Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[mklhawley]

Feel free to show me as much "minimalization" as you like.

But I fear you are starting to talk nonsense.

My article relating to Jonathan Hainsworth's book has not "vanished", it is here (where it always has been):

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

If you think that JH "ripped" it apart then you obviously weren't reading our exchange on this forum properly. He didn't lay a finger on it. More than that, he admitted to modifying his book (for a planned future edition) in response to my article. That was at about the same time that he seemed to be having a nervous breakdown responding to it before he simply disappeared from the forum.

Sorry, he did.

[David Orsam]

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

Well now hold on there Mike. Before writing this book, did you or did you not read my article on my website about your 2016 book, The Ripper's Haunts?

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

I deal with the point about the 12 constables in great detail and demonstrate conclusively that there was no connection between their deployment (in 1889) and Tumblety's flight (or anything to do with Tumblety).

Do you or do you not accept the facts as set out in that article?

[David Orsam]

Sorry, he did.

Please just give me a single example of him doing so, Mike.

I fear you must be hallucinating.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you Sherlock, yes this is the case (New Romantics Who Never Were: The Untold Story of Spandau Ballet) but I can assure you that I am not "minimalizing evidence" or "putting my spin" on selected parts of Mike's book as some kind of weird "prepping" for this book, whatever Mike thinks he predicted in his own head.

You would be the conspiracy theorist par excellance if you could connect the two subjects.

[David Orsam]

There is a ton of new information in this book, and finding corrections is absolutely acceptable.

Well that's great that there is a ton of new information in your book but if finding corrections is "absolutely acceptable" what are you complaining about?

Just because I reject your conclusions as biased, you have attacked my credibility.

Where have I attacked your credibility? Looks like you are "minimalizing" here Mike. What I said is that readers of a book need to be confident that the author is not trying to trick or mislead them. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of your knowledge of the facts surrounding these 12 constables.

I did indeed find areas you merely jumped to conclusions and areas where you minimalize (such as the eyewitness testimony of multiple bartenders and the two reporters). Sorry.

I don't know why you keep apologising.

If you tell me the names of the "multiple bartenders" or provide some direct quotes from what they told the reporters then perhaps you can accuse me of minimalizing their evidence but until then you've got nothing.

As for two reporters, so what? How do you know they didn't source their story from the same unreliable bartender? How do you know they didn't confer? I've made these points in my article about your 2016 book to which, as one of these "modern researchers" you were talking about, you were supposedly responding. But you don't deal with any of that at all in your latest book.

[David Orsam]

You would be the conspiracy theorist par excellance if you could connect the two subjects.

Well as I've mentioned previously there are, I think, no less than seven mentions of 'Jack the Ripper' in my book about Spandau Ballet so I reckon I've done quite well there!

[David Orsam]

For anyone whose curiosity is whetted by talk of my debate with Jonathan Hainsworth, it can be found here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=401951&highlight=Mortemer#post401951

and it also seemed to metamorphosize into another thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=402148&highlight=Mortemer#post402148

But I do warn you, the posts were very long!

[mklhawley]

You have great faith in a couple of American newspaper reports but how do you know that they didn't come from the same source? How do you know that the bartender's story was truly told by multiple bartenders? Are any of them named? Are the reporters named? How do you know that the whole thing isn't a complete invention?

You simply avoid the central questions which are these:

1. Why would a Scotland Yard detective reveal to a bartender that he was in New York to "get" Tumblety for the Whitechapel murders?

2. You do realise that a Scotland Yard detective had no power of arrest in New York, right? So what was he actually doing there?

Scotland Yard detectives did indeed follow prisoners to New York and did not merely depend upon the Pinkertons. Here's an example in 1869:

The murderer, Franz Muller, a poor German tailor, had immediately departed to America, hoping to start a new life in the New World. But two Scotland Yard detectives pursued him...

It's funny you talk about Scotland Yard having no power to arrest when others on these boards talk about how Scotland Yard would have exceeded their authority in England and hold Tumblety indefinitely if he was a true ripper suspect. Of course I know they had no authority at that time, because the only charge at that moment was a misdemeanor. Chief Inspector Byrnes even stated this to the publich, but once they charged Tumblety with a felony, then Byrnes would have allowed it. Remember, they were collecting tons of information on Tumblety, such as his handwriting.

The guy was a bartender, so the detective was clearly in his drink. I'm sure the bartender asked him why he was even in New York, so it's not a stretch that the guy had loose lips.

You still haven't addressed how the eyewitness testimony of seeing this Scotland Yard detective was from multiple bartenders and two reporters from competing papers and on the same day. One reporter could not have read the article from the other. They give different details. Sorry David.

[mklhawley]

For anyone whose curiosity is whetted by talk of my debate with Jonathan Hainsworth, it can be found here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=401951&highlight=Mortemer#post401951

and it also seemed to metamorphosize into another thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=402148&highlight=Mortemer#post402148

But I do warn you, the posts were very long!

