Tumbelty & His Better Half

[How Brown]

One of the elements of the Tumbelty Story that has rarely been discussed ( unless I missed 'em ) has been the issue of whether or not Tumbelty actually was married at one time since no evidence has ever been produced to prove such a claim.

The Colonel Dunham story which can be found on page 195-196 of "The Lodger" by Evans and Gainey gives us the basis for what the authors claim is "an explanation for his loathing of women"...

To me...and this is not an attempt to refute or diminish Tumbelty's candidature as a viable suspect or that he was the Ripper....the story that Tumbelty relates to Dunham is an attempt to explain away his homosexuality without actually admitting to being a homosexual.

Years ago,when I played hockey...my coach who was my age and a homosexual ( a pretty damned tough dude as well...I had seen him fight on a few occasions with other guys )....hosted a party at his house for all 20 guys on our team after we made the playoffs ( winning 11 out of our last 12 games and making the playoffs by one point. Yours truly got the game winner in the clincher...)

At the party, it became obvious that there were no girls or "better halfs" present. We all reveled in our fairly astonishing season-ending victory and were sudsing it up in style...wolfing down roast beef sandwiches and steaks and of course numerous kegs o' beer.

One of the guys on the team asked Jack ( our coach's name,honest to God ) why there were no girls in the house....and in addition,referred to previous gigs at Jack's house that were always bereft of women and were always get-togethers with nothing but hardankles...er,men....and coyily alluded to the not-so-secret common knowledge that Jack was gay...something I do not think he knew was so well-known.

Jack's response ( and this is my recollection from 30 years ago,so its not exactly,but close enough to what he said...) was that he had had parties at his house with women present,but that the women/girls were distractions to the purpose of those gigs...which was,a lotta guys talking about hockey or hanging out talking about "guy stuff". "Guy stuff" to healthy guys is talking about girls,of course.

Me and the two other guys who were barely hanging on to sobriety all looked at each other...having been told from different,yet equally reliable sources,that Jack was not exactly telling the whole story. Jack didn't loath women....he just had no interest in playing koochie-koo with them like the rest of the guys did. In addition...none of us could ever remember( later on when we were a little less ripped....) Jack having any party with girls and we were the only clique he hung out with.

Jack never made moves on guys he felt would spill the beans on him as to his sexual preference. He was a pretty good guy and a very astute coach. The only "flaw" he had or rather the element in his character which separated him from the rest of us was that he simply did not have any interest in females. He wasn't rude to them or discourteous. He wasn't belligerent to them openly...he simply did not want them around him in his social circle if he could help it.

Now....this story above is identical to what I think Tumbelty's story about his "wife" is all about. Tumbelty has this imaginary wife-story ( already concocted and ever at the ready to spring on any nosey or curious questioner ) to explain why women are persona non grata at his home or within his social circle.

Tumbelty doesn't have any real animosity or disdain for women,but claims to have a dislike for women ( which Dunham says.."Then he gave up all womankind") which covers all of the bases...and all the different packages women come in with this imaginary story of being married to a woman he "discovers" is a little loose and flirtatious. The article found by R.J.Palmer recently was the basis of this little commentary,since within the article R.J. found,we see Tumbelty,again at the ready,providing the reading audience an excerpt from some ancient and superannuated old biddy praising Tumbelty in the form of a poem.

What do you think,folks? Does this scenario hold water? Have you ever considered this?

Thank you.

[WRITEFX]

On the subject of the coach. It may be that he was gay but I can see an additional possibility to not asking women to be at those get-togethers.

Think of a works do. Can be stifling and uncomfortable when people invite their partners. You can't talk about 'in' jokes or be yourself. You have to bring the outsiders into the conversation. Perhaps the coach liked to be the centre of attention.

[Joe Chetcuti]

I've seen the old 8mm film footage of Howard's hockey goal in that big game. His team was up 4-2 late in the 3rd period when his opponents pulled their goalie for an extra attacker. Howard was able to skate in alone on an empty net, but his slapshot missed the mark. Fortunately, the puck caromed off the boards right back to him which enabled him to kick-skate the puck into the net without the ref detecting it. :happy:

Littlechild and McGarry spoke of Tumblety's feelings toward women. Those two men were probably accurate with their assessment. I think Conover and the NY World were sort of exploiting a misogynist theme.

