Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[mklhawley]

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 Steadmund. The book is filled with new material.

[David Orsam]

Ok, one more, and then I have to leave.

You do realize "pointless" is merely an opinion that you know exactly what Scotland Yard was thinking and what information they already had on Tumblety?

Don't you see, just as the reports stated, the SY detective was not immediately arresting him but watching him.

They did not pursue him to immediately arrest him, but to keep an eye on him and arrest him when they got something. Just because they didn't find anything before he sneaked out of New York City the next day or so, either in the US or in England, that does not mean they believed they wouldn't. They didn't expect Tumblety to have sneaked out of England, so they didn't have many options. The detective didn't know that his cover was blown by the reporters. Once this happened, that's when Tumblety sneaked off to Western New York. The detective didn't expect this either.

The following is hypothetical (since I also do not know what Scotland Yard was thinking), but there are reasons why Scotland Yard would have had a Scotland Yard detective watching Tumblety - the very man who just embarrassingly escaped their grasp. Once Scotland Yard would have placed a felony charge on Tumblety (regardless if it would have been a winning case), they would have been able to extradite him. Once he was in England, they could have continued with the gross indecency charges to put him away.

But as I keep saying, if they wanted him watched they could have got Pinkerton's private detectives to do this.

If they wanted to arrest him they needed evidence. If they had the evidence where was the warrant? There was no warrant - there never was one - so clearly they didn't have the evidence.

Really Mike it makes no sense for Scotland Yard to have to sent an officer over to New York at cost to the public purse for no good reason.

[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 still waiting for answers to these 3 questions. In response to Q1 there was some mention of a "source" without any further explanation. But what I want to know is what Mike actually believes or understands about why those 12 constables were deployed.

[jmenges]

I assume that an international arrest warrant would have been required then followed by - knowing Tumblety - a lengthy extradition proceeding? International arrest warrants may have been more complicated to produce judicially even in cases of murder with strong evidence, as 20 years later Dew counted himself lucky he was able to apprehend Crippen in British territorial waters.

JM

[David Orsam]

The procedure would have been the same as that employed to secure the arrest and extradition of Thomas Barton from the United States in November 1888. Based on evidence provided by the police, the Chief Magistrate would sign a warrant of arrest which would attach the information (i.e. the evidence) on which the warrant was granted. That warrant would then be authenticated by the Secretary of State at the Home Office with his official seal placed upon it.

[jmenges]

It would have been much less complicated for SY, and far worse for Tumblety, as he would've been considered a British subject in any extradition proceeding. Ironic given his pleas for "justice" after his 1865 arrest.

JM

[David Orsam]

I went by the source I used which certainly conformed, but if you found something which contradicts it, great.

For anyone confused as to what "source" Mike was talking about here, when no source is mentioned in his book regarding the 12 constables, and also for those confused about Mike's apparent ignorance of me having found something which contradicts his "source", it is instructive to compare the relevant sections of Mike's 2016 "The Ripper's Haunts" with his 2018 "Jack the Ripper Suspect: Dr. Francis Tumblety".

This is from the 2016 book:

We know Tumblety absconded within a five day window between November 17 and November 22, and the evidence suggests this occurred on November 20, especially since Tumblety was required by law to instruct his counsel for the postponement. Unsurprisingly, police constables were reassigned to watch train stations on November 20. Researcher and biographer Andrew Cook, in his book, M:MI5’s First Spymaster (2011), reported a correspondence between Scotland Yard senior official Lieutenant Colonel Pearson and the home under-secretary, which pertained to deploying twelve extra constables at two train stations on November 20, 1888, in order “to examine the belongings of passengers arriving from America.” Scotland Yard never admitted Tumblety was a suspect in the Whitechapel murder case (although it was later confirmed by the statements of three Scotland Yard officials) and they certainly did not want his name on any official correspondence to the home officer. The timing of this reassignment combined with the fact that the American would likely escape on the train is certainly suggestive that the deployment of extra constables was for Tumblety.

This is from the 2018 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.” Officially, Tumblety was never reported as a suspect, so it would not be a surprise that his name was absent from any correspondence.

Now, why the change? Why the removal of these key statements in his 2018 book:

"Unsurprisingly, police constables were reassigned to watch train stations on November 20"

AND

"The timing of this reassignment combined with the fact that the American would likely escape on the train is certainly suggestive that the deployment of extra constables was for Tumblety"

Might it have anything to do with the fact that, on 29 September 2016, shortly after Mike's 2016 book was published, I posted an online article in which I comprehensively and conclusively demolished the notion that those 12 constables had anything to do with Tumblety or were deployed at any time while Tumblety was in the UK?

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

We know that Mike read this article because he commented on it on the very same day I posted a link to it in this forum.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9897

As can be seen, he said that he actually predicted the article (just like he told us he predicted my posts in this thread - spooky!) and stated that it was "long on detail". He also said that "there remains a flaw" but never decided to reveal what it was.

So he clearly read it and I don't think it needs the involvement of Sherlock Holmes to conclude that it was this article which was primarily responsible for the amendments/deletions relating to the subject of the 12 constables in his 2018 book and specifically to the inclusion of the word "Coincidentally" in 2018. That being so, it is really odd that Mike wrote to me yesterday to say: "if you found something which contradicts it, great". Surely he knows I did.

