Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[David Orsam]

Or, I just know the game you're playing. Jonathan owned you on Casebook so you changed your online article to make it look like your arguments are valid. You know darn well you did it, so quit lying.

Are you actually back on that?

Firstly, Jonathan didn't "own" me. It's clear for anyone who looks at the debate to see this.

Secondly, I didn't change my online article ("A Bridge Too Far") at all. If you were to actually read that article you will see that it's very tightly argued. It would be almost impossible to change anything without affecting the entire argument.

Thirdly, the entire article was discussed openly with Jonathan on this forum. So how could I have changed anything so that it would not be noticed? I mean, for me to have changed something in response to what Jonathan said about my article would mean he has said something about my article which can no longer be found in it. This is simply not the case!

Fourthly, you've never provided a single example of what you think I've changed in that article. What are you saying has been changed?

Fifthly, Jonathan himself has never claimed, as far as I am aware, that I've changed anything in my article in response to his comments (although, as I've already pointed out, he stated that he was going to change the next edition of his book in response to my article and give me a credit!).

Sixthly, you originally claimed in this thread that the article had "vanished", which it hadn't. It's your own credibility that has vanished.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How interesting that Herlock knows so much personal information. Could it be? We know Herlock isn't his real name. Hmmm. Your real name wouldn't have to be...? Nah.

I didnt know any of the ‘facts’ about David until i read your comments Mike. I know absolutely nothing about David apart from the fact that he’s written 2 books that ive read (which i recommend to you Mike.)

More than one poster on here knows my real name as i occaisionally post on the Forum under that name. And in case you think im part of a conspiracy you can speak to Steve (Elamarna) who has met me and will confirm that im neither Pierre or David (Orsam or Barrat .) And to be completely accurate the best you should be willing to say is that its ‘highly unlikely’ that my real name is Herlock Sholmes as you cant be certain of the fact

[David Orsam]

David, David

Well just fancy that, you're not calling me "Pierre" any more. You ARE able to learn from mistakes!

Truth be told, it looks like you’re upset that I discovered your hidden agenda

I'm really confused about this "hidden agenda", Mike. One day I'm supposed to be posting online articles about JTR related books, knowing that they contain mistakes of some sort, in order to induce their authors to point out my errors so that I can then amend my online articles and include the new information in my forthcoming imaginary book on Jack the Ripper. This is apparently what I'm trying to do even though in three years of trying not a single person about whose work I've written has yet to point a single mistake of any significance in any of my articles! It's obviously not going very well. And someone like Bruce Robinson, about whose book I wrote a very long article, full of much new research, doesn't even post here, so how was that ever going to work?

But then the next day I'm actually trying to antagonize these same authors into debating with me, for some unknown reason, and then posting endlessly until they are exhausted. However, that doesn't seem to be entirely consistent with my other hidden agenda because surely I don't want them to be exhausted, I want them to help me amend my articles and update my imaginary book. And, again, it just doesn't work with my article on Bruce Robinson's book. I remember doing a lot of research for that article but, as he doesn't post in this forum, and was thus impossible to antagonize into debating with me, what possible motive could I have had for doing that article?

So I'm having real difficulty in understanding what I'm up to.

Perhaps the truth is that I've read a few books relating to Jack the Ripper, noticed some errors, queried some things, done some research, and posted my conclusions for the benefit of the rest of the world - intelligent people interested in the subject of Jack the Ripper, and anyone who is writing books or articles on the subject - so that will not be deceived by what they read in those books and that the record is properly corrected. Have you considered that this might just be my "hidden agenda"?

[mklhawley]

Or, I just know the game you're playing. Jonathan owned you on Casebook so you changed your online article to make it look like your arguments are valid. You know darn well you did it, so quit lying.

[David Orsam]

Oh, did I strike a nerve?

Hmmm.

No, but you have shown yourself to be someone who can't think clearly or logically.

[mklhawley]

Had you actually been reading the posts in this thread Mr Hawley, which it is quite apparent you are not doing, you would have seen that the "personal information" that you seem to think Herlock knows about me is entirely derived from my post #156.

Oh, did I strike a nerve?

Hmmm.

[David Orsam]

How interesting that Herlock knows so much personal information. Could it be? We know Herlock isn't his real name. Hmmm. Your real name wouldn't have to be...? Nah.

Had you actually been reading the posts in this thread Mr Hawley, which it is quite apparent you are not doing, you would have seen that the "personal information" that you seem to think Herlock knows about me is entirely derived from my post #156.