It seems to me that the NY World was expecting that Tumblety's situation in late 1888 would materialize into something bigger than how it actually ended up. The NY World seemed to feed the fire by printing the uteri jars account and Tumblety's failed "marriage" story. But when nothing came of it, they turned their attitude around in 1889 and became advocates for Tumblety.

[A.P. Wolf]

Haven't you got any easier questions than that one, How?
I take on board what you say, but one also has to consider that many gay men do in fact worship female icons, like Monroe, or in the present day Kylie Minogue.
My own good woman is a very forceful and larger than life blonde, and gays just love her to bits. When we visit the local gay nightclub, which isn't very often, she is mobbed by the crowd, while I sit in a corner nursing a bruised ego and large brandy.

Tumblety was a larger than life sort of character and personality, and I think he would have enjoyed the company of women who were living on the edge of life, like prostitutes and show girls, and I do remember one early newspaper report that I found about him where it declared that he left many a broken heart behind him when he left town, amongst the society girls.
Being gay doesn't mean you hate women... not a bit of it.

[Stan Russo]

How,

What should be interesting to note is that judging from Tumblety's apparent sexual proclivities at this stage of his life, the area in London where he would have been most able to suit those needs was the West End.

This obvious conclusion seems to be lost on many researchers,not to mention any theoretical implications that may be derived from that.

[How Brown]

Thanks for the replies so far...they're much appreciated.

Dear A.P.

I understood it when you mentioned how being a homosexual doesn't mean you "dislike" women. Thats a given and I'd wager homosexual men "like" women as much,if not more,than heterosexual men. At least homosexual men don't go beating up on women. In fact,a woman is probably "safer" in the company of a homosexual man than a heterosexual one on average.

But what I was trying to point out is that despite Tumbelty probably liking women as individuals...he has this story...and an "explanatory" one at that...to present when pressed or queried about the absence of a "better half" in his social circle or as a partner.

Good point, Stan about the West End...real good point pardner.

[Joe Chetcuti]

It would be interesting to know exactly where in London did Tumblety's four acts of gross indecency take place during 1888.

It was reported that the 'doctor' had an office on the Whitechapel Road in the mid-1880's, and he also had a penchant for staying at fashionable lodgings. I could see how these gross indecency acts could have occurred in either the West End or the East End.

[John Savage]

Hi Joe,

According to Stewart Evans "The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook," Tumbelty appears to have been bailed by Mr. Hanney, the magistrate of Marlborough Street Police Court. Marlborough Street was/is in the west end of London, quite close to Regent Street and Oxford Street. It would most probably have been that Tumbelty and the other men involved were caught "in the act"; they would then have appeared at the nearest police court.

I think I have got this correct, but if not perhaps Grey Hunter will correct me.

Rgds
John

[Joe Chetcuti]

Thanks John,

I knew the Marlborough Street Police Court was where Tumblety was bailed, and I'd have to agree with your thinking. It would seem proper that at least one of the four victims in this indecent assault matter was victimized near Marlborough Street by Tumblety.

Upon further review, it has now been established that Howard's winning hockey goal was actually the result of a superb individual effort on his part. He split the two defensemen like an old craftsman and back-handed the puck into the net after faking out the goalie.

I had to type that correction or face a Civil Lawsuit!

[John Savage]

Hi Joe,

Of course there may not have been a victim, the four men involved could all have been consenting, but it would still have been a crime. Although we cannot be sure my guess is that they may all have been caught in a public convenience doing a George Michael.

As for Howard's spectaclur hockey goal I cannot really comment other than that splitting two defence men and back handing the puck sounds to me almost, if not gross, indecency.

Rgds
John

[Stan Russo]

One would expect, from the information we know about the area at the time, that the type of sexual pleasure Tumblety engaged in needed to be more clandestine than what occurred in back alleys in the East End.

Therefore, the logical conclusion seems to be that his sexual proclivities would have taken place in the West End.

Therefore, the point I was making, which no one seems to really care about, is that Tumblety, as a result of this logical pattern of deductive analysis, would have not only been a visitor to the West End of London, but also a figure that was well known in that same region.

The reason why I state that Tumblety would have been a well known figure is an obvious deduction from what is known about Tumblety's character.

[How Brown]

Therefore, the point I was making, which no one seems to really care about---Stan

I care...and I agree with you.

