblety and the scandal (not much mind), do these books cover the 1888 period?

Cheers
Monty