[mklhawley]

David, David, you seem emotionally compelled to write these endless posts, this incessant barking. I first thought it was just a case of extreme confirmation bias (minimalizing and ignoring evidence to the contrary and overemphasizing (and misrepresenting) evidence to the affirmative), but now I believe it’s also your struggle with what psychologists call accommodation vs. assimilation. Although, Christopher Morley may have the answer to this incessant barking:


Truth, like milk, arrives in the dark
But even so, wise dogs don’t bar.
Only mongrels make it hard
For the milkman to come up the yard.


Truth be told, it looks like you’re upset that I discovered your hidden agenda and you’re now paraphrasing, minimalizing, and cherry picking my book to death and not giving the true picture. You certainly look like you’re out to get me. Evidence for this, readers, is that he has skipped the volumes of surprising finds just to create the impression of a bad book. Sounds vindictive.

How many times do I have to tell you, Reductionist Dave, that I’m not going to play your game. Your MO (i.e., what you did with Jonathan) is to offend an author on the boards enough so that they defend themselves and expose the gaps in your articles, present and future. You’ll then amend your online articles. It’s obvious as to your motive. Your online articles will be chapters in your future David Orsam Book. In view of this, I will illuminate you AFTER publication so that I can return the very same courtesy that you have given other authors on these boards. Don’t be afraid to publish, David. Have some guts. I will take the time out of my busy schedule and give you a thorough review.


Recall:

David Barratt changed his online negative article on Jonathan Hainsworth’s book AFTER Jonathan dominated him on Casebook! Now I see what he’s doing. He seems to antagonize the author on the forums until the author is forced to defend his work. It creates a huge thread that no one bothers to read, so no one sees how Barratt’s arguments are an act of minimalizing evidence to the contrary. Barratt then fixes his online article through crafty smoke and mirrors. Sorry, David, I’m not going to play your game.

It is likely why you have not written your book (David Orsam books) yet, since you fear authors will give your book the same treatment. Writing an online article is certainly much safer, since you can edit it immediately. Honestly David, I will give you a thorough and fact-based review of your Tumblety section. When will it come out?

The problem the reader has is, since they are not privy to all the details, your strawman arguments sound convincing. It’s just that they are not valid. Even on this thread, we see Barratt’s minimalizing of the evidence. I’ll give two:

First one: Barratt paraphrases Littlechild’s statement in such a way as to make the reader believe he did not have inside knowledge that Tumblety had escaped to France. Barratt states, “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!”

This is a lie. Littlechild actually 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. Besides, he used an alias, Frank Townsend, so how on earth would they have known it was him?

Second one: Barratt minimalized the evidence for an English detective in New York watching Tumblety. Barratt states, “Mike seems to swallow a bartender's story that this English detective told him he was there "to get the Whitechapel Murderer".” First, note how Barratt minimalized the evidence into ONE bartender’s story. 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 and neither could have picked up the other’s story. Evidence for this is that they have different facts. The following events were published in the New York World on 4 December 1888,

. . . It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. . . . He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective . . .
Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm . . .
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying: 'He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothing at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it.'

The World reporter’s impression of the man being an English detective corroborates the barkeeper’s comment that, “he says he wuz an English detective,” and the reporter witnessing the detective staking out Tumblety’s residence corroborates the barkeeper’s comments about him being interested in Tumblety. The barkeeper also brought up Tumblety’s name to the reporter, clearly evidence that he received the information from the detective. There is no reason to assume the barkeeper’s account of the English detective’s Whitechapel murder mission as the product of a barkeeper’s lie. Additional evidence confirming the veracity of the barkeeper’s statement comes from the second, separate eyewitness, a New York Herald reporter:

I found that the Doctor was pretty well known in the neighborhood. The bartenders in McKenna's saloon, at the corner of Tenth street and Fourth avenue, knew him well. And it was here that I discovered an English detective on the track of the suspect. This man wore a dark mustache and side whiskers, a tweed suit, a billycock hat and very thick walking boots. He was of medium height and had very sharp eyes and a rather florid complexion. He had been hanging around the place all day and had posted himself at a window which commanded No. 79. He made some inquiries about Dr. Tumblety of the bartenders, but gave no information about himself, although it appeared he did not know much about New York. It is uncertain whether he came over in the same ship with the suspect. (New York Herald, Dec 4, 1888)

There is even further corroboration from Cincinnati:

