Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[David Orsam]

I can only echo Herlock's post. As a matter of plain English, there is nothing in Littlechild's letter which tells us that how it was known that Tumblety passed through Boulogne in November 1888 and, as there are a number of possibilities, nothing can be said to be "certain".

I have no idea why Mike chose this battleground to die on. It was such a simple point I made originally which did not require the type of response it received.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have to say that i find this thread rather strange.

Mike has produced a book (which i havent read yet and so i cant make any comment). I take my hat off to anyone who undertakes such a difficult task by the way. On completion an author then takes the plaudits and the criticisms. David has made criticisms of certain parts of the book. I really cant understand Mike’s attitude in response?

Mike, you appear to view David’s criticisms as some kind of personal attack? You also appear to think that David has some kind of bias due to the fact that he’s planning his own JTR book?

Firstly, ive personally suggested to David that he should write such a book more than once (after reading his two excellent true crime books) but he appears to have no interest in doing so. Why do you think he has secret plans?

And finally, the normal response to criticisms should be either a) thank the critic for pointing out the errors or b) respond with evidence to show how you were correct in the first place.

Even someone with little or no knowledge of the subject (me) can see that your response to one of the points does not show that Tumblety was actually spotted in Boulogne? The point that David was making.

Im sorry but by adopting c) accusation and anger you have done yourself no favours.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Correct, it’s rule #4.
I believe a post must be reported before admins decide whether to take action, however (your wording implies that it happens “automatically”)

Thanks for that Kattrup

[Kattrup]

Im sure that i was once told that a poster could expect an infraction for implying that a poster was posting under another name. I think that the phrase in question was ‘sock puppet?’

Correct, it’s rule #4.
I believe a post must be reported before admins decide whether to take action, however (your wording implies that it happens “automatically”)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im sure that i was once told that a poster could expect an infraction for implying that a poster was posting under another name. I think that the phrase in question was ‘sock puppet?’

[David Orsam]

Let's look at the problem Mike's error gets him into. At another point in his book he says this:

"Littlechild was chief inspector of Special Branch for another five years, yet he had no idea about the history of Tumblety after his men spotted him in Boulogne, France, on November 23, 1888."

You see, he's started to state it as an historical fact that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne by Littlechild's "men", perhaps fooling researchers in the future.

It's just bad history I'm afraid.

It's also baffling how Littlechild could have had "no idea" about what happened to Tumblety after he left Boulogne in November 1888 when it's Mike's own case that a Scotland Yard detective pursued Tumblety to New York in December 1888!!!! What is he saying, that Littlechild's knowledge of the investigation into Tumblety was faulty????

[David Orsam]

First one: Pierre 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?

I've already responded to this but let me do it now in a different way.

Mike seems to rely on Littlechild's comments in his letter that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" and that he "shortly left Boulogne" as evidence that it is "certain" that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne although, oddly, in his book he only quotes the part about Tumblety getting away to Boulogne in support of his claim.

But how do such comments even begin to show that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne?

After Tumblety's flight, the police could easily have established from simple enquiries that he left England for Boulogne, and it's Mike's own case that Scotland Yard knew that Tumblety sailed for New York to Le Havre at the end of November 1888 because he thinks a Scotland Yard detective actually pursued him to New York.

So, just from that information alone, it's perfectly obvious that the police could have known that Tumblety arrived in Boulogne and then left it shortly afterwards for Le Havre without having seen him in Boulogne at any time.

As a result, it's not "certain" at all that Littlechild was saying that Tumblety was seen in Boulogne and Mike can't even make up his mind when he was seen. Was it when he arrived or when he left? Were they keeping him under observation? What was a Scotland Yard officer even doing in Boulogne?

Mike is technically wrong to say in his book that "No one in Scotland Yard but a Special Branch detective would have been assigned in France". Officers from Scotland Yard's Section C (Ports section) were assigned at ports in France and other European countries, but not in Boulogne. Special Branch officers in 1888 did not simply hang around in foreign cities hoping to spot people fleeing from justice who they weren't even able to arrest.

[David Orsam]

Honestly. The fact that your signature statement is Orsam Books makes it clear this is your plan. Hurry up!

It's hard to respond to such sloppy thinking, Mike, but you do your credibility and reputation no good with nonsense such as this.

I've published two books on True Crime. I imagine that books on True Crime are of interest to readers of this forum. The link in my signature statement to the Orsam Books website gives more information about those two books. These are: The Islington Murder Mystery and The Camden Town Murder Mystery. They are both gripping and exciting reads about a couple of real murders that occurred in 1915 and 1907 respectively, well worth the small amount of money one needs to pay for them. They are both available in paperback and kindle editions.

Given that most members of this forum probably remember the 1980s and the New Romantic Period and Spandau Ballet they can also find my groundbreaking new book: New Romantics Who Never Were: The Untold Story of Spandau Ballet, with its astonishing revelation of the origin the name "Spandau Ballet", available in paperback with details of where to buy it on my website at the link below.

Mike, thanks for giving me the opportunity once again to advertise my books in a thread about your own book and I'll pop the cheque in the post on Monday!

[David Orsam]

And when you finally publish your book loaded with this crap, I will be honored to give you a review.

I've already stated categorically that I won't be publishing any book on Tumblety or Jack the Ripper. Did you not understand that or did you not believe it?

But I'm interested in the use of the expression "this crap". Are you saying, for example, that my analysis of the reasons for the deployment of the 12 constables, which I deal with at length in my article, "The English Detective", is wrong (or "crap")?

[David Orsam]

have been collecting mistakes each and every time. Thank you for that, David! Of course I don’t want to reveal, yet, since you’ll just re-edit your online articles.

