Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[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 !

[Monty]

Au contraire mon ami !

Ha, tu en penses?

Monty

[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

[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,

[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.

[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

[DGB]

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

[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]

[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

[Bridewell]

Trevor's Article

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.
Sincerely,
Mike

Three points:

(1) There is no record of Tumblety mentioning this big mistake, but that doesn't prove he never did so.

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

(2) Committal proceedings are a stage on the journey to the higher court, so the difference, if a 'Not Guilty' plea has been entered, is chronological only.

(3) I have disagreed with Trevor on very many occasions, but I thought his article was well-presented and structured in its approach. He didn't (as I read it) claim that Tumblety couldn't be JtR, only that, if JtR killed all MacNaghten's canonical five victims, that individual could not, on the available evidence, be Francis Tumblety. I think that was an entirely rational conclusion to draw on the balance of probabilities.

Trevor's article has been somewhat damned with faint praise. That saddens me because I think it deserved better. It gets an unequivocal "Well Done" from me.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Further to my last. I've read Ripperologist 127 from start to end. I thoroughly enjoyed all of it. Neil & Rob's Wall-Writing got top billing and rightly so.

I'm embarrassed to say that, despite living in the county, I'd completely forgotten that Joseph Merrick was born in Leicester and that he was still only in his twenties when he died. Life dealt him a cruel hand, but he lived a life of great dignity despite his appalling circumstances.

Well done to all concerned. Rip 127 will be a hard act to follow.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

Colin,

I disagree, I think it has been received with good praise, and analysed as it should be.

Trevors statement that all the victims were committed by the same hand (which contradicts what he has said in the past) seems to be a requirement entered so that if Tumbelty is shown to be incarcerated at the time of the Kelly murder, then he must be absolved completely as a suspect.

As Rob points out, this is loaded.

Monty

[Monty]

Further to my last. I've read Ripperologist 127 from start to end. I thoroughly enjoyed all of it. Neil & Rob's Wall-Writing got top billing and rightly so.

I'm embarrassed to say that, despite living in the county, I'd completely forgotten that Joseph Merrick was born in Leicester and that he was still only in his twenties when he died. Life dealt him a cruel hand, but he lived a life of great dignity despite his appalling circumstances.

Well done to all concerned. Rip 127 will be a hard act to follow.

Regards, Bridewell.

Top billing?

Why of course dear boy.

I'm joshing. I think John and Cris deserve great praise for their article. Its so good I've re read it a few times now.

As for Merrick, having two works in one Rip is something I'm quite proud of. Poor Don Souden waited patiently for my Brough photos so he could comple his NIR work, I think he has now figured why I was so late.

Some of the Merrick piece I was going to use for a book entitled 'Bloody Leicester' but alas if fell through, so I used bits of that.

I think the Rip subscribers have been very spoilt with this issue.

Monty

[mklhawley]

Three points:

(1) There is no record of Tumblety mentioning this big mistake, but that doesn't prove he never did so.


(2) Committal proceedings are a stage on the journey to the higher court, so the difference, if a 'Not Guilty' plea has been entered, is chronological only.

(3) I have disagreed with Trevor on very many occasions, but I thought his article was well-presented and structured in its approach. He didn't (as I read it) claim that Tumblety couldn't be JtR, only that, if JtR killed all MacNaghten's canonical five victims, that individual could not, on the available evidence, be Francis Tumblety. I think that was an entirely rational conclusion to draw on the balance of probabilities.

Trevor's article has been somewhat damned with faint praise. That saddens me because I think it deserved better. It gets an unequivocal "Well Done" from me.

Regards, Bridewell.

Bridewell,

Your mistake is 'on the balance of probabilities'. As I stated earlier, in terms of logic his argument was quite valid (i.e., convincing) but it is not sound. I don't expect you to know there the cherry picking has occurred because you don't research Tumblety. Enjoy my next posts.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mariab]

Some of the Merrick piece I was going to use for a book entitled 'Bloody Leicester'

Are you getting all Hull on us, Monty? ;-)

(Just teasing, and hopefully you'll write that book at some point later on.)