Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by GUT 1 hour and 8 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by rjpalmer 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Paddy 6 hours ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Joshua Rogan 6 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Abby Normal 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (7 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Media > Books > Non-Fiction

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:20 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
That's complete BS, David. You just led the reader by a minimalizing statement by saying Littlechild only stated he "got away to Boulogne" when in fact he 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.

Good job, David.
Take a look at your own book Mike! You minimalized the statement yourself!!!! Here is exactly what appears in your book:

"What is certain is that Chief Inspector Littlechild, head of Special Branch, stated Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, France, on or before November 23 1888:

Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne."

So you don't include the part about him leaving Boulogne in the extract you use to support your claim that it is "certain" that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne!

It's not surprising because Littlechild saying that Tumblety "left" Boulogne doesn't mean that anyone saw him doing so.

So where is the evidence that Littlechild has ever said that Tumblety was "spotted" in Boulogne?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #22  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:25 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
David, the November 7 record is under "taken into custody," and since the case at hand was the gross indecency and indecent assault, that's what it would have been for. So, you're saying taken into custody is not being arrested? I don't decide to keep anything from him. You are leading the readers' minds more than I am. How could I have kept information away when I justify my point that he was free by commenting upon three Scotland Yard officials naming him as a suspect AFTER the Kelly murder.

Sorry David
You don't need to apologise Mike but taken into custody does NOT mean being arrested in the court calendar records. It means being held in custody on remand in prison.

I don't know who the three Scotland Yard officials you refer to are who named Tumblety as a suspect but how do we know that they didn't eliminate Kelly from the string of Jack the Ripper murders? And how do we know that they were aware of all the dates Tumblety was in and out of prison? We can't just make assumptions.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #23  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:27 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
I have just been told David Barrat is doing his prepping for his David Orsam books by minimalizing evidence and putting his spin on selected parts of my book. I predicted this. David has a reason for what hes doing. When i have some time i will respond.
Where did you predict anything?

What do you say is the reason for me doing what I am doing?

How am I "minimalizing" evidence and putting any spin on selected parts of your book?

What "David Orsam books" are you talking about?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #24  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:31 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Mike then conflates a report referring to agents of the British government with Scotland Yard detectives. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Above all, Mike does not tell us WHY an English Scotland Yard detective would have bothered to make an expensive trip to New York at cost to the public purse. He couldn't arrest Tumblety because there was no enforceable warrant. If Tumblety needed to be followed in New York this could have been done by Pinkerton's men on behalf of Scotland Yard. So what was he doing there? Mike seems to swallow a bartender's story that this English detective told him he was there "to get the Whitechapel Murderer". But how? Any such arrest in America by an English police officer without a warrant would have been illegal. And if there was sufficient evidence to arrest Tumblety for any of the murders in Whitechapel why hadn't he been arrested while in London when he was in custody? It doesn't make sense and if it doesn't make sense then it probably didn't happen.
Lots of minimalizing here, but I'll take a bit at a time. When asked if an American detective company was working for Scotland Yard, Andrews himself stated that they could do it themselves, so they would indeed have done just what Andrews stated. 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. Are they all lying or is David minimalizing because it does not conform to his published article and future book?

We have reports that Scotland Yard detectives were in New York City in late 1888 because of the Irish independent issues, so why is it a shock that one of them would have been used to keep an eye on a Jack the Ripper suspect? Not being able to catch the killer was the biggest embarrassment for Scotland Yard in 1888. Sorry David. It does make sense, just not for you.

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message
  #25  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:33 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Take a look at your own book Mike! You minimalized the statement yourself!!!! Here is exactly what appears in your book:

"What is certain is that Chief Inspector Littlechild, head of Special Branch, stated Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, France, on or before November 23 1888:

Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne."

So you don't include the part about him leaving Boulogne in the extract you use to support your claim that it is "certain" that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne!

It's not surprising because Littlechild saying that Tumblety "left" Boulogne doesn't mean that anyone saw him doing so.

So where is the evidence that Littlechild has ever said that Tumblety was "spotted" in Boulogne?
You AGAIN didn't include, "He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards."

Nice try.
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message
  #26  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:40 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You don't need to apologise Mike but taken into custody does NOT mean being arrested in the court calendar records. It means being held in custody on remand in prison.

I don't know who the three Scotland Yard officials you refer to are who named Tumblety as a suspect but how do we know that they didn't eliminate Kelly from the string of Jack the Ripper murders? And how do we know that they were aware of all the dates Tumblety was in and out of prison? We can't just make assumptions.
I don't make wild assumptions. Because there is only limited evidence, since we do not have the large dossier, connecting the lines of evidence is certainly allowable.
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message
  #27  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:43 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You don't need to apologise Mike but taken into custody does NOT mean being arrested in the court calendar records. It means being held in custody on remand in prison.
To be absolutely accurate, here is what I wrote some time ago (in November 2015) on my website in an article entitled "Tumblety's Bail Revisited"

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

1. Interpretation of the After-Trial Calendar

Prior to my involvement, it was believed that the column in the Central Criminal Court After-Trial Calendar headed 'Received into custody' indicated the date a person was arrested. Along with Robert Linford, in a Casebook thread, I managed to establish that 'custody' here has nothing to do with the date a person was arrested. What it means is the date that an accused person was first received at prison (which, in this time period, was Holloway Prison), either on remand or having been committed for trial or having surrendered to bail (at Newgate Prison) at the start of the sessions during which he was being tried. This was very significant because, until then, everyone believed that the Calendar was only telling us that Francis Tumblety had been arrested on 7 November 1888. Consequently, it was argued that he might have been released on police bail until the hearing before a magistrate on 14 November 1888.

Now that we know that Tumblety was actually in prison on 7 November, we also know that he must have been before a magistrate on that date (because remanded persons were sent to prison on the same day they were remanded at the police court). It's not impossible that he was also arrested on 7 November - although he could also have been arrested late on 6 November (or even, in theory, at any time after 2 November, the date of his last alleged offence, and remanded by a magistrate to 7 November) - but it means that police bail is completely out of the equation on or after 7 November because, once he was before the magistrate, there was no question of police bail.

I might add that, until my involvement, it was wrongly believed that Tumblety was sent to Clerkenwell prison on remand and then Newgate prison after his committal. It is a very important fact that he went to Holloway prison because the After-Trial Calendar of the Central Criminal Court in 1888 was prepared by the governor of Holloway prison.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #28  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:48 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
You AGAIN didn't include, "He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards."

Nice try.
No, because YOU didn't include it at that point in your book, so why is it relevant?

And where does Littlechild say that Tumblety was "spotted" at any time in or out of Boulogne?

Do you not find it incredible that Littlechild was apparently unaware that Tumblety left from Le Havre for New York despite the American newspapers knowing about it?

Or perhaps he did know it at the time which is how he knew that Tumblety must have left Boulogne. Nothing to do with anyone spotting him!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #29  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:49 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
I don't make wild assumptions. Because there is only limited evidence, since we do not have the large dossier, connecting the lines of evidence is certainly allowable.
Can you just remind me who the three Scotland Yard officials who named Tumblety as a suspect after the Kelly murder actually were?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #30  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:52 AM
Steadmund Brand Steadmund Brand is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Buffalo New York area
Posts: 539
Default

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
__________________
"The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny Bruce
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.