Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike,

Not kidding here- but SHOULD that happen I believe the meaning of the gesture would show a very rare side in the genre- namely an acknowleged expert in a specfic area, laying his favourite theory and thoughts down. Opinions in the genre always have been entrenched.

Phil

Hi Phil,

I just read Trevor's article and it has certainly been 'Simonized', as evidenced by the comment about Sir George Arthur. The clarity of how they walked the reader through court records was outstanding.

The problem is, I was misinformed by Trevor and Simon. The periodic hint was that there was going to be incontrovertible evidence published showing that Tumblety was incarcerated on November 9th, such as a Clerkenwell House of Detention attendance roll with Tumblety's name on it dated November 9th. Instead, it was merely an argument paper piecing together available evidence. I believe it was an excellently crafted and valid (i.e., convincing) argument where the premises unavoidably follow to their conclusion. To be a sound argument, though, the premises must be accurate AND complete. In addition to what Tom and others have pointed out, a few other things have slipped through the cracks, but I believe it deserves its own thread in order for Trevor and Simon to thrash me.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob, Monty,

Sorry no ejaculative happenings here either. I wrote that it was a responsible piece and in my opinion, because of the quotes of law shown, would mean that we should seriously re-consider Dr. t's place as a suspect. I wasnt convinced by the O'Riordan thesis. But law is law. If it can be shown that the laws quoted are not applicable or other hìtherto unquoted Victorian laws prevail, then fair enough. As it stands, I believe this piece asks serious questions as to the candicacy of Dr.T as Jack the Ripper. For me it is an excellent counterweight to the Littlechild letter. That is why I have the opinion I have. Trevor Marriott has done a fine piece imo.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

I just read Trevor's article and it has certainly been 'Simonized', as evidenced by the comment about Sir George Arthur. The clarity of how they walked the reader through court records was outstanding.

The problem is, I was misinformed by Trevor and Simon. The periodic hint was that there was going to be incontrovertible evidence published showing that Tumblety was incarcerated on November 9th, such as a Clerkenwell House of Detention attendance roll with Tumblety's name on it dated November 9th. Instead, it was merely an argument paper piecing together available evidence. I believe it was an excellently crafted and valid (i.e., convincing) argument where the premises unavoidably follow to their conclusion. To be a sound argument, though, the premises must be accurate AND complete. In addition to what Tom and others have pointed out, a few other things have slipped through the cracks, but I believe it deserves its own thread in order for Trevor and Simon to thrash me.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hello Mike,

Then I humbly suggest you counter argue with your points with Trevor and Simon. I knew nothing of this before I saw the article io Rip.
Personally I believe it was a very responsible piece written by Trevor.
I am sure he will appreciate the compliments given thusfar.

Best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

You missed the point of my post Phil.

Even if it can be proved beyond doubt (and I am still not convinced) that Tumblety was locked up in Gaol or Prison, that does not rule him out of being a Jack the Ripper suspect.

It would take better men then you, Trevor and Simon to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery.

Rob

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi everyone,
as I said earlier, I still think the most likely reason they photographed it is because that is what they had wanted to do at Goulston Street. I am not saying in a direct way as in oh this is like Goulston Street and we were going to photograph that, but in terms of the fact they had wanted that photographed indicates a trend at the very time this is likely to have been found a few weeks later possibly.

Also, to find some significant graffiti in your own area and not photograph it after urging the Met to do so and seemingly being very pissed off and happy to - albeit discreetly - say you the City Police wanted it photographed and the Met stopped you would not only go against what was clearly the City Police's current thinking at the time, but leave them wide open to criticism of hypocrisy for basically accusing the Met of not doing it and then not doing it themselves, criticism we now know, thanks to this research, could not be made in this instance.

See what I mean?

Jenni

[Trevor Marriott]

You missed the point of my post Phil.

Even if it can be proved beyond doubt (and I am still not convinced) that Tumblety was locked up in Gaol or Prison, that does not rule him out of being a Jack the Ripper suspect.

It would take better men then you, Trevor and Simon to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery.

Rob

Well whoever wrote it the first time got it badly wrong

[Phil Carter]

You missed the point of my post Phil.

