Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[mklhawley]

For anyone whose curiosity is whetted by talk of my debate with Jonathan Hainsworth, it can be found here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=401951&highlight=Mortemer#post401951

and it also seemed to metamorphosize into another thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=402148&highlight=Mortemer#post402148

But I do warn you, the posts were very long!

David, you always have long posts, because you need to have the last say. I think you think if they stop posting then you win. Sometimes we get exhausted with your constant posting.

Speaking of that. I need to stop, but I will look at this later.

[mklhawley]

You have great faith in a couple of American newspaper reports but how do you know that they didn't come from the same source? How do you know that the bartender's story was truly told by multiple bartenders? Are any of them named? Are the reporters named? How do you know that the whole thing isn't a complete invention?

You simply avoid the central questions which are these:

1. Why would a Scotland Yard detective reveal to a bartender that he was in New York to "get" Tumblety for the Whitechapel murders?

2. You do realise that a Scotland Yard detective had no power of arrest in New York, right? So what was he actually doing there?

Scotland Yard detectives did indeed follow prisoners to New York and did not merely depend upon the Pinkertons. Here's an example in 1869:

The murderer, Franz Muller, a poor German tailor, had immediately departed to America, hoping to start a new life in the New World. But two Scotland Yard detectives pursued him...

It's funny you talk about Scotland Yard having no power to arrest when others on these boards talk about how Scotland Yard would have exceeded their authority in England and hold Tumblety indefinitely if he was a true ripper suspect. Of course I know they had no authority at that time, because the only charge at that moment was a misdemeanor. Chief Inspector Byrnes even stated this to the publich, but once they charged Tumblety with a felony, then Byrnes would have allowed it. Remember, they were collecting tons of information on Tumblety, such as his handwriting.

The guy was a bartender, so the detective was clearly in his drink. I'm sure the bartender asked him why he was even in New York, so it's not a stretch that the guy had loose lips.

You still haven't addressed how the eyewitness testimony of seeing this Scotland Yard detective was from multiple bartenders and two reporters from competing papers and on the same day. One reporter could not have read the article from the other. They give different details. Sorry David.

[David Orsam]

For anyone whose curiosity is whetted by talk of my debate with Jonathan Hainsworth, it can be found here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=401951&highlight=Mortemer#post401951

and it also seemed to metamorphosize into another thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=402148&highlight=Mortemer#post402148

But I do warn you, the posts were very long!

[David Orsam]

You would be the conspiracy theorist par excellance if you could connect the two subjects.

Well as I've mentioned previously there are, I think, no less than seven mentions of 'Jack the Ripper' in my book about Spandau Ballet so I reckon I've done quite well there!

[David Orsam]

There is a ton of new information in this book, and finding corrections is absolutely acceptable.

Well that's great that there is a ton of new information in your book but if finding corrections is "absolutely acceptable" what are you complaining about?

Just because I reject your conclusions as biased, you have attacked my credibility.

Where have I attacked your credibility? Looks like you are "minimalizing" here Mike. What I said is that readers of a book need to be confident that the author is not trying to trick or mislead them. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of your knowledge of the facts surrounding these 12 constables.

I did indeed find areas you merely jumped to conclusions and areas where you minimalize (such as the eyewitness testimony of multiple bartenders and the two reporters). Sorry.

I don't know why you keep apologising.

If you tell me the names of the "multiple bartenders" or provide some direct quotes from what they told the reporters then perhaps you can accuse me of minimalizing their evidence but until then you've got nothing.

As for two reporters, so what? How do you know they didn't source their story from the same unreliable bartender? How do you know they didn't confer? I've made these points in my article about your 2016 book to which, as one of these "modern researchers" you were talking about, you were supposedly responding. But you don't deal with any of that at all in your latest book.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you Sherlock, yes this is the case (New Romantics Who Never Were: The Untold Story of Spandau Ballet) but I can assure you that I am not "minimalizing evidence" or "putting my spin" on selected parts of Mike's book as some kind of weird "prepping" for this book, whatever Mike thinks he predicted in his own head.

