More Tumblety in the Evening Post

[GUT]

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.

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.

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

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.

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 First of all the article is days out of date.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?

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.

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.

Nope absolutely totally and 100% wrong.

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?

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.

[David Orsam]

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].

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Well do let's try and understand primary and secondary sources and once they are explained at least get it right for the next few posts.



I'm not sure what definition I'm challenging other than you calling primary sources secondary, I've already said that the acceptance or otherwise of those sources is another matter.




Yet again Trevor historically it is a primary piece of evidence not secondary do make an effort.

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?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you supply more evidence of this Trevor? I note that the committal to trial of Rev. Henry Moffatt for acts of indecency under the Criminal Law Amendment Act at Bow Street Magistrate's Court on 22 June 1886 WAS reported (e.g. in Reynold's Newspaper of 27.06.86).

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].

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

Well whether you want to accept it or not it describes the difference. I accept we are talking about history and in particular newspaper articles and for me it is perfect for analyzing the contents of newspaper articles and their origins.

Well do let's try and understand primary and secondary sources and once they are explained at least get it right for the next few posts.

Of course you and others are going to challenge that definition Mike Hawleys case for Tumblety is based on nothing more than newspaper reports.

I'm not sure what definition I'm challenging other than you calling primary sources secondary, I've already said that the acceptance or otherwise of those sources is another matter.

Even the new revelation about the letters supposedly found on Tumblety is nothing more that an uncorroborated secondary piece of material. But what do we see another feeding frenzy taking place on the topic.

Yet again Trevor historically it is a primary piece of evidence not secondary do make an effort.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

There's no one size fits all in the legal system. It's all horses for courses.

The Quincy [Illinois] Daily Journal, December 23, 1889–

"Two men of high social standing were arrested by Inspector Abberline today in connection with the unspeakable scandal. They were not brought before the magistrate publicly, but as the inspector was seen in the private room of that official, it is thought the case was tried privately."

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

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

There's no one size fits all in the legal system. It's all horses for courses.

The Quincy [Illinois] Daily Journal, December 23, 1889–

"Two men of high social standing were arrested by Inspector Abberline today in connection with the unspeakable scandal. They were not brought before the magistrate publicly, but as the inspector was seen in the private room of that official, it is thought the case was tried privately."

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Of course you and others are going to challenge that definition Mike Hawleys case for Tumblety is based on nothing more than newspaper reports.

Corroborated by Littlechild, Anderson, the Court Calendars, etc. The only way one can reject this is to make a broad brushstroke statement categorizing everything into 'newspaper reports', ignoring each individual London correspondent in competing US newspapers, the objective Associated Press with their own London correspondent, and the British press. All of whom were face-to-face with the parties involved.

Your claim, on the other hand, must have conflicting evidence, ignore Littlechild, and believe Assistant Commissioner Anderson took the time on misdemeanor charge involving a quack American soliciting information impossible to use to convict.

[David Orsam]

Just one point to mention that committal for these types of offences were normally held in camera, that's why the committal was not reported in the press

Can you supply more evidence of this Trevor? I note that the committal to trial of Rev. Henry Moffatt for acts of indecency under the Criminal Law Amendment Act at Bow Street Magistrate's Court on 22 June 1886 WAS reported (e.g. in Reynold's Newspaper of 27.06.86).

[Trevor Marriott]

And from whence do you get that definition, it is a definition of second hand hearsay, a legal term, but not of a primary or secondary source, history terms.

Being hearsay may have impact on the acceptance or otherwise of the source, but has no impact on its categorization as primary or secondary.

Well whether you want to accept it or not it describes the difference. I accept we are talking about history and in particular newspaper articles and for me it is perfect for analyzing the contents of newspaper articles and their origins.

Of course you and others are going to challenge that definition Mike Hawleys case for Tumblety is based on nothing more than newspaper reports.

Even the new revelation about the letters supposedly found on Tumblety is nothing more that an uncorroborated secondary piece of material. But what do we see another feeding frenzy taking place on the topic.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks to everyone for the comments. Having thought about it, here is what I think is going on here.