And adding in "Coincidentally" doesn't help him. For me, it just makes it worse because it shows he knows the point he is trying to make is a bad one. He has removed some of the offensive nonsense but allowed his readers to nevertheless be potentially deceived into thinking that 12 constables were deployed at London train stations on 20 November 1888, just after having read that Tumblety had requested Ł260 from his bank on that date in preparation for flight from the UK (a slight modification of his previous claim that Tumblety absconded on 20th November itself). The subsequent statement which he adds to the book that it would be no surprise that Tumblety's name wasn't mentioned in correspondence can only have misled an unsuspecting reader of his book into thinking that the point was being made that Col Pearson's letter of 20 November 1888 WAS all about Tumblety, despite the earlier use of the word "Coincidentally".

A reliance on Andrew Cook as a "conformed" source is no good if Mike knew that Cook was wrong (which he certainly was). Perhaps Mike can now clarify whether, at the time he wrote his book, he believed that the deployment of the 12 constables had anything to do with Tumblety, tell us what he believes now, and explain to us how the readers of his 2018 book could not have been deceived into thinking that those 12 constables were deployed precisely because of Tumblety's pending or actual flight from the UK.

[mklhawley]

How interesting!

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

[David Orsam]

How interesting!

David Barratt changed his online negative article on Jonathan Hainsworth’s book AFTER Jonathan dominated him on Casebook!

What ARE you talking about Mike? What changes are you referring to? Can we have some actual facts please?

And Jonathan in no way "dominated" me on Casebook but even if he did (which he didn't!) what relevance can it possibly have to your book?

You remind me of a caged animal making some desperate manoeuvres, in this case trying to smear me in some strange way.

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.

Mike, why on earth would I need to force authors to defend their work? And how does it help me to create a huge thread that no one reads? Have you gone absolutely crazy? Or is this some kind of transparent attempt to justify why you are not going to "defend" your work when the truth is that you simply can't do it?

[David Orsam]

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.

What does this even mean? I've published three books Mike, two on true crime. Knock yourself out if you want to write some articles about them.

Writing an online article is certainly much safer, since you can edit it immediately.

What are you talking about Mike?

Honestly David, I will give you a thorough and fact-based review of your Tumblety section. When will it come out?

Seriously, what are you talking about Mike? You're starting to remind me now of Jonathan Hainsworth when he seemed to have some kind of breakdown at the mildest criticism.

[mklhawley]

How interesting!

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

[David Orsam]

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?

I've already dealt with all this Mike. Firstly, the addition of "shortly left Boulogne" was something you didn't even include yourself in your own book as supporting evidence of Littlechild's certainty. But neither that remark nor the remark that Tumblety "got away" to Boulogne demonstrates that he was spotted in Boulogne.

I've already said that the British police could simply have discovered that Tumblety purchased a ticket from the UK to Boulogne. It was common knowledge that he must have left Boulogne shortly after arrival because it was known and reported that he caught a ship at Le Havre to New York (despite using the name Frank Townsend). So nothing said by Littlechild required anyone to have spotted Tumblety in Boulogne.

Therefore, it is most certainly NOT the case, as you claimed, that it is "certain" that Chief Inspector Littlechild stated that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne.

[Steadmund Brand]

How interesting!

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

Ditto

[mklhawley]

Like I said, I'm not playing into your hand. You remind me of a friend of mine, a divorced paralegal. He was a good researcher, but because his goal was to win for his firm (not seek the truth), he worked hard at minimalization. Strangely his name was also Dave. He had weird taste in music. Anyways, I finally read your... article, and I've found many problems, however, I plan to wait for your book. Hurry up David Barratt.
Mike

[David Orsam]

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?

I've helped you out here Mike by highlighting reference to a barkeeper, singular, in blue and to barkeepers, plural, in red. Are there any quotes from barkeepers, plural? Answer, no. What are we told about the barkeepers? Only this: that the bartenders knew Tumblety well and that the "English detective" supposedly made enquires of the bartenders.

Well the fact that Tumblety might have been known to the bartenders gets us nowhere. All we are left with is an unsupported claim that the English detective made enquiries of the bartenders. But there are no quotes from these bartenders, only from one single bartender. Any journalist could have referred to bartenders plural.

Talking of which, who are those "modern researchers", plural, who you claim to have been responding to? See, anyone can claim anything. It doesn't mean it's true.

As for the rest of what you are quoted I only see a specific reference to a private detective called James Jackson.

My point in a nutshell, Mike, is that it doesn't matter if the reports in the newspapers were true or not bearing in mind that there is no proof as to the identity of the "English detective". My point is that it is nonsensical to think that a Scotland Yard detective was following Tumblety in New York. It MAKES NO SENSE. That being so, the bartender, or bartenders, it doesn't matter, or the reporter, or reporters, it doesn't matter, have either misidentified the man they saw or the whole story is a fiction. If a Scotland Yard detective was in New York at this time there would be a record of it in the Home Office files or other files at the National Archives, not least because the detective would have claimed expenses. There is no record. It simply didn't happen.