I don't believe the hoopla about Tumbelty being a misogynist-in-practice. There's a lotta misogynistic men in the world who don't go so far as to rip up females in the streets or backyards of the U.K. or U.S. Even fewer of these misogynists are gay men,which Tumbelty definitely was.

I agree that Tumbelty would have been more at home exclusively in the West End...unless there's a male brothel we haven't heard of in the East End and that he may have....may have...frequented.

For me...and this is just me...even with the Littlechild Letter alluding to Tumbelty in the manner that it does....the motive ( misogyny ) is pretty weak if at all credible.

[Donald Souden]

Howard,

unless there's a male brothel we haven't heard of in the East End

Hmmm, it would be quite strange if among the large East End population there were not a number of pederasts. Now, a brothel might stretch it, but it would be surprising if there was not a street or whatever in the area that was known as the place to pick up a rent boy al fresco so to speak. Just as the female prostitutes tended to gather in certain areas. So it is possible Tumblety got satisfaction in the East End.

Don.

[John Savage]

Hi Stan,

I agree with you that Tumbelty would have been well known in the west end, indeed I think he would have been well known all most anywhere he went. But anyone visiting a brothel or any other place for illicit homosexual pleasure would surely have been as discreet as possible?

Re-reading the information in Stewart Evans book it seems that Tumbelty and the others involved were scheduled to appear at the Central Criminal Court for the session commencing 10th. December 1888. I believe that Old Bailey records are slowly being published on line, and if so perhaps we shall one day be able to read what happened to the co-accused.

Rgds
John

[Joe Chetcuti]

This may or may not fit in with the discussion, but here it comes anyway!

The taunting remarks Tumblety made during his January 1889 interview about how he is a frequenter of the finest London clubs was no "news bulletin" at all. I've had numerous articles published over the years that stated that this Ripper suspect was not only connected to the West End, but that he had infiltrated at least one Pall Mall club. It has been my contention that the heart of the Whitechapel Mysteries loudly beats in the West End. A Knighted Parliament Member drew this very same conclusion within 24 hours after the George Yard murder. I'd say that Colonel Hughes-Hallett was accurate with his statement:

(The Ripper) must be found at his home, in his club, in the fashionable thoroughfares of the West End.

It's important not to cling to any concept that suggests: "Since Tumblety was associated with the West End, then he would have been out of his environment in Whitechapel, thus he would not have been capable of committing these killings."

During his interview Tumblety admitted that he would "go about (London) a great deal until every part of it became familiar to me." He mingled in the slums after nightfall all of his life. I remember finding and posting this comment from the Nov 22, 1888 Chicago Tribune:

(Tumblety) liked the slums, notwithstanding the fact that he always had plenty of money, and could have entered, if he had been inclined, into good society."

The doctor would not have been disoriented at all while walking through the slums of Whitechapel.

Hughes-Hallett had taken an understandable approach on Aug 8, 1888....If you want to try to catch the Ripper in the act, then go to the East End slums with a loaded revolver. But if you want to find the base of his operation, you'll need to expand your search to the West End. Specifically, the Colonel mentioned the West End apartments as well as a Pall Mall club. The Colonel declared that the Ripper would embark from a West End club around midnight to commence his nocturnal revel.


John,

I never read anything about charges having been brought against Doughty, Brice, Fisher, and Crowley. Instead, each man was treated as a victim of Tumblety's assaults which took place on four different dates. I suppose it's possible that a deal could have been made with these guys. You know..."We won't press charges against you four if you guys agree to testify against Tumblety. He is the man we want convicted." Good luck in trying to obtain the old court records. That would be super to see.

[Stan Russo]

Joe,

With all due respect - if it is your contention that the "heart of the Whitechapel Mysteries (sic) loudly beats in the West End", then put something together - a hypothesis at the minimum.

I, for one, would love to hear what you have to say - but on the other hand, I'm also getting weary of hearing the same old thing over and over again.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

Is it known how old were the 'victims' of Dr T's acts of gross indecency in London?

They may have been considered victims on account of their youth, if they were under, say 21, or 18. Dr T was way past his prime, it must be remembered.

I suspect Dr T would have been well up for sampling a cross-section of the London goodies on offer - at all points of the compass. Many men, gay and straight, enjoy illicit sex with strangers just because it's illicit sex with strangers.