None of the newspapers reported on Tumblety's committal for trial at Marlborough Street Police Court on 14 November. However, the London Correspondent for the New York World (amongst other US papers) picked up on the story and discovered from a well-informed source that:

1. An American doctor had been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel Murders but released due to lack of evidence.

2. The doctor was nevertheless committed for trial, having been charged under the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

The reporter evidently mis-heard the name of the American doctor as "Kumblety".

During the evening of Saturday 17 November (after he had heard at a club of a similar arrest of Sir George Arthur), the reporter cabled his story over to the US. It was picked up by at least two Sunday newspapers but there was some confusion over the date of Tumblety's arrest, the editor or sub-editor of the Boston Sunday Globe thinking it happened on the day the story was filed (i.e. 17 November). When the story was published in the New York World on the Monday things got more confusing because the New York World (of 19 November) stated:

"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."

In other words, it dated the despatch incorrectly as the morning of 18 November when it had been filed on 17 November.

When the New York World returned to the story a week or so later (now believing the doctor's name was "Twomblety"), it reported:

"The mysterious Dr. Twomblety, the American arrested in London November 18, suspected of having had some connection with the Whitechapel murders, seems to have figured extensively in Boston, where he is very well known."

It's own confusion about the date of the despatch thus led it to incorrectly state the (already incorrect) date of the arrest.

(N.B. We don't seem to have the original New York World story online and the above comes from the Washington Evening Star of 27 November but that newspaper sources the story as "From the New York World.")

As we know, on 20 November, Tumblety's trial was adjourned and his bail was extended to 10 December.

Now, the next thing we have is a cable from London to the US dated 1 December reporting that Tumblety (now spelt correctly) had been seen at Havre and was assumed to have sailed to New York. The reporter appears to have discovered that Tumblety's bondsmen had been spoken to by the Metropolitan police that day.

It was probably this cable that was picked up on by the Evening Post in its report of 3 December (despite referring to "a cable from Europe"). As we know, this report later featured in a Welsh newspaper on 7 December but the Evening Post is almost certainly the original British source.

On the previous day, Sunday 2 December, it seems that Tumblety had arrived in New York (as reported by the New York World of 4 December).

On 10 December, the Evening Post evidently obtained its own information (the first information about Tumblety to be obtained by an English reporter) from that morning's session at the Old Bailey at which the Recorder was informed of Tumblety's flight and issued an arrest warrant for him. At this stage, this seems to be all the details the Evening Post had for it relied on the New York World for the rest of the information in its article. Consequently, it stated "Tumblety was taken into custody on November 18" but it is very important to appreciate that this was NOT information it had learnt at the Old Bailey earlier that day but simply what had been copied from the New York World.

The Evening Post remained interested in the story and, three days later, on 13 December reproduced a very long article from the New York World but, before doing so, added its own comment that, "The American “Doctor” who was suspected of committing the Whitechapel Murders, but released, is the subject of considerable comment in the New York Press. The man was under recognisances to appear at the Old Bailey on another charge but he failed to surrender."

On 17 December, the Evening Post reproduced another story about Tumblety from the New York World to the effect that he had slipped away from New York. In doing so, it commented that Tumblety was "the notorious Whitechapel suspect".

Now, until this point, the only new information about Tumblety that has appeared in the Evening Post that can be sourced to London is about Tumblety's no-show at the Old Bailey on 10 December and the warrant issued for his arrest. Everything else in the Evening Post has come from New York.

The story on 16 February 1889 is a little different, however, in that, although it does reproduce another long article from the New York World, it provides what appears to be new information that had not, until this point, been reported anywhere else in the world, namely that Tumblety's arrest on the gross indecency charge arose "out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession". For the newspaper to have known this, it simply must have had a police source which, to my mind, confirms that the information about Tumblety having been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders was also true.

So what can we make of all this?

