More Tumblety in the Evening Post

[GUT]

Lets not get carried away with this, the article is a singular un corroborated article from a newspaper which is a secondary source !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

Please give us YOUR definition of primary and secondary sources.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

Please give us YOUR definition of primary and secondary sources.

As far as newspaper articles are concerned

"If a reporter witnesses an event and writes about it, it is a primary source. If the same reporter receives the information from witnesses or the police, or any other source it is secondary"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

As far as newspaper articles are concerned

"If a reporter witnesses an event and writes about it, it is a primary source. If the same reporter receives the information from witnesses or the police, or any other source it is secondary"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And from whence do you get that definition, it is a definition of second hand hearsay, a legal term, but not of a primary or secondary source, history terms.

Being hearsay may have impact on the acceptance or otherwise of the source, but has no impact on its categorisation as primary or secondary.

[PaulB]

Hi Jon,

Interesting comment on your part - it reminds me that when I was in college I had to read "What is History" by E. H. Carr, the writer on the Russian Revolution. Carr said basically what you said, that to properly write history you have to marshal your facts to present the thesis that you are bringing forward as an interpretation. Just to grab any facts means nothing. I recall he illustrated this at one point by mentioning that a crowd at a street fair in 1851 in some English town (I think it was Bury St. Edmond) rioted and stoned a tradesman who they thought was cheating them to death. Carr mentioned when he stumbled on that story it seemed curious, but that it never seemed to fit into any reason to mention it as a "fact" because it led nowhere in any of his writings.

Of course one man's rejected story can become someone else's fact. But that is why actual history is constantly changing as new sources are found and new interpretations occur. Certainly that is the case when the subject is huge, like the Whitechapel murders or the origins and causes of World War I.

Jeff

Hi Jeff
The event of which you speak took place at Staleybridge Wakes and over the years its reality has been questioned (Richard J Evans' In Defence of History). The excellent balance to Carr is Geoffrey Elton's The Practice of History. Both Carr and Elton have been criticised in recent years.
Cheers
Paul

[Jonathan H]

Thanks PaulB, that's high praise indeed.

Dear Trevor

No it's still a primary source but a second-hand one. Not secondary which would be by a person who was never there in that era at all.

If you think that lessens it's reliability that is a reasonable analysis, though you have to be careful of a knee-jerk reaction.

But it is still primary.

Please see my previous post providing the standard definition.

[mklhawley]

If the police had him under surveillance and were building a case against him the more likely scenario is that they came to a point when they believed they had sufficient evidence and so went to a magistrate to apply for an arrest warrant. which they executed on him on Nov 7th.

One offence on its own perhaps no big deal. However 4 over a period of time shows to a court a specific course of conduct and a propensity to continue to commit these crimes far greater punishment.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So, we finally have the only plausible explanation as to where Scotland Yard found out about Tumblety's escapades with the four young men, they discovered it by finding correspondences in his pocket AFTER they arrested him on suspicion. Once they deemed him a hot suspect, they allocated some resources into sealing a case to 'hold him'.

In your scenario, Scotland Yard, for some reason you fail to answer, decided to do an investigation on this important quack only to... go to the magistrate and ask for one more week (Nov 7 - 14)? Why not just continue the investigation, arrest him only when they had the case done?

Why elevate Tumblety to more than just a quack? This was a time when any additional resources would better be allocated to the Ripper investigation. You of all people claim Scotland Yard had no interest in him, but even have Assistant Commissioner Anderson take time on this no nothing quack - after the resignation of his boss - to... even further seal the case on this quack by soliciting US Chiefs of Police for evidence that would not work against the gross indecency case?

Or, Scotland Yard could care less about this boy-loving quack until he became a hot topic in the most important and embarrassing case they had.

[PaulB]

Thanks PaulB, that's high praise indeed.

Dear Trevor

No it's still a primary source but a second-hand one. Not secondary which would be by a person who was never there in that era at all.

If you think that lessens it's reliability that is a reasonable analysis, though you have to be careful of a knee-jerk reaction.

But it is still primary.

Please see my previous post providing the standard definition.

Hi Jon
A word of warning; I tried explaining this stuff to Trevor a while back, but he didn't understand it. Maybe you and GUT will hve better luck.

[mklhawley]

You don't have to be a pro-Tumblety guy to embrace this scenario. This suspicious 'American' 'doctor' became significant in November and December of 1888, just as all the evidence shows. He was a nobody in 1888 prior to this and the only reason why they had a large dossier on him was because of his run-ins with the law since his continuous arrival in England for the last 15 - 20 years.

It doesn't change anything, except if you embrace the idea Tumblety was never a suspect. Littlechild was an old fart, anyway, and Assistant Commissioner Anderson, would certainly have wasted his time on a gross indecency case already sealed.

