Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[mklhawley]

Hi Trevor,

The criteria for custody is irrelevant. In your article you make it clear that Magistrate Hannay could not tri the case, but could only hear the case. Central Criminal Court was required to tri the case, so 'held for trial' occurred AFTER Hannay committed the case to Central Criminal Court.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Mike

You seem confused !

I agree, but then again 'held on remand to await committal' is different than 'held for trail'.

Why is it different the criteria is exactly the same either way you are in custody

Sincerely,
Mike[/QUOTE]

[DGB]

An excellent point Jonathan, plus Tumblety himself stated that he was only imprisoned for "two or three days" in the New York World.

[mklhawley]

Hi Jonathan,
Its interesting that Tumblety comments about the stupidity of the police but would have failed to mention this big mistake. ...unless it never happened.

A person can be held on remand to await committal proceedings.

Hi Trevor,
I agree, but then again 'held on remand to await committal' is different than 'held for trail'.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Jonathan H]

For what it is worth, I thought Trevor's article was very good; interesting and informative -- but unpersuasive.

The reason for this, for me, is that if you compare various pertinent primary sources then this argument about technicalities, while sound in itself, is arguably redundant in Tumblety's case.

For example, Jack Littlechild would have written off Tumblety as a 'very likely' Ripper suspect in 1888 if the confidence man had been in a cell while Mary Kelly was killed.

Instead, twenty-five years later, he implicitly states that the murders ended with Tumblety's subsequent flight not with his incarceration, meaning that he was capable of killing the young woman in Dorset Street (the notion that the retired chief gets it wrong about Tumblety's suicide is not clear cut. He writes to Sims that it was 'believed' by somebody authoritative that the Irish-American had taken his own life, not at all that Littlechild knew this to be true -- and it wasn't. He is trying to show Sims that this is the chief suicide-medico suspect of 1888, not the suicidal 'Dr D', who must be some garbled error, or mix-up, by the unreliably egocentric Anderson -- which it wasn't.)

But the most jarring primary source which logically undermines this revisionist argument is the 1889 interview with Tumblety himself, dodgy character that he undoubtedly was.

For if Dr T had been in an English cell at the time of the most atrocious Whitechapel murder he would have dined out on that ****-up by Scotland Yard for the rest of his life. eg. That these corrupt, incompetent, dyspeptic, pie-eating, warm beer swilling, diamond-greedy knuckle-heads had provided him with the ultimate iron-clad alibi not to be 'Jack'.

Tumblety for all his bombastic blustering makes no such claim.

[Trevor Marriott]

Much to show, but here's a hint. Notice how the following New York Tribune article stated 'held for trial'.

[ATTACH]14381[/ATTACH]

'Held for trial' occurs AFTER 'committed to trial', and that was on November 14th. Can you be held for trial if you're not yet committed to trial?

I know, I know, it's a newspaper article so its wrong.

Sincerely,

Mike

A person can be held on remand to await committal proceedings.

You really should read the article again all is explained within,

[mklhawley]

Au contraire mon ami !

Much to show, but here's a hint. Notice how the following New York Tribune article stated 'held for trial'.



'Held for trial' occurs AFTER 'committed to trial', and that was on November 14th. Can you be held for trial if you're not yet committed to trial?

I know, I know, it's a newspaper article so its wrong.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Monty]

Au contraire mon ami !

Ha, tu en penses?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Phil,

You have no grounds to question that photo of Eddowes. You insinuation that its not is insulting to Don Rumbelow, whose track record is impeccable. There's no difference between that and what you accuse Rob of doing.

And speaking of Rob, he addressed Simon and erred. Rob apologised like a man and Simon was gracious enough to accept it. Its no one elses business, not mine or yours. Trying to re stoke it is poor form. Leave them be.

As for Trevors article, it is good. Simon does admit to changing errors so there is a bit of Wood input, and to be honest its clear where. However this is only in places. What Trevor has done is laid out Victorian legalities regarding custody and bail. He has NOT furnished us with evidence specifically relating to Tumbelty but speculation, therefore he has NOT laid Tumbelty to bed....far from it in fact.

