Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[David Orsam]

I trust Mike isn't intending to be evasive in his response to my posts so can I put down a marker to three questions that really do require answers:

1. Why did you include mention of the 12 constables and the 20th November letter in your book?

2. Who are the "number of modern researchers" who have claimed that the English detective supposedly seen outside Tumblety's apartment in New York was an English private detective hired by two men who gave sureties for Tumblety's bail?

3. Who are the three Scotland Yard officials who named Tumblety as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders after the the Kelly murder?

I'm assuming that Mike has had ample opportunity to answer my question as to where Littlechild said that Tumblety had been spotted in Boulogne but can't do it and that he will respond in due course to my questions as to what purpose a Scotland Yard detective would have had in following Tumblety to and/or in New York and in telling a bartender that he was there to get him for the Whitechapel murders.

[mklhawley]

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.

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.

[David Orsam]

Ah, the book about 80’s pop music that you mentioned to me a few months ago is about Spandau Ballet? Good luck with it David

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, the book about 80’s pop music that you mentioned to me a few months ago is about Spandau Ballet? Good luck with it David

Apologies for the digression.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll answer you Herlock as I guess David has too much of an issue about one small part of the book contradicting his article....Mike has accumulated a massive amount of new (or I should say newly discovered) material, presented said material and has done a remarkable job of it...and in my opinion, has maintained some skepticism ... this isn't a "case closed" book.. this is a "WOW look at all this evidence, yes much of it circumstantial, but let's all take a closer look"
As someone who has been a life long "Anti-Tumblety" guy I think he has done a remarkable job, with both books, and has even made me rethink all the reasons I had eliminated Tumblety, and take a closer look at this fascinating individual.
And David can now attack me as being biased....I'm ok with that....full disclosure I did help with the research on this book...but specifically because I WAS AN ANTI-TUMBLETY GUY...Hawley wanted people who disagreed with his theory as well, to take a much more scientific approach, peer review kind of thing...and voices who wouldn't allow him to jump to conclusions without proper evidence to back it up...Name another writer in this field who would go out of his way to find someone who disagrees with him to work with just to keep it as balanced as possible....

but that is just my opinion... I would love to hear yours once you read the book

Steadmund Brand

Thanks for the response Stead. I look forward to getting the book as soon as i work my way down my current ‘to read’ pile.

[David Orsam]

I have just been told David Barrat is doing his prepping for his David Orsam books by minimalizing evidence and putting his spin on selected parts of my book. I predicted this. David has a reason for what he’s doing. When i have some time i will respond.

By the way, if someone really has told you this, Mike, which I very much doubt, they were lying to you.

[David Orsam]

I'll answer you Herlock as I guess David has too much of an issue about one small part of the book contradicting his article....

That's nonsense Steadmund. I'm complaining about parts of Mike's book contradicting the facts.

I'm still waiting for Mike to justify the inclusion in his book of the mention of the 20th November 1888 letter about the 12 extra constables.

It was my first post in this thread - and possibly the most important - but no response as yet.

[David Orsam]

We have reports that Scotland Yard detectives were in New York City in late 1888 because of the Irish independent issues, so why is it a shock that one of them would have been used to keep an eye on a Jack the Ripper suspect? Not being able to catch the killer was the biggest embarrassment for Scotland Yard in 1888. Sorry David. It does make sense, just not for you.

But those reports were false Mike. There were no Scotland Yard detectives in New York City in late 1888. There might well have been some private detectives employed by the Times Newspaper who were confused with Scotland Yard detectives. There might have been private detectives employed by the British Consul in New York. But there were no Scotland Yard detectives in New York City at that time!

[David Orsam]

Lots of minimalizing here, but I'll take a bit at a time. When asked if an American detective company was working for Scotland Yard, Andrews himself stated that they could do it themselves, so they would indeed have done just what Andrews stated. The bartender's story was actually bartenders' stories collected from competing New York newspaper reporters independently and on the same day. This is corroboration! These reporters saw the man too. Are they all lying or is David minimalizing because it does not conform to his published article and future book?

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?