Good luck with your little collection of "mistakes" there Mike. A sort of similar way that Tumblety collected female organs I assume. You sit at home, do you, surrounded by your precious collection of imaginary mistakes that you never reveal?

I should remind you that I posted my entire article "The English Detective" on this forum so it would be impossible for me to edit that. In which case, any editing I did make to the online article would be easily identified and obvious to anyone.

To the extent that I were to openly edit my article to improve it for any future readers, and correct any errors, I fail to see what possible problem there could be with that and why you think there would be. I don't ask anyone to pay for reading those articles and gain no benefit from them whatsoever. So what possible issue do you have with me potentially editing it?

[David Orsam]

Since it’s your MO to respond to a single post with 6 or 8 posts of strawman arguments loaded with your mixture of paraphrasing, minimalizing, and mischaracterization, I purposely egged you on for the last few pages.

What you are saying, in other words, is that you had a hidden agenda?

Funny 'cos that's exactly what you (falsely) accused me of having and now YOU admit to having one!!!

Again, I have to comment that's it's all a bit, well, mad isn't it?

[David Orsam]

Pierre... Oh, I’m sorry, David Orsam... Oh, I’m sorry, David Barratt!

Not even correct at the third attempt, Mike. My surname is spelt "Barrat". You did manage to get it right in your 2016 book, "The Ripper's Haunts":

"In 2015, researcher David Barrat discovered an article in the Toronto World, December 12, 1888, edition, where Scotland Yard Inspector Walter Andrews discussed Whitechapel murder suspect “Dr. Tumblety” while in Toronto in December 1888."

AND

"Barrat discovered a similar article reported in the Montreal Herald on December 21, 1888, but in much less detail:"

AND

"David Barrat went to the British Library and found a follow-up report to the December 21, 1888, World article in the December 31, 1888, issue of the Daily Telegraph."

In the Acknowledgments section, however, you gave your appreciation to "David Barratt".

In your 2018 book, I see that you refer to having taken of some "outstanding researchers" including one "David Barrett".

As for the mention of "Pierre", I'm afraid I'm still not sure if this is being used as a term of abuse, to try and label me as a "Pierre" type character, or you actually really do think I am the person who posted as "Pierre" on this forum. Either way it seems a bit mad.

[mklhawley]

Pierre... Oh, I’m sorry, David Orsam... Oh, I’m sorry, David Barratt!

More mass posting! I must be getting to you. I return to Christopher Morley’s excellent insight into your 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.



Well, I have to fess up to something. Since it’s your MO to respond to a single post with 6 or 8 posts of strawman arguments loaded with your mixture of paraphrasing, minimalizing, and mischaracterization, I purposely egged you on for the last few pages. In so doing, I have been collecting mistakes each and every time. Thank you for that, David! Of course I don’t want to reveal, yet, since you’ll just re-edit your online articles.

And when you finally publish your book loaded with this crap, I will be honored to give you a review. Honestly. The fact that your signature statement is Orsam Books makes it clear this is your plan. Hurry up!


I have revealed two cracks in your argument, so it’s time to see them again:


First one: Pierre 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.

Looking forward to more mistakes!


Sincerely,

Mike

[David Orsam]

My only point in this post, however, is that it is so far from the truth to say that I have any interest in amending my online articles or including information in a book in response to anything that Mike Hawley has to say, or thinks he has to say, when what has happened is that Mike has used information found by me in his books and amended his book in response to my own online articles.

Not to forget, of course, that Mike also amended his section about the 12 constables in his latest book in response to my 2016 article, deleting a whole chunk about it, as I've already demonstrated in this thread, and adding in the word "Coincidentally".

But what I simply cannot understand, and perhaps Mike can assist, is why there remains any mention of the 12 constables and the 20th November 1888 letter in his current book, after having read all the facts I set out in my online article. It truly baffles me.

[David Orsam]

Had I been writing a book about Francis Tumblety and I learnt from the work of another author, such as Andrew Cook, that there was a letter written by a senior Scotland Yard official on 20 November 1888 referring to the deployment of 12 constables at London train stations I would not only have wanted to have seen that letter for myself but would have wanted to know everything about it, the entire background of that letter and why it was written. I would also have wanted to know what the response to that letter was and what actually happened next. I would, in other words, have researched the life out of it. It is, of course, exactly what I did do in writing my article "The English Detective". No way would I want to rely on another author and simply repeat what could easily be, and did in fact turn out to be, a basic and embarrassing error which was easily revealed by the actual wording of Colonel Pearson's letter.

Furthermore, if I had nevertheless decided to accept Cook's word and had written a book relying on the 20th November letter as evidence that 12 constables had been deployed specifically to catch Tumblety, but had then read an online article in which the full history of the 20th November letter had been set out, demonstrating conclusively that the 20th November letter had nothing whatsoever to do with Tumblety, then, when writing a second book on Tumblety, I would have made damn sure that I didn't mention one word about that 20th November letter in order to avoid misleading my readers into thinking it did.

Equally, if I was considering whether a couple of reports in American newspapers referring to an English detective stalking Tumblety in New York could possibly have been referring a Scotland Yard detective I would have put in every human effort to interrogate the Metropolitan Police and Home Office files, and any other conceivable files, in the National Archives or elsewhere to find some actual evidence of such a detective being despatched to New York or some kind of confirmation that such a thing was even remotely plausible. No way would I simply rely on such newspaper reports from 19th century America as telling the truth, or being accurate, bearing in mind how common it is to find errors and exaggerations and even downright lies in such reports.

Also, if I was relying on Littlechild's letter to Sims as evidence that it was "certain" that Tumblety had been spotted in Boulogne, I would want to read that letter properly to ensure that it actually did what I was saying it was "certain" it did.