You would be the conspiracy theorist par excellance if you could connect the two subjects.

[David Orsam]

Sorry, he did.

Please just give me a single example of him doing so, Mike.

I fear you must be hallucinating.

[David Orsam]

I went by the source I used which certainly conformed, but if you found something which contradicts it, great.

Well now hold on there Mike. Before writing this book, did you or did you not read my article on my website about your 2016 book, The Ripper's Haunts?

http://www.orsam.co.uk/theenglishdetective.htm

I deal with the point about the 12 constables in great detail and demonstrate conclusively that there was no connection between their deployment (in 1889) and Tumblety's flight (or anything to do with Tumblety).

Do you or do you not accept the facts as set out in that article?

[mklhawley]

Feel free to show me as much "minimalization" as you like.

But I fear you are starting to talk nonsense.

My article relating to Jonathan Hainsworth's book has not "vanished", it is here (where it always has been):

http://www.orsam.co.uk/bridgetoofar.htm

If you think that JH "ripped" it apart then you obviously weren't reading our exchange on this forum properly. He didn't lay a finger on it. More than that, he admitted to modifying his book (for a planned future edition) in response to my article. That was at about the same time that he seemed to be having a nervous breakdown responding to it before he simply disappeared from the forum.

Sorry, he did.

[David Orsam]

It did, I just ignored you for this last year. I could have ripped your article apart like Jonathan Hainesworth ripped the review you gave to his book. Interesting how it vanished.

If you want me to show more minimalization, I can.

Feel free to show me as much "minimalization" as you like.

But I fear you are starting to talk nonsense.

My article relating to Jonathan Hainsworth's book has not "vanished", it is here (where it always has been):

http://www.orsam.co.uk/bridgetoofar.htm

If you think that JH "ripped" it apart then you obviously weren't reading our exchange on this forum properly. He didn't lay a finger on it. More than that, he admitted to modifying his book (for a planned future edition) in response to my article. That was at about the same time that he seemed to be having a nervous breakdown responding to it before he simply disappeared from the forum.

[mklhawley]

Well let's just look at that Mike.

Do you accept or do you not accept that the proposed deployment of 12 constables at two train stations had absolutely nothing to do with Tumblety?

Because I am saying that is nothing to do with interpretation, it's just a fact that there was no connection.

I went by the source I used which certainly conformed, but if you found something which contradicts it, great. There is a ton of new information in this book, and finding corrections is absolutely acceptable. Just because I reject your conclusions as biased, you have attacked my credibility. I did indeed find areas you merely jumped to conclusions and areas where you minimalize (such as the eyewitness testimony of multiple bartenders and the two reporters). Sorry.

[David Orsam]

I can assure you that David does minimalize. Sorry David; you interpret the facts like everyone else. You can't say you just look at facts.

I never said, incidentally, that I "just look at facts". This is what I said to Herlock only a short time ago today:

"I'm only interested in the facts and the arguments, Herlock, not the overall nature of the book."

[mklhawley]

Well you gave a single example of my alleged "minimalizing" and that didn't go too well did it?

It did, I just ignored you for this last year. I could have ripped your article apart like Jonathan Hainesworth ripped the review you gave to his book. Interesting how it vanished.

If you want me to show more minimalization, I can.

[David Orsam]

Sorry David; you interpret the facts like everyone else. You can't say you just look at facts.

Well let's just look at that Mike.

Do you accept or do you not accept that the proposed deployment of 12 constables at two train stations had absolutely nothing to do with Tumblety?

Because I am saying that is nothing to do with interpretation, it's just a fact that there was no connection.

[David Orsam]

I can assure you that David does minimalize.

Well you gave a single example of my alleged "minimalizing" and that didn't go too well did it?