Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I see that Mike has decided to continue his argument with me about whether a Scotland Yard detective really was in New York in December 1888 to meet Tumblety on his arrival. Although my central argument is that the "English detective" referred to in a couple of New York newspapers as hanging around Tumblety's dwelling probably didn't exist, Mike prefers to focus on my suggestion that, if he did exist, he was more likely to have been a private detective than a Scotland Yard detective, a suggestion he coyly attributes to "a number of modern researchers". Perhaps Mike can name those researchers for us because I'd be interested to know how their arguments are expressed and if they accord with mine.

    Mike seems to think that if he can find a few examples of Scotland Yard detectives being referred to as "English detectives" he has somehow proved that anyone referred to in the American press as an "English detective" must have been from Scotland Yard! I don't know how that works.

    Hawley himself writes that "contemporary American readers believed English detectives were synonymous with Scotland Yard detectives, not private detectives from England". That is EXACTLY the point I have made, namely that anyone who saw an Englishman who looked like a detective simply assumed he was from Scotland Yard, regardless of whether that was the case or not.

    Mike's key exhibit is a newspaper report in the Chicago Daily Tribune of 30 June 1889 relying on what their reporter was told by someone Mike describes as "Special Branch Detective H. Dutton". But there was no officer called Dutton in the Special Branch at any time prior to 30 June 1889, so it all starts off terribly badly. Even worse, Mike says that "Claiming that the funding of a Scotland Yard man being sent to New York must be in Home Records conflicts with the facts." What facts? He doesn't present any! Just a newspaper report sourced to a non-existent Special Branch detective who himself does not refer to a single Scotland Yard man being sent to New York! In fact, of the two paragraphs cited by Hawley, which he attributes to Dutton, neither of them is actually attributed to Dutton within the story!! The first supposedly comes from a visit by the reporter to Scotland Yard’s crime museum while the second is unsourced and follows a discussion by the reporter with Robert Pinkerton (but he does not appear to be the source of the information).

    Mike then conflates a report referring to “agents of the British government” with Scotland Yard detectives. They are not necessarily the same thing.

    Above all, Mike does not tell us WHY an English Scotland Yard detective would have bothered to make an expensive trip to New York at cost to the public purse. He couldn't arrest Tumblety because there was no enforceable warrant. If Tumblety needed to be followed in New York this could have been done by Pinkerton's men on behalf of Scotland Yard. So what was he doing there? Mike seems to swallow a bartender's story that this English detective told him he was there "to get the Whitechapel Murderer". But how? Any such arrest in America by an English police officer without a warrant would have been illegal. And if there was sufficient evidence to arrest Tumblety for any of the murders in Whitechapel why hadn't he been arrested while in London when he was in custody? It doesn't make sense and if it doesn't make sense then it probably didn't happen.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      What’s your opinion of the book overall David?
      I'm only interested in the facts and the arguments, Herlock, not the overall nature of the book.

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Mike
        Last edited by mklhawley; 05-07-2018, 09:50 AM.
        The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
        http://www.michaelLhawley.com

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          It doesn't then get much better, for in the next sentence we are told that it is "certain" that Chief Inspector Littlechild stated that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, with a supporting quote provided in which Littlechild says absolutely no such thing! All Littlechild says is that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" which is something that the police could have established subsequently. And they could have done so very simply by learning that Tumblety had purchased a ticket, while in England, to travel to Boulogne!
          That's complete BS, David. You just led the reader by a minimalizing statement by saying Littlechild only stated he "got away to Boulogne" when in fact he stated, "and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne..." The second part does indeed show that Littlechild was privy to something other than purchasing a ticket in England.

          Good job, David.
          The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
          http://www.michaelLhawley.com

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            Mike tells us that Tumblety was "initially arrested on November 7, 1888" although there is no evidence to confirm that this is correct. He certainly appeared in a Magistrate's Court on that date but, as he needed to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, he could have been arrested on 6th November. And the only reason we can assume he wasn't arrested on, say 30th October (and then brought before a magistrate that day and remanded on bail to the 7th November), is that one of the charges relates to an offence on 2 November. In theory this could have been committed while he was out on bail but it's unlikely. The point is that we don't know for sure that Tumblety was arrested on 7th November.

            Furthermore, Mike decides not to unsettle his readers by informing them that one certain fact we do know about Tumblety is that he was sent directly from Marlborough Street Magistrate's Court to Holloway Prison on 7th November 1888 and would have remained in that prison until at least 8th November. He might have been freed on bail from prison on 8th November (and thus been free to murder Mary Jane Kelly) but this is not certain and it is therefore strange that Mike decides to keep this information from his readers.
            David, the November 7 record is under "taken into custody," and since the case at hand was the gross indecency and indecent assault, that's what it would have been for. So, you're saying taken into custody is not being arrested? I don't decide to keep anything from him. You are leading the readers' minds more than I am. How could I have kept information away when I justify my point that he was free by commenting upon three Scotland Yard officials naming him as a suspect AFTER the Kelly murder.

            Sorry David
            The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
            http://www.michaelLhawley.com

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by mklhawley View Post
              That's complete BS, David. You just led the reader by a minimalizing statement by saying Littlechild only stated he "got away to Boulogne" when in fact he stated, "and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne..." The second part does indeed show that Littlechild was privy to something other than purchasing a ticket in England.

              Good job, David.
              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?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by mklhawley View Post
                David, the November 7 record is under "taken into custody," and since the case at hand was the gross indecency and indecent assault, that's what it would have been for. So, you're saying taken into custody is not being arrested? I don't decide to keep anything from him. You are leading the readers' minds more than I am. How could I have kept information away when I justify my point that he was free by commenting upon three Scotland Yard officials naming him as a suspect AFTER the Kelly murder.

                Sorry David
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by mklhawley View Post
                  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.
                  Where did you predict anything?

                  What do you say is the reason for me doing what I am doing?

                  How am I "minimalizing" evidence and putting any spin on selected parts of your book?

                  What "David Orsam books" are you talking about?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                    Mike then conflates a report referring to “agents of the British government” with Scotland Yard detectives. They are not necessarily the same thing.

                    Above all, Mike does not tell us WHY an English Scotland Yard detective would have bothered to make an expensive trip to New York at cost to the public purse. He couldn't arrest Tumblety because there was no enforceable warrant. If Tumblety needed to be followed in New York this could have been done by Pinkerton's men on behalf of Scotland Yard. So what was he doing there? Mike seems to swallow a bartender's story that this English detective told him he was there "to get the Whitechapel Murderer". But how? Any such arrest in America by an English police officer without a warrant would have been illegal. And if there was sufficient evidence to arrest Tumblety for any of the murders in Whitechapel why hadn't he been arrested while in London when he was in custody? It doesn't make sense and if it doesn't make sense then it probably didn't happen.
                    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?

                    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.

                    Mike
                    The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                    http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      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.
                      The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                      http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                        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.
                        The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                        http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by mklhawley View Post
                            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!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by mklhawley View Post
                              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?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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
                                "The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny Bruce

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X