Well, for me, the fact that Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders is, in itself, of relatively minor significance. Scores of men were being stopped in the streets and arrested on suspicion only to be released a few hours later. Such an event was being reported virtually every day. An example was referred to in the Commendations thread concerning George Bartlett who was stopped on 12 November because he was carrying a locked bag, apparently arrested on suspicion of the murders and taken to Commercial Street police station but then charged for a completely different offence of sacrilege/theft. The fact that he was charged on the different offence clearly did not mean that the police still thought he was Jack the Ripper and were using sacrilege as a holding offence.

Similarly, Tumblety might just have been one of those men stopped on suspicion due to something about his behaviour and, when searched, the incriminating letters with young men were found in his possession so that he was charged with THAT offence. It may just be that the newspapers assumed that the indecency charge was a holding offence whereas the police might have decided that Tumblety was probably innocent of the Whitechapel murders (and certainly that they had no evidence against him).

From the work done by Robert and myself in the Commendations thread, it can, I think, now be stated as a fact that Tumblety was remanded into custody at Marlborough Street on the 7th November. For him to have been at liberty at the time of Mary Jane Kelly's murder he would have had to have somehow got himself released on bail on the very next day (i.e 8th November). I'm not sure if that was even possible but, even if it was in theory, I would have to agree, as a result of the new interpretation of the Old Bailey Calendar, that the likelihood is that he was in custody when Kelly was murdered.

HOWEVER, the newspapers did not know this. As far as THEY were concerned, Tumblety must have been on bail because he fled the country while on bail. They did not even know the date of his arrest and probably believed he had been arrested after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. So they published loads of stories which considered him as the murderer. Tumblety might have been very happy with this because it deflected attention away from, and even undermined the credibility of, the homosexuality charges against him.

Perhaps Littlechild was one of the interested readers of these stories in the Evening Post and, knowing that this colleagues had compiled a dossier on Tumblety, but unaware that he was in custody on 9th November, suggested Tumblety's name to Sims in response to Sims' mention of a "Dr D". Rather than say "I don't know a "Dr D" and nothing more, Littlechild adds his little story about the Dr T that he recalls from 25 years earlier.

Perhaps it is all no more than this.

I appreciate that there are a few more factors (the apparent involvement of the ACC in the Tumblety investigation, the possible involvement of Inspector Andrews in the chase - and it would be helpful if we could nail down what those commendations were for) but, to keep him alive as a suspect, we first need to show Tumblety at liberty on 9 November and that currently seems like a big ask.

Just one point to mention that committal for these types of offences were normally held in camera, that's why the committal was not reported in the press

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Nice job in explaining the transmission and confusion of dates of the various newspaper accounts of the arrest, bail, fleeing, and arrival in NYC of Dr. T. I especially like how the dating of the filing of the articles in the newspapers play a role in the mass of confusion we find ourselves in.

Thank you Jeff and yes, indeed, I could probably have made one thing clearer, namely that the mistake by the editors (or subs) of the Boston Globe and New York World in attributing the arrest to the 17th or 18th November respectively is no doubt what was responsible for deceiving everyone at the time (outside of those officially in the know), including the Evening Post, into believing that Tumblety had been arrested over a week after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. It is only because we have now access to the records of the Central Criminal Court that we know today that this was not the case.

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

I visualised him perhaps just picking up a bunch of papers, shoving them in his pocket, and not noticing that there were non-testimonial letters among them.

[PaulB]

Thanks Paul for the correction about Staleybridge Wakes. When you mentioned that Carr and Mr. Elton have been criticized in recent years, I should point out I attended Drew University in New Jersey (and read the Carr book) from 1971 to 1975, so it was a while back that I even read him.
Elton, if it is the same historian I know of, was an expert on Elizabethan or Tudor history?

Jeff

Thanks, Jeff, though I didn't mean it as a correction, just an additional piece of information. I read both Carr and Elton a long time ago too, but their "feud" and the Staleybridge Wakes matter is repeated so often. Anyway, rugby beckons!

[Mayerling]

Hi David,

Nice job in explaining the transmission and confusion of dates of the various newspaper accounts of the arrest, bail, fleeing, and arrival in NYC of Dr. T. I especially like how the dating of the filing of the articles in the newspapers play a role in the mass of confusion we find ourselves in.

Jeff