Dr T almost certainly liked to think of himself as a bit of a celeb too - and therefore quite a 'catch'. The jocular phrase "I've had him", used a lot in today's gay circles, springs to mind. In man-on-woman terms, think Hugh Grant and you get the picture. :eek:

Love,

Caz
X

[jmenges]

Hi Caz,

The 4 were considered victims since the wording "with force and arms" was contained in the charges. This of course means that the victims did not consent to the act (edit- or claimed they did not consent to the act), otherwise they would have been charged along with T.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 does not make a distinction when it comes to the age of the parties involved in the "Outrages on decency". It simply states "any male person", which includes both adults and children.

The ages of the men involved with Tumblety has not been discovered, as far as I know.

JM

[Chris G.]

Hi Howard

I accept your story about the apparent strangeness of your old coach's choice to have an all-male party and that this was similar to such gatherings that Tumblety apparently held, both men, your coach and Dr T, being gay. I would though point out that for an older generation sports official, to have an all-male gathering might not be so odd, the sport itself being all male, and also that plenty of organizations were then and still are all-male as well.

I have just finished a four-year project writing the Bicentennial history of the St. Andrew's (Scottish) Society of Baltimore, and when they were founded in 1806 and to this day they remain all-male with many of their meetings being all-stag affairs although they also hold family events as well where wives and girlfriends attend.

Your thought about the story about Tumblety's wife is also feasible that it was a "cover story" for him to some extent. One thing that I do find it interesting though is to relate the story of Tumblety's wife to the story of D'Onston's wife. Both of them had wives "in the past" that disappeared or faded away. Could D'Onston also have been homosexual? He had females in his circle such as Mabel Collins and Vittoria Cremers but there seems to have been no real evidence of any heterosexual affairs after that early wife whom he may or may not have murdered -- and about whom information remains unclear. :tsk:

Chris

[A.P. Wolf]

Hey Joe
are you not taking this quote out of its context?

'(Tumblety) liked the slums, notwithstanding the fact that he always had plenty of money, and could have entered, if he had been inclined, into good society."

For did not Tumblety hand out flour and other goods to the slum dwellers as an act of charity?
And thus well establish his customer base for his pimple lotion.
He wasn't slumming. He was profiteering.

[A.P. Wolf]

And I just thought when I read this account from The Times of October 1st 1888 that this could well have been Tumblety:

'
Last night, shortly before midnight, a man, whose name has not yet transpired, was arrested in the Borough on suspicion of being the perpetrator of the murders in the East-end. Yesterday morning a tall dark man wearing an American hat entered a lodging-house in Union-street known as Albert-chambers. He stayed there throughout the day, and his peculiar manner drew upon him the attention of his fellow lodgers. Certain observations which he made regarding the topic of the day aroused their suspicions. He attracted the notice of the deputy keeper of the lodging-house, whose suspicions became so strong that he sent for a policeman. On the arrival of the officer the stranger was questioned as to his recent wanderings, but he could give no intelligible account of them, though he said he had spent the previous night on Blackfriars-bridge. He was conveyed to Stones-end Police-station, Blackman-street, Borough. '

[Joe Chetcuti]

Chris Scott to the rescue!!

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/17822.html (http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/17822.html)


Yes A.P. when he distributed the flour in Buffalo, NY he was doing it for his self-promotion.

[jmenges]

Hi Joe,

I saw that earlier, and another list here

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1101&page=3&highlight=brice

in which 6 possible Arthur Brice are listed.

The problem with saying with certainty that any of these fellows are our "victims" is that Chris limited his search to those who fell into a specific age group (early 20's) based on the idea that Tumblety favored young men, thereby excluding all others sharing the name who were not in their late-teens or early twenties.

How long would the list of Arthur Brice's be if the search was widened to include those up to age 35?

All the best,

JM

[How Brown]

Dear C.G.

Your thought about the story about Tumblety's wife is also feasible that it was a "cover story" for him to some extent. One thing that I do find it interesting though is to relate the story of Tumblety's wife to the story of D'Onston's wife. Both of them had wives "in the past" that disappeared or faded away. Could D'Onston also have been homosexual? He had females in his circle such as Mabel Collins and Vittoria Cremers but there seems to have been no real evidence of any heterosexual affairs after that early wife whom he may or may not have murdered -- and about whom information remains unclear.