Sincerely,

Mike

[David Orsam]

Thanks to everyone for the comments. Having thought about it, here is what I think is going on here.

None of the newspapers reported on Tumblety's committal for trial at Marlborough Street Police Court on 14 November. However, the London Correspondent for the New York World (amongst other US papers) picked up on the story and discovered from a well-informed source that:

1. An American doctor had been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel Murders but released due to lack of evidence.

2. The doctor was nevertheless committed for trial, having been charged under the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

The reporter evidently mis-heard the name of the American doctor as "Kumblety".

During the evening of Saturday 17 November (after he had heard at a club of a similar arrest of Sir George Arthur), the reporter cabled his story over to the US. It was picked up by at least two Sunday newspapers but there was some confusion over the date of Tumblety's arrest, the editor or sub-editor of the Boston Sunday Globe thinking it happened on the day the story was filed (i.e. 17 November). When the story was published in the New York World on the Monday things got more confusing because the New York World (of 19 November) stated:

"A special London despatch to THE WORLD yesterday morning announced the arrest of a man in connection with the Whitechapel crimes, who gave his name as Dr. Kumblety, of New York."

In other words, it dated the despatch incorrectly as the morning of 18 November when it had been filed on 17 November.

When the New York World returned to the story a week or so later (now believing the doctor's name was "Twomblety"), it reported:

"The mysterious Dr. Twomblety, the American arrested in London November 18, suspected of having had some connection with the Whitechapel murders, seems to have figured extensively in Boston, where he is very well known."

It's own confusion about the date of the despatch thus led it to incorrectly state the (already incorrect) date of the arrest.

(N.B. We don't seem to have the original New York World story online and the above comes from the Washington Evening Star of 27 November but that newspaper sources the story as "From the New York World.")

As we know, on 20 November, Tumblety's trial was adjourned and his bail was extended to 10 December.

Now, the next thing we have is a cable from London to the US dated 1 December reporting that Tumblety (now spelt correctly) had been seen at Havre and was assumed to have sailed to New York. The reporter appears to have discovered that Tumblety's bondsmen had been spoken to by the Metropolitan police that day.

It was probably this cable that was picked up on by the Evening Post in its report of 3 December (despite referring to "a cable from Europe"). As we know, this report later featured in a Welsh newspaper on 7 December but the Evening Post is almost certainly the original British source.

On the previous day, Sunday 2 December, it seems that Tumblety had arrived in New York (as reported by the New York World of 4 December).

On 10 December, the Evening Post evidently obtained its own information (the first information about Tumblety to be obtained by an English reporter) from that morning's session at the Old Bailey at which the Recorder was informed of Tumblety's flight and issued an arrest warrant for him. At this stage, this seems to be all the details the Evening Post had for it relied on the New York World for the rest of the information in its article. Consequently, it stated "Tumblety was taken into custody on November 18" but it is very important to appreciate that this was NOT information it had learnt at the Old Bailey earlier that day but simply what had been copied from the New York World.

The Evening Post remained interested in the story and, three days later, on 13 December reproduced a very long article from the New York World but, before doing so, added its own comment that, "The American “Doctor” who was suspected of committing the Whitechapel Murders, but released, is the subject of considerable comment in the New York Press. The man was under recognisances to appear at the Old Bailey on another charge but he failed to surrender."

On 17 December, the Evening Post reproduced another story about Tumblety from the New York World to the effect that he had slipped away from New York. In doing so, it commented that Tumblety was "the notorious Whitechapel suspect".

Now, until this point, the only new information about Tumblety that has appeared in the Evening Post that can be sourced to London is about Tumblety's no-show at the Old Bailey on 10 December and the warrant issued for his arrest. Everything else in the Evening Post has come from New York.

The story on 16 February 1889 is a little different, however, in that, although it does reproduce another long article from the New York World, it provides what appears to be new information that had not, until this point, been reported anywhere else in the world, namely that Tumblety's arrest on the gross indecency charge arose "out of certain correspondence with young men which was found in his possession". For the newspaper to have known this, it simply must have had a police source which, to my mind, confirms that the information about Tumblety having been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders was also true.

So what can we make of all this?

Well, for me, the fact that Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders is, in itself, of relatively minor significance. Scores of men were being stopped in the streets and arrested on suspicion only to be released a few hours later. Such an event was being reported virtually every day. An example was referred to in the Commendations thread concerning George Bartlett who was stopped on 12 November because he was carrying a locked bag, apparently arrested on suspicion of the murders and taken to Commercial Street police station but then charged for a completely different offence of sacrilege/theft. The fact that he was charged on the different offence clearly did not mean that the police still thought he was Jack the Ripper and were using sacrilege as a holding offence.