Monty

Au contraire mon ami !

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Yes. Point taken. I agree.
Thank you for the compliment.

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Going to be a long ban then. 12-18months.
Thats what I said in April this year. You are ill informed if you thought otherwise.

As far as your respect for Simon,Trevor, myself and others is concerned, you nailed your flag to the sludge bucket telling us all that we take the genre back years, whěch you have done to all three of us over a long period of time.

I reacted to your 'the likes of' comment quite rightly, and pointed out, rightly, Simon Wood's pedigree. Simon confirmed it, you even questioned the date because YOU werent aware of it. If you get on so well with Simon Wood you would have known that he was behind the revelations made re the Knight book. You, it seems were ill informed.
'the likes of' shows your true colours. It was clearly derogatory to three people giving the distinct impression of knowing better than those three.
If that type of attitude reflects your position in Ripperology then Lord help any person attempting to might just know better than thou. 'The likes of' ... ??

The Eddowes in a coffin photo has its own thread where both Simon and myself agreed against you. I stand by my comments then as I do now. I cant speak for Simon butas far as I know know he is still of the same opinion as then. And for the umpteenth time, it rčflects no disrespect towards Don Rumbelow. End of.

I suggest discussion further is WITHOUT personal insult. Try. Without abhorent comments such as ' it wlll take more than the likes of you, Simon and Trevor' to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery'. Which was belittling, derogatory and insulting and you MEANT it.
True colours. Seen and shown.
Your offered apology to Simon referred to the date of his discovery of which you were unaware. It had nothing to do with THAT comment. And you know it.

Oh Phil...I'm honestly so sorry to see you fritter things away in such a fashion...because quite simply you're one of the people who've genuinely encouraged me as a newbie on this site...and more so because Trevor didn't, in my honest opinion, really NEED defending...

Look after yourself anyway mate

Dave

[Rob Clack]

Going to be a long ban then. 12-18months.
Thats what I said in April this year. You are ill informed if you thought otherwise.

Wishful thinking on my part.

As far as your respect for Simon,Trevor, myself and others is concerned, you nailed your flag to the sludge bucket telling us all that we take the genre back years, whěch you have done to all three of us over a long period of time.

I reacted to your 'the likes of' comment quite rightly, and pointed out, rightly, Simon Wood's pedigree. Simon confirmed it, you even questioned the date because YOU werent aware of it. If you get on so well with Simon Wood you would have known that he was behind the revelations made re the Knight book. You, it seems were ill informed.

You know, I was going to let this go out of respect to Simon, but you just wont keep your trap shut would you.

This what Simon said on the subject:

Don Rumbelow was extremely generous with his time and advice during my 1976 researches, but as in those days there were few opportunities to publish such material he beat me to it in the reprint of The Complete Jack the Ripper, by which time he had independently researched the subject. My article in Bloodhound appeared a few years later—1987 or 1988.

Let me translate into simple words for you to understand:

Don and Simon both researched the Sickert story about the same time and helped each other out.
Don published his findings (with Simon's help) first in 1981 and Simon published his researches in 1987/88. So Don was the first to demolish the Sickert story in print.

So your comment:

I commend you on enhancing your verbal reputation. I'm sure Simon appreciates the comment too, having already done exactly that many years ago...
joseph Sickert's tale. Remember?

Is bollocks.

'the likes of' shows your true colours. It was clearly derogatory to three people giving the distinct impression of knowing better than those three.
If that type of attitude reflects your position in Ripperology then Lord help any person attempting to might just know better than thou. 'The likes of' ... ??

If you want to carry on muck spreading which I have already told you about, then fine, we will both get banned together, hopefully for 18 months.

The Eddowes in a coffin photo has its own thread where both Simon and myself agreed against you. I stand by my comments then as I do now. I cant speak for Simon butas far as I know know he is still of the same opinion as then. And for the umpteenth time, it rčflects no disrespect towards Don Rumbelow. End of.

This is about your comments and no one elses.