Even if it can be proved beyond doubt (and I am still not convinced) that Tumblety was locked up in Gaol or Prison, that does not rule him out of being a Jack the Ripper suspect.

It would take better men then you, Trevor and Simon to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery.

Rob

Hello Rob,

How very complimentary. You really do have a penchant for insults.
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?

Best wishes

Phil.

[Monty]

Hi everyone,
as I said earlier, I still think the most likely reason they photographed it is because that is what they had wanted to do at Goulston Street. I am not saying in a direct way as in oh this is like Goulston Street and we were going to photograph that, but in terms of the fact they had wanted that photographed indicates a trend at the very time this is likely to have been found a few weeks later possibly.

Also, to find some significant graffiti in your own area and not photograph it after urging the Met to do so and seemingly being very pissed off and happy to - albeit discreetly - say you the City Police wanted it photographed and the Met stopped you would not only go against what was clearly the City Police's current thinking at the time, but leave them wide open to criticism of hypocrisy for basically accusing the Met of not doing it and then not doing it themselves, criticism we now know, thanks to this research, could not be made in this instance.

See what I mean?

Jenni

My experience with the City Police Jenni is that they pride themselves on the idea they are superior to the Met, a friendly competition. And I'm sure the Met feel the same.

So yes, they would have done what they felt best and if it means getting one up on the Met then that's an added incentive.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Well whoever wrote it the first time got it badly wrong

Well, my knowledge has increased over the past 28 years I have been involved in this case and I would like to think I have moved the case forward myself with my small contribution. Unfortunetly some people are hell bent or going backwards.

Hello Rob,

How very complimentary. You really do have a penchant for insults.
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?

Best wishes

Phil.

Thank you, but it couldn't have been much of an insult otherwise you would have had it removed by now. And the Royal Conspiracy tale went tits up long before Simon got involved. And I have forgotten more about the case then you have even learned.

Rob

[Trevor Marriott]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Well, my knowledge has increased over the past 28 years I have been involved in this case and I would like to think I have moved the case forward myself with my small contribution. Unfortunetly some people are hell bent or going backwards.

I am glad I am not one of those then

Thank you, but it couldn't have been much of an insult otherwise you would have had it removed by now. And the Royal Conspiracy tale went tits up long before Simon got involved. And I have forgotten more about the case then you have even learned.

Rob

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

"And the Royal Conspiracy tale went tits up long before Simon got involved."

Tower Hamlets Local History Library and Archives
Bancroft Library
277 Bancroft Road
London E1 4DQ

Stock number L. 8383. Class number, 341.

Regards,

Simon

[Rob Clack]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I am glad I am not one of those then

Don't be to sure.

Hi Rob,

"And the Royal Conspiracy tale went tits up long before Simon got involved."

Tower Hamlets Local History Library and Archives
Bancroft Library
277 Bancroft Road
London E1 4DQ

Stock number L. 8383. Class number, 341.

Regards,

Simon

Thank you Simon, and the date of your material.

Regards

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Well, my knowledge has increased over the past 28 years I have been involved in this case and I would like to think I have moved the case forward myself with my small contribution. Unfortunetly some people are hell bent or going backwards.



Thank you, but it couldn't have been much of an insult otherwise you would have had it removed by now. And the Royal Conspiracy tale went tits up long before Simon got involved. And I have forgotten more about the case then you have even learned.

Rob

Woe, woe and thrice woe. Sad to say you are unable to wash any of the men you mentioned out of your hair. Trevor's piece is a responsible article. Live with it. Mike Hawley can, and he's a Dr.t specialist. Simon Wood has more years of quality research in this before you even started. Simon was THE person that disproved the Royal Conspiracy tale through his finding of material nobody had ever seen before.
As regards your personal jibes at me, they are simply highlighted to show your effervecent, magnetic and jovial personality.

Carry on regardless. Please do. After all, it enhances your verbal reputation no end.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

1976 as I recall.

A visit to the Bancroft Street Library will confirm.

Regards,

Simon

[Rob Clack]

And yet you never answer the points put to you.

Rob