Similarly, Tumblety might just have been one of those men stopped on suspicion due to something about his behaviour and, when searched, the incriminating letters with young men were found in his possession so that he was charged with THAT offence. It may just be that the newspapers assumed that the indecency charge was a holding offence whereas the police might have decided that Tumblety was probably innocent of the Whitechapel murders (and certainly that they had no evidence against him).

From the work done by Robert and myself in the Commendations thread, it can, I think, now be stated as a fact that Tumblety was remanded into custody at Marlborough Street on the 7th November. For him to have been at liberty at the time of Mary Jane Kelly's murder he would have had to have somehow got himself released on bail on the very next day (i.e 8th November). I'm not sure if that was even possible but, even if it was in theory, I would have to agree, as a result of the new interpretation of the Old Bailey Calendar, that the likelihood is that he was in custody when Kelly was murdered.

HOWEVER, the newspapers did not know this. As far as THEY were concerned, Tumblety must have been on bail because he fled the country while on bail. They did not even know the date of his arrest and probably believed he had been arrested after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. So they published loads of stories which considered him as the murderer. Tumblety might have been very happy with this because it deflected attention away from, and even undermined the credibility of, the homosexuality charges against him.

Perhaps Littlechild was one of the interested readers of these stories in the Evening Post and, knowing that this colleagues had compiled a dossier on Tumblety, but unaware that he was in custody on 9th November, suggested Tumblety's name to Sims in response to Sims' mention of a "Dr D". Rather than say "I don't know a "Dr D" and nothing more, Littlechild adds his little story about the Dr T that he recalls from 25 years earlier.

Perhaps it is all no more than this.

I appreciate that there are a few more factors (the apparent involvement of the ACC in the Tumblety investigation, the possible involvement of Inspector Andrews in the chase - and it would be helpful if we could nail down what those commendations were for) but, to keep him alive as a suspect, we first need to show Tumblety at liberty on 9 November and that currently seems like a big ask.

[mklhawley]

Interestingly, TC Crawford, the London correspondent for the New York World from 1885 to 1888 states this in 1889 about his experiences in London:


The English journals as a class never touch a personal scandal unless it has appeared in the courts. The Pall Mall Gazette is the exceptional paper as far as this rule is concerned. Its publishing of the Hughes-Hallet scandal was one of the most radical violations of the rules which govern English newspapers concerning such matters...


It may not be a coincidence that the Evening Post waited until December 10 to report this.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Robert]

I'm wondering why on earth Tumblety should have carried such incriminating letters on his person, and the only explanations I can think of are :

He was simply over-confident.
He didn't trust the place where he was staying.
He picked up a wad of his 'testimonials' and didn't notice that the letters were included.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff
The event of which you speak took place at Staleybridge Wakes and over the years its reality has been questioned (Richard J Evans' In Defence of History). The excellent balance to Carr is Geoffrey Elton's The Practice of History. Both Carr and Elton have been criticised in recent years.
Cheers
Paul

Thanks Paul for the correction about Staleybridge Wakes. When you mentioned that Carr and Mr. Elton have been criticized in recent years, I should point out I attended Drew University in New Jersey (and read the Carr book) from 1971 to 1975, so it was a while back that I even read him.
Elton, if it is the same historian I know of, was an expert on Elizabethan or Tudor history?

Jeff

[Mayerling]

I'm wondering why on earth Tumblety should have carried such incriminating letters on his person, and the only explanations I can think of are :

He was simply over-confident.
He didn't trust the place where he was staying.
He picked up a wad of his 'testimonials' and didn't notice that the letters were included.

Hello Robert,

Dr. T. may have been over-confident, but for the life of me I cannot see how he'd mistake a letter of possible assignation or love with some young male, with a testimonial from the likes of Disraeli, General Lee, or Charles Dickens!

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hi David,

Nice job in explaining the transmission and confusion of dates of the various newspaper accounts of the arrest, bail, fleeing, and arrival in NYC of Dr. T. I especially like how the dating of the filing of the articles in the newspapers play a role in the mass of confusion we find ourselves in.

Jeff

[PaulB]

Thanks Paul for the correction about Staleybridge Wakes. When you mentioned that Carr and Mr. Elton have been criticized in recent years, I should point out I attended Drew University in New Jersey (and read the Carr book) from 1971 to 1975, so it was a while back that I even read him.
Elton, if it is the same historian I know of, was an expert on Elizabethan or Tudor history?

Jeff

Thanks, Jeff, though I didn't mean it as a correction, just an additional piece of information. I read both Carr and Elton a long time ago too, but their "feud" and the Staleybridge Wakes matter is repeated so often. Anyway, rugby beckons!