It has been known for some days past that the detectives have been quietly tracing the career in this city of Dr. Francis Tumblety, one of the suspects under surveillance by the English authorities, and who was recently followed across the ocean by Scotland Yard's men. From information which leaked out yesterday around police headquarters, the inquiries presented here are not so much in reference to Tumblety himself as to a companion who attracted almost as much attention as the doctor, both on account of oddity of character and the shadow-like persistence with which he followed his employer. The investigation in this city is understood to be under the direction of English officials now in New York, and based upon certain information they have forwarded by mail. One of the officers whom current reports connects with this local investigation is James Jackson, the well-known private detective . . . The officials at police headquarters declined to talk about the matter or to answer any questions bearing on this supposed discovery of 'Jack the Ripper's' identity. (Cincinnati Enquirer, Dec. 14, 1888)

Now, does this sound like my point is supported by just one bartender as Barratt minimalized?

Sorry David, this is the last reveal I will give you (and I’m sure you will “edit” your article). I will not play into your hand and give you the other areas of your minimalization, but I will repost this every time you post.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

Im learning more and more.

There appears to be developing an entire Orsam (or Barrat) mythology?

You are a retired Paralegal - apparently untue

You are writing a JTR book - apparently untrue

You have a deep-seated hatred of Mike - apparently untrue

David, are you sure that you are certain of who you are? Might you be mistaken? Perhaps you might find out some more ‘facts’ about youself in the near future which will lead to you discovering your own true identity.

How interesting that Herlock knows so much personal information. Could it be? We know Herlock isn't his real name. Hmmm. Your real name wouldn't have to be...? Nah.

[David Orsam]

As Mike appears to be in the process of preparing another book I would like to identify one further (minor) correction which, in my view, could be made. I would like to stress, however, that I don't make any criticism of Mike for this, it's quite a complicated topic and this is quite a minor point.

What I would draw attention to is the statement in Mike's 2018 book that:

"A court date was set for November 20, 1888, and Hannay allowed bail at £ 300."

I don't believe it's correct to say that a court date was set for 20th November 1888.

Here is my thinking on the matter:

The Warrant of Committal for Tumblety on 14 November 1888 would have commanded the Keeper of Holloway Prison "to receive the said Accused into your custody in the said Prison, and there safely keep him till the next Court of Sessions of the Peace...".

When Tumblety took bail on 16 November, the condition endorsed on the Recognizance would have said, "The condition of the within written recognizance is such that the within bounden Francis Tumblety appears at the next Court of Sessions to be holden in and for the county of [London] and then surrender himself into custody, and plead to such indictment as may be found against him by the Grand Jury for or in respect of the charge aforesaid, and take his trial upon the same, and not depart the Court without leave, then the said recognizance shall be void but otherwise shall remain in full force".

Thus, the requirement was for Tumblety to appear at the Old Bailey at the next sessions (which commenced on 19 November 1888) and plead to the indictment found against him by the Grand Jury.

According to the Certificate of Indictment:

"on Monday the 19th day of November 1888 Francis Tumblety was and stands indicted for that he did unlawfully commit certain acts of gross indecency with certain male persons to wit with Albert Fisher, Arthur Brice, James Crowley and John Doughty and for indecently assaulting the same male persons. To which Indictment the said Francis Tumblety hath not appeared or pleaded."

My understanding of this is that, after the indictment by the Grand Jury, Tumblety (like all other prisoners), had he turned up, would have been arraigned en masse, and asked to plead. This would have happened on the first day of the Sessions, i.e. 19 November.

What I think happened is that, for whatever reason Tumblety, having not appeared, instructed his lawyers to issue an application on the morning of Monday 19 November for his trial to be adjourned, that application being returnable on Tuesday 20 November. By "returnable" that means the day the hearing of the adjournment application was due to be heard by the judge.

In other words, I don't think that Tumblety's trial was necessarily due to take place on 20 November and, in fact, as he had not pleaded, I'm sure that no such trial could have been scheduled. So I don't believe what happened is that the judge and barristers all turned up for the trial and, ooops, Tumblety wasn't there, so Archibald Bodkin made an application there and then on his feet to postpone the trial. I don't think it would have worked that way. The application, I think, would have been issued in advance in writing, or, at the very least, the judge would have been told in advance that Bodkin wanted to make an application on behalf of his client. I'm reasonably certain that this must have been on 19 November when the Grand Jury would have considered his case and indicted him. I don't think there was an option for Tumblety, or any other prisoner, not to show up on the Monday. To avoid consequences of such a no-show and to forestall any action against him, I think that the application must have been issued that day.

