Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[Steadmund Brand]

For those of you who didn't know Michael Hawley's brand new book on Francis Tumblety was released this week!! full of all new facts and discoveries.. this one is not to be missed

https://www.amazon.com/Jack-Ripper-S...ancis+tumblety

Steadmund Brand

[barnflatwyngarde]

For those of you who didn't know Michael Hawley's brand new book on Francis Tumblety was released this week!! full of all new facts and discoveries.. this one is not to be missed

https://www.amazon.com/Jack-Ripper-S...ancis+tumblety

Steadmund Brand

Thanks Steadman, I had noticed that this was forthcoming.

Do you know if it's a reprint of his first book with some new material, or is it a substantially different book.

[Steadmund Brand]

Oh it is FILLED with new material!!!!! I would call it a sequel but with more info!!!! totally new book... amazing finds... great research!!

Steadmund Brand

[Steadmund Brand]

In fact I have already finished it!!!

Steadmund Brand

[barnflatwyngarde]

In fact I have already finished it!!!

Steadmund Brand

Boom boom!

I walked into that one didn't I.

The boards are far more interesting when you can't put an actual name to the moniker.

Good luck with the book, and yes I'll buy it.

[Steadmund Brand]

I am not Mike..if that is what you think....

Steadmund Brand

[barnflatwyngarde]

I am not Mike..if that is what you think....

Steadmund Brand

Gotcha now.

You've finished reading it!!!!

It's a Friday, cut me some slack.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh it is FILLED with new material!!!!! I would call it a sequel but with more info!!!! totally new book... amazing finds... great research!!

Steadmund Brand

Stead, i dont have his first book so do you think i need to get the first book first or could i jump into the new one straight off. Im pretty rusty on Tumblety to be honest.

[mklhawley]

Stead, i dont have his first book so do you think i need to get the first book first or could i jump into the new one straight off. Im pretty rusty on Tumblety to be honest.

Thanks for posting Steadmund! No, you don't need to read The Ripper's Haunts. It is a stand-alone book. Lots of discoveries, such as locations he visited after his initial arrest and before his sneaking out of England, and where he went after he arrived in New York City in early December 1888 until he returned in January 1889. I also added much more detail about his misogyny, surgical knives, hermaphroditic condition, etc.

Sincerely,

Mike

[GUT]

Thanks for posting Steadmund! No, you don't need to read The Ripper's Haunts. It is a stand-alone book. Lots of discoveries, such as locations he visited after his initial arrest and before his sneaking out of England, and where he went after he arrived in New York City in early December 1888 until he returned in January 1889. I also added much more detail about his misogyny, surgical knives, hermaphroditic condition, etc.

Sincerely,

Mike

Wrong answer Mike you should insist he BUY Ripper Haunts first. You need to make a buck you know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for posting Steadmund! No, you don't need to read The Ripper's Haunts. It is a stand-alone book. Lots of discoveries, such as locations he visited after his initial arrest and before his sneaking out of England, and where he went after he arrived in New York City in early December 1888 until he returned in January 1889. I also added much more detail about his misogyny, surgical knives, hermaphroditic condition, etc.

Sincerely,

Mike

Thanks Mike. I look forward to it

[David Orsam]

It's always really important when reading a book that you can be confident that the author is not trying to mislead or trick you, which is why it was so immensely disappointing for me to read this sentence in this book:

Coincidentally, Scotland Yard senior official Lieutenant Colonel Pearson reported to the Home Undersecretary about deploying twelve extra constables at two train stations on November 20, 1888, in order to “examine the belongings of passengers arriving from America.”

The way this is written makes it seem that 12 extra constables were, if fact, deployed at train stations on 20 November 1888, at a time when Tumblety was fleeing justice. But this was not the case at all. These constables were not deployed until 1889, their deployment having been approved in October for the sole purpose of speeding up the process of checking luggage for travellers from the United States.

All that happened on 20 November is that their future deployment was referred to in a letter. It wasn't just a coincidence, it was a pure coincidence which had nothing whatsoever to do with Tumblety. Yet the very next sentence in the book states: "Officially, Tumblety was never reported as a suspect, so it would not be a surprise that his name was absent from any correspondence." The unsuspecting reader would think that the author is here explaining why Tumblety was not mentioned in the letter of 20 November 1888.

I don't know if Mike thinks that by using the word "Coincidentally" he gets away with it, and was only mentioning it in passing as some sort of freaky but amusing coincidence, despite having no connection with Tumbley. Because that is not how it is written.

[David Orsam]

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!

[Herlock Sholmes]

What’s your opinion of the book overall David?

[David Orsam]

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.