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: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Debra A 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Robert 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - (16 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (1 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (1 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (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
  #11  
Old 05-05-2018, 08:41 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mklhawley View Post
Thanks for posting Steadmund! No, you don't need to read The Ripper's Haunts. It is a stand-alone book. Lots of discoveries, such as locations he visited after his initial arrest and before his sneaking out of England, and where he went after he arrived in New York City in early December 1888 until he returned in January 1889. I also added much more detail about his misogyny, surgical knives, hermaphroditic condition, etc.

Sincerely,

Mike
Thanks Mike. I look forward to it
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old 05-07-2018, 05:08 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

It's always really important when reading a book that you can be confident that the author is not trying to mislead or trick you, which is why it was so immensely disappointing for me to read this sentence in this book:

Coincidentally, Scotland Yard senior official Lieutenant Colonel Pearson reported to the Home Undersecretary about deploying twelve extra constables at two train stations on November 20, 1888, in order to “examine the belongings of passengers arriving from America.”

The way this is written makes it seem that 12 extra constables were, if fact, deployed at train stations on 20 November 1888, at a time when Tumblety was fleeing justice. But this was not the case at all. These constables were not deployed until 1889, their deployment having been approved in October for the sole purpose of speeding up the process of checking luggage for travellers from the United States.

All that happened on 20 November is that their future deployment was referred to in a letter. It wasn't just a coincidence, it was a pure coincidence which had nothing whatsoever to do with Tumblety. Yet the very next sentence in the book states: "Officially, Tumblety was never reported as a suspect, so it would not be a surprise that his name was absent from any correspondence." The unsuspecting reader would think that the author is here explaining why Tumblety was not mentioned in the letter of 20 November 1888.

I don't know if Mike thinks that by using the word "Coincidentally" he gets away with it, and was only mentioning it in passing as some sort of freaky but amusing coincidence, despite having no connection with Tumbley. Because that is not how it is written.
Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old 05-07-2018, 05:45 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

It doesn't then get much better, for in the next sentence we are told that it is "certain" that Chief Inspector Littlechild stated that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, with a supporting quote provided in which Littlechild says absolutely no such thing! All Littlechild says is that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" which is something that the police could have established subsequently. And they could have done so very simply by learning that Tumblety had purchased a ticket, while in England, to travel to Boulogne!
Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old 05-07-2018, 05:53 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,887
Default

What’s your opinion of the book overall David?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old 05-07-2018, 06:19 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Mike tells us that Tumblety was "initially arrested on November 7, 1888" although there is no evidence to confirm that this is correct. He certainly appeared in a Magistrate's Court on that date but, as he needed to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, he could have been arrested on 6th November. And the only reason we can assume he wasn't arrested on, say 30th October (and then brought before a magistrate that day and remanded on bail to the 7th November), is that one of the charges relates to an offence on 2 November. In theory this could have been committed while he was out on bail but it's unlikely. The point is that we don't know for sure that Tumblety was arrested on 7th November.

Furthermore, Mike decides not to unsettle his readers by informing them that one certain fact we do know about Tumblety is that he was sent directly from Marlborough Street Magistrate's Court to Holloway Prison on 7th November 1888 and would have remained in that prison until at least 8th November. He might have been freed on bail from prison on 8th November (and thus been free to murder Mary Jane Kelly) but this is not certain and it is therefore strange that Mike decides to keep this information from his readers.
Quick reply to this message
  #16  
Old 05-07-2018, 06:26 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I see that Mike has decided to continue his argument with me about whether a Scotland Yard detective really was in New York in December 1888 to meet Tumblety on his arrival. Although my central argument is that the "English detective" referred to in a couple of New York newspapers as hanging around Tumblety's dwelling probably didn't exist, Mike prefers to focus on my suggestion that, if he did exist, he was more likely to have been a private detective than a Scotland Yard detective, a suggestion he coyly attributes to "a number of modern researchers". Perhaps Mike can name those researchers for us because I'd be interested to know how their arguments are expressed and if they accord with mine.

Mike seems to think that if he can find a few examples of Scotland Yard detectives being referred to as "English detectives" he has somehow proved that anyone referred to in the American press as an "English detective" must have been from Scotland Yard! I don't know how that works.

Hawley himself writes that "contemporary American readers believed English detectives were synonymous with Scotland Yard detectives, not private detectives from England". That is EXACTLY the point I have made, namely that anyone who saw an Englishman who looked like a detective simply assumed he was from Scotland Yard, regardless of whether that was the case or not.

Mike's key exhibit is a newspaper report in the Chicago Daily Tribune of 30 June 1889 relying on what their reporter was told by someone Mike describes as "Special Branch Detective H. Dutton". But there was no officer called Dutton in the Special Branch at any time prior to 30 June 1889, so it all starts off terribly badly. Even worse, Mike says that "Claiming that the funding of a Scotland Yard man being sent to New York must be in Home Records conflicts with the facts." What facts? He doesn't present any! Just a newspaper report sourced to a non-existent Special Branch detective who himself does not refer to a single Scotland Yard man being sent to New York! In fact, of the two paragraphs cited by Hawley, which he attributes to Dutton, neither of them is actually attributed to Dutton within the story!! The first supposedly comes from a visit by the reporter to Scotland Yard’s crime museum while the second is unsourced and follows a discussion by the reporter with Robert Pinkerton (but he does not appear to be the source of the information).

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.
Quick reply to this message
  #17  
Old 05-07-2018, 06:28 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
What’s your opinion of the book overall David?
I'm only interested in the facts and the arguments, Herlock, not the overall nature of the book.
Quick reply to this message
  #18  
Old 05-07-2018, 09:47 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

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 he’s doing. When i have some time i will respond.

Mike
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com

Last edited by mklhawley : 05-07-2018 at 09:50 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #19  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:02 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
It doesn't then get much better, for in the next sentence we are told that it is "certain" that Chief Inspector Littlechild stated that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, with a supporting quote provided in which Littlechild says absolutely no such thing! All Littlechild says is that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" which is something that the police could have established subsequently. And they could have done so very simply by learning that Tumblety had purchased a ticket, while in England, to travel to Boulogne!
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.
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
Quick reply to this message
  #20  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:10 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 tells us that Tumblety was "initially arrested on November 7, 1888" although there is no evidence to confirm that this is correct. He certainly appeared in a Magistrate's Court on that date but, as he needed to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, he could have been arrested on 6th November. And the only reason we can assume he wasn't arrested on, say 30th October (and then brought before a magistrate that day and remanded on bail to the 7th November), is that one of the charges relates to an offence on 2 November. In theory this could have been committed while he was out on bail but it's unlikely. The point is that we don't know for sure that Tumblety was arrested on 7th November.

Furthermore, Mike decides not to unsettle his readers by informing them that one certain fact we do know about Tumblety is that he was sent directly from Marlborough Street Magistrate's Court to Holloway Prison on 7th November 1888 and would have remained in that prison until at least 8th November. He might have been freed on bail from prison on 8th November (and thus been free to murder Mary Jane Kelly) but this is not certain and it is therefore strange that Mike decides to keep this information from his readers.
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
__________________
The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
http://www.michaelLhawley.com
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 01:49 PM.


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