[Steadmund Brand]

I'll answer you Herlock as I guess David has too much of an issue about one small part of the book contradicting his article....Mike has accumulated a massive amount of new (or I should say newly discovered) material, presented said material and has done a remarkable job of it...and in my opinion, has maintained some skepticism ... this isn't a "case closed" book.. this is a "WOW look at all this evidence, yes much of it circumstantial, but let's all take a closer look"
As someone who has been a life long "Anti-Tumblety" guy I think he has done a remarkable job, with both books, and has even made me rethink all the reasons I had eliminated Tumblety, and take a closer look at this fascinating individual.
And David can now attack me as being biased....I'm ok with that....full disclosure I did help with the research on this book...but specifically because I WAS AN ANTI-TUMBLETY GUY...Hawley wanted people who disagreed with his theory as well, to take a much more scientific approach, peer review kind of thing...and voices who wouldn't allow him to jump to conclusions without proper evidence to back it up...Name another writer in this field who would go out of his way to find someone who disagrees with him to work with just to keep it as balanced as possible....

but that is just my opinion... I would love to hear yours once you read the book

Steadmund Brand

[David Orsam]

I don't make wild assumptions. Because there is only limited evidence, since we do not have the large dossier, connecting the lines of evidence is certainly allowable.

Can you just remind me who the three Scotland Yard officials who named Tumblety as a suspect after the Kelly murder actually were?

[David Orsam]

You AGAIN didn't include, "He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards."

Nice try.

No, because YOU didn't include it at that point in your book, so why is it relevant?

And where does Littlechild say that Tumblety was "spotted" at any time in or out of Boulogne?

Do you not find it incredible that Littlechild was apparently unaware that Tumblety left from Le Havre for New York despite the American newspapers knowing about it?

Or perhaps he did know it at the time which is how he knew that Tumblety must have left Boulogne. Nothing to do with anyone spotting him!

[David Orsam]

You don't need to apologise Mike but taken into custody does NOT mean being arrested in the court calendar records. It means being held in custody on remand in prison.

To be absolutely accurate, here is what I wrote some time ago (in November 2015) on my website in an article entitled "Tumblety's Bail Revisited"

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

1. Interpretation of the After-Trial Calendar

Prior to my involvement, it was believed that the column in the Central Criminal Court After-Trial Calendar headed 'Received into custody' indicated the date a person was arrested. Along with Robert Linford, in a Casebook thread, I managed to establish that 'custody' here has nothing to do with the date a person was arrested. What it means is the date that an accused person was first received at prison (which, in this time period, was Holloway Prison), either on remand or having been committed for trial or having surrendered to bail (at Newgate Prison) at the start of the sessions during which he was being tried. This was very significant because, until then, everyone believed that the Calendar was only telling us that Francis Tumblety had been arrested on 7 November 1888. Consequently, it was argued that he might have been released on police bail until the hearing before a magistrate on 14 November 1888.

Now that we know that Tumblety was actually in prison on 7 November, we also know that he must have been before a magistrate on that date (because remanded persons were sent to prison on the same day they were remanded at the police court). It's not impossible that he was also arrested on 7 November - although he could also have been arrested late on 6 November (or even, in theory, at any time after 2 November, the date of his last alleged offence, and remanded by a magistrate to 7 November) - but it means that police bail is completely out of the equation on or after 7 November because, once he was before the magistrate, there was no question of police bail.

I might add that, until my involvement, it was wrongly believed that Tumblety was sent to Clerkenwell prison on remand and then Newgate prison after his committal. It is a very important fact that he went to Holloway prison because the After-Trial Calendar of the Central Criminal Court in 1888 was prepared by the governor of Holloway prison.

[mklhawley]

You don't need to apologise Mike but taken into custody does NOT mean being arrested in the court calendar records. It means being held in custody on remand in prison.

I don't know who the three Scotland Yard officials you refer to are who named Tumblety as a suspect but how do we know that they didn't eliminate Kelly from the string of Jack the Ripper murders? And how do we know that they were aware of all the dates Tumblety was in and out of prison? We can't just make assumptions.

I don't make wild assumptions. Because there is only limited evidence, since we do not have the large dossier, connecting the lines of evidence is certainly allowable.

[mklhawley]

Take a look at your own book Mike! You minimalized the statement yourself!!!! Here is exactly what appears in your book:

"What is certain is that Chief Inspector Littlechild, head of Special Branch, stated Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, France, on or before November 23 1888:

Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne."

So you don't include the part about him leaving Boulogne in the extract you use to support your claim that it is "certain" that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne!

It's not surprising because Littlechild saying that Tumblety "left" Boulogne doesn't mean that anyone saw him doing so.

So where is the evidence that Littlechild has ever said that Tumblety was "spotted" in Boulogne?

You AGAIN didn't include, "He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards."

Nice try.