David, you always have long posts, because you need to have the last say. I think you think if they stop posting then you win. Sometimes we get exhausted with your constant posting.

Speaking of that. I need to stop, but I will look at this later.

[David Orsam]

Scotland Yard detectives did indeed follow prisoners to New York and did not merely depend upon the Pinkertons. Here's an example in 1869:

The murderer, Franz Muller, a poor German tailor, had immediately departed to America, hoping to start a new life in the New World. But two Scotland Yard detectives pursued him...

Of course they did Mike. Just like Inspector Jarvis pursued Thomas Barton through Canada and the United States. But the difference in these cases is that there were WARRANTS for the arrest of these prisoners. And ones which could be enforced in the U.S.

In the case of Franz Muller he was arrested by American officer in New York (in 1864, not 1869) when his ship landed. Chief Inspector Tanner of Scotland had already arrived in New York with Sergeant Clarke, and two witnesses who were needed to identify Muller. Another officer, Inspector Kerrissey followed with a second warrant. These officers were required in New York to give evidence against Muller at his extradition hearing.

In the absence of a warrant, any "pursuit" of Tumblety would have been completely pointless.

[David Orsam]

It's funny you talk about Scotland Yard having no power to arrest when others on these boards talk about how Scotland Yard would have exceeded their authority in England and hold Tumblety indefinitely if he was a true ripper suspect.

I have no responsibility for what "others" on this forum say, and it's hardly a good basis for an argument, but Scotland Yard exceeding its authority in the UK is one thing, making an illegal arrest in the United States would be quite another.

Of course I know they had no authority at that time, because the only charge at that moment was a misdemeanor. Chief Inspector Byrnes even stated this to the publich, but once they charged Tumblety with a felony, then Byrnes would have allowed it. Remember, they were collecting tons of information on Tumblety, such as his handwriting.

Okay, so when they got the evidence of a felony, Scotland Yard could have wired Byrnes and asked for Tumblety to be held for extradition. But clearly they didn't have the evidence in December 1888 so I ask again: What was a Scotland Yard detective doing in New York?

[David Orsam]

The guy was a bartender, so the detective was clearly in his drink. I'm sure the bartender asked him why he was even in New York, so it's not a stretch that the guy had loose lips.

We are getting somewhere. So you are saying that the Scotland Yard detective WAS there to "get" Tumblety? Can you tell me how this was possible?

You still haven't addressed how the eyewitness testimony of seeing this Scotland Yard detective was from multiple bartenders and two reporters from competing papers and on the same day. One reporter could not have read the article from the other. They give different details. Sorry David.

What do you mean I haven't addressed it? I don't accept for one second that there were "multiple bartenders" saying anything. We have plenty of rubbish written in English newspapers let alone American ones. I've given you plenty of possible explanations as to how similar stories can appear in two newspapers. One is that they both spoke to the same lying bartender. Another is that they colluded on the basic story and then went away and wrote their own fictional accounts. Sorry Mike (if that is the normal way of concluding these posts).

[David Orsam]

David, you always have long posts, because you need to have the last say.

It's not actually true. I post if I have something to say. If not, I don't post. And, I might add, the lengths of my posts were directly proportional to the lengths of Jonathan Hainsworth's posts to which I was responding.

I think you think if they stop posting then you win.

You may think this, but as with many things you appear to think, it's not true.

Sometimes we get exhausted with your constant posting.

You are now speaking on behalf of other people then?

Speaking of that. I need to stop, but I will look at this later.

Key questions remain unanswered Mike. Don't tell me you've got exhausted before getting round to answering them?

[David Orsam]

Well now hold on there Mike. Before writing this book, did you or did you not read my article on my website about your 2016 book, The Ripper's Haunts?

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

I deal with the point about the 12 constables in great detail and demonstrate conclusively that there was no connection between their deployment (in 1889) and Tumblety's flight (or anything to do with Tumblety).

Do you or do you not accept the facts as set out in that article?

You see Mike, I'm certain you did read my above-mentioned article, not least because you responded to it in this thread:

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

And in your 2016 book you said this about the deployment of the 12 constables:

"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."

Now, that sentence has completely vanished from your 2018 book and we now have the inclusion of the word "Coincidentally". But, as I mentioned in #12, that word does not absolve you from the charge of misleading your readers.

To me, it looks like you have read my clear demolition of the notion that the 12 constables were connected in any way with Tumblety, deleted the positive conclusion referred to above, added in the word "Coincidentally" but otherwise left it hanging as to whether those 12 constables were, in fact, connected with Tumblety. What do you have to say about that Mike?

[mklhawley]

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

In the absence of a warrant, any "pursuit" of Tumblety would have been completely pointless.

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.