I suggest discussion further is WITHOUT personal insult. Try. Without abhorent comments such as ' it wlll take more than the likes of you, Simon and Trevor' to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery'. Which was belittling, derogatory and insulting and you MEANT it.
True colours. Seen and shown.
Your offered apology to Simon referred to the date of his discovery of which you were unaware. It had nothing to do with THAT comment. And you know it.

Back to the thread and apologies for the dispuption to all.

Phil

What I said to Simon is not your concern so stop muck raking.

Rob

[Monty]

I agree it was very good. Thanks Neil for writing that one up.

JM

My pleasure Jon,

As some may be aware, Joseph has an interest to me. It was nice to show that Merricks Paternal side of his family actually hailed from Shoreditch.

Adam approached me to do the piece as for the anniversary....I jumped at it.


Ally,

Jans articles in the past few Rips have been great. I'm not a doggy person but enjoyed them.

Monty

[jmenges]

Nice article about Merrick, Neil.

I agree it was very good. Thanks Neil for writing that one up.

JM

[Phil Carter]

Try reading between the lines.
I know Simons pedigree and I didn't back off, I showed Simon some respect. Which you could do by letting him speak for himself if he wants to and don't stir up any ill feeling when there is none.



It is seriously creepy that you have been focusing on Catherine Eddowes nipples. Hasn't it occurred to you that Eddowes was likely covered by a sheet from below the neck?
The issues I had with you Phil over these photos is that you had absolutely no knowledge of how these photos were found, when and where. You never bothered to find out anything about there history. You relied on very poor low resolution copies to try and make your point. You made no effort to view the originals even thinking the original negative was still in existence.
You didn't even know why Don Rumbelow suggested that they were of Catherine Eddowes. Since the return of the album photos in 1988 where one of the Eddowes photographs is the same view as the one of the ones Don found and it is labeled Catherine Eddowes then that to me is conclusive proof that these photos are of Catherine Eddowes. But even that isn't good enough for you as you don't think the album photos are genuine either. But then that is something you are going to have to live with as there are no doubts that these photographs are genuine.
I wont even mention the Foster drawing of Catherine Eddowes which you tried to bring into doubt by claiming the date on the drawing was the 50th of September which is to stupid for words. I even tried to help you out by suggesting you pop along to the London Hospital Museum to have a look at the original, but then you don't want to admit your wrong do you.



No what you are doing is trying to drag this case back into the mire. There has been a lot of good work over the past ten years which has advanced the case. Your dragging it back into the dark ages with your naive ill informed opinion.

And I have my word challenged quite a lot and I have no problems admitting when I am wrong, problem is, they are from people I respect and your not one of them.
Report me if you want. I'll have a ban and when I come back you would be gone as you have retired from it all.

Rob

Going to be a long ban then. 12-18months.
Thats what I said in April this year. You are ill informed if you thought otherwise.

As far as your respect for Simon,Trevor, myself and others is concerned, you nailed your flag to the sludge bucket telling us all that we take the genre back years, whěch you have done to all three of us over a long period of time.

I reacted to your 'the likes of' comment quite rightly, and pointed out, rightly, Simon Wood's pedigree. Simon confirmed it, you even questioned the date because YOU werent aware of it. If you get on so well with Simon Wood you would have known that he was behind the revelations made re the Knight book. You, it seems were ill informed.
'the likes of' shows your true colours. It was clearly derogatory to three people giving the distinct impression of knowing better than those three.
If that type of attitude reflects your position in Ripperology then Lord help any person attempting to might just know better than thou. 'The likes of' ... ??

The Eddowes in a coffin photo has its own thread where both Simon and myself agreed against you. I stand by my comments then as I do now. I cant speak for Simon butas far as I know know he is still of the same opinion as then. And for the umpteenth time, it rčflects no disrespect towards Don Rumbelow. End of.

I suggest discussion further is WITHOUT personal insult. Try. Without abhorent comments such as ' it wlll take more than the likes of you, Simon and Trevor' to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery'. Which was belittling, derogatory and insulting and you MEANT it.
True colours. Seen and shown.
Your offered apology to Simon referred to the date of his discovery of which you were unaware. It had nothing to do with THAT comment. And you know it.

Back to the thread and apologies for the dispuption to all.

Phil