Tumblety's trial, I believe, could have taken place on any day within the sessions, on or after 19 November, it didn't necessary have to be on 20 November.

[David Orsam]

Just out of curiosity and at the risk of appearing stupid (something that has never bothered me before ) do we know why Warren did request these officers?

Yes, we do Herlock. It all began some months earlier, well before the start of the Jack the Ripper murders.

This is from my now famous online article, "The English Detective":

"By way of background, the British Government, on 8 March 1884, had ordered that the baggage of all passengers arriving in the United Kingdom from foreign countries would be searched for dynamite or other explosives. This, inevitably, created inconvenience at customs for passengers arriving in the U.K, and, some four years later, on 22 March 1888, Richard Prowse, Secretary to the Board of Customs, wrote to the Home Secretary informing him that:

'...the Board of Customs have under consideration an application from the London and North Western Railway Company requesting that the Baggage of Passengers arriving at Liverpool from America and proceeding over the company's line to London may, if registered for London, be sent thither from Liverpool, in locked vans and undergo the requisite customs examination at the Euston Square terminus in London; and that there is reason to believe that an application to the same effect will be received from the Midland Railway company with respect to the Baggage of passengers from America who may come to London by that company's line to St Pancras terminus' (HO 45/9686/A48584).

The views of the Assistant Commissioner of the C.I.D. were sought on the railway company's application and, on 2 April 1888, James Monro, who did not like the idea, wrote to the Home Office saying:

'If it was considered necessary that police should be present at the examination of luggage, this could not be effected without employing a considerable number of constables' (HO 45/9686/A48584)."

This led to further correspondence which prompted Warren's letter of 23 October.

[David Orsam]

I must say....I would love to read the Spandau Ballet book.. but unavailable here thru amazon

Yes, that is true on Amazon.com unfortunately (something to do with the complexities of pricing in a currency other than GBP for a UK book) but it is available on Amazon.co.uk:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Romantics-Who-Never-Were/dp/0957091729

The good news is that it would appear to be possible anyone in the US to purchase from the UK site as explained here:

https://www.techwalla.com/articles/how-to-order-from-amazon-uk-if-you-live-in-the-us

[Herlock Sholmes]

David....

I have to say I am with Mike on his argument... but I am with you on Spandau Ballet (but as far as early electronic musicians go Bill Nelson was FAR BETTER!!)...so see...we can all be friends!!!

I must say....I would love to read the Spandau Ballet book.. but unavailable here thru amazon

Steadmund Brand

Im quite partial to a bit of Kraftwerk Stead

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Mike is now apparently writing a third book, it becomes even more important that he understands how overwhelming the evidence is that the deployment of the 12 constables had nothing to do with Tumblety.

This is the complete text of a letter written by Sir Charles Warren to the Under Secretary of State at the Home Office dated 23rd October 1888. I should say that I incorrectly date this letter to 22nd October 1888 in my online article, which I will correct at the next opportunity, and the file reference in the National Archives is HO/9686/A48584 (not A484584 as the article has it):

"Sir,

With reference to your letter of the 5th ulto, A48584/10, I have to acquaint you for the information of the Secretary of State that I have directed the necessary enquiries to be made and have ascertained the particulars as to the number of trains which will arrive at Euston daily with passengers from America, and the hours of their arrival; and as two Police Constables must be present at each examination of luggage, I find it necessary to have three reliefs, thus requiring an augmentation of six Police Constables.

I have therefore to ask for authority for this increase. I should explain, however, that one of the three reliefs will be required to deal with passengers arriving during the night, and until the frequency of such arrivals has been tested only four Constables will be actually appointed under the authority now sought.

The Midland Railway Company will no doubt apply to have similar arrangements made at St Pancras Station, and this will necessitate my seeking a still further increase of six Constables for that duty.

The cost of the augmentation shall be chargeable to the Special Vote.

I am,

Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

[Signed: C. Warren]"

It will be noted that the Chief Commissioner is seeking authority for the deployment of 12 constables at the two London train stations BEFORE Tumblety has even been arrested.

Just out of curiosity and at the risk of appearing stupid (something that has never bothered me before ) do we know why Warren did request these officers?

[Steadmund Brand]

David....

I have to say I am with Mike on his argument... but I am with you on Spandau Ballet (but as far as early electronic musicians go Bill Nelson was FAR BETTER!!)...so see...we can all be friends!!!

I must say....I would love to read the Spandau Ballet book.. but unavailable here thru amazon

Steadmund Brand