With all due respect Chris...I think and again this is just my opinion...that we know Donston was married and heterosexual...and unless there is a duplicate Anne Stephenson from the same town and the same age and same occupation as the one Nina found who died in 1896...she died from coal gas inhalation, then it is up to the element in our field that have this agenda to make Donston more sinister to disprove that fact. I agree that its also a myth that Donston and Collins were lovers...since when Cremers came to visit them in Southsea in 1890, the two "lovebirds" were living in separate dwellings some distance apart....

In addition, this mythology that Melvin Harris and his protege have created about Donston's wife being murdered have permeated the field unnecessarily.

Just because Harris hinted at and his protege declares emphatically that Donston's wife "may have been murdered" is propagandizing....when in fact they might as well have claimed she swam the English Channel to France to get away from Donston. We cannot prove a negative and to label Donston as a potential wife-murder is pure propaganda and intentionally misleading everyone in this field and outside of it just to push his less than weak status as a "suspect".

Back to Tumbelty....

Tumbelty's love letters to Hall Caine prove he was gay or at least in love with this individual who happened to be a man.

Lets look at what Tumbelty did ( in the article that R.J. found ) when he was interviewed by that New York paper...

Back in a bit...

[A.P. Wolf]

'Lets look at what Tumbelty did ( in the article that R.J. found ) when he was interviewed by that New York paper...'

I think what you mean to say, How, is that in the article that RJ found and then sat on for months so he could publish it in some obscure rag, and meanwhile I published it on this site before his rag came out, surely?

And I still think that Tumblety was bi-sexual.
How many gay abortionists do you know?

[A.P. Wolf]

Anyone know what this is?

'
From The Sunday Times
October 24, 2004





'The next time he reappears in the written record is in 1872 as a London police officer. By 1883 he had been invited to join the Special Irish Branch set up to foil Fenian, and later anarchist, bomb plots in Britain.
His most famous exploits included the foiling of an assassination attempt on Queen Victoria. Known as the Jubilee Plot of 1887, it was an attempted bomb attack by Irish republicans while the Queen sat in Westminster Abbey.
Melville also collared the man many believe to be Jack the Ripper. Francis Tumblety, a doctor from New York, had skipped bail on sex offence charges and Melville nabbed him while on port watch for the Special Branch in Le Havre.
To Melville’s anger, the French authorities insisted on letting Tumblety go as Melville did not have the paperwork to make an arrest there. Tumblety escaped to America, and later lived in at least two cities where Ripper-style murders were committed.

[A.P. Wolf]

Must have been a close call then:

'
In 1882 he was chosen to be one of the founding members of the Special Irish Branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Branch) that was founded to work against Fenians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenians) and anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist). Melville was posted to the Le Havre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Havre) port.
In December 1888 Melville returned to London and assigned to protect the Shah of Persia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_of_Persia) in his state visit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_visit).'

[Joe Chetcuti]

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4924/13690.html (http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4924/13690.html)

We spoke about this Melville topic for a little while a few years ago. I still have the paperwork on this. I didn't think much of it, but I'm willing to listen and learn!

[John Savage]

Hi Jmenges

"The 4 were considered victims since the wording "with force and arms"

I must admit that this is something that I was unaware of, and perhaps I shall need to rethink my opinions of this gross indecency that Tumblety was involved in. The first thing that occurs to me is that the use of force would make matters much more serious, and in our modern world would probably lead to a charge of male rape. It could also explain why bail was set at an unusually high figure.

Can you tell me where this "force of arms" comes from, as I would like to read up on this.

Rgds
John

[A.P. Wolf]

Hey Joe, if one considers the close relationship - handcuffs if you please - between the fraudster Houdini and Melville, then it is not that hard to imagine such a relationship between the famous Indian Herb Doctor and Melville... is it?
Goose for the gander and all that.

[jmenges]

Hi Jmenges

"The 4 were considered victims since the wording "with force and arms"

I must admit that this is something that I was unaware of, and perhaps I shall need to rethink my opinions of this gross indecency that Tumblety was involved in. The first thing that occurs to me is that the use of force would make matters much more serious, and in our modern world would probably lead to a charge of male rape. It could also explain why bail was set at an unusually high figure.

Can you tell me where this "force of arms" comes from, as I would like to read up on this.

Rgds
John

Hi John,

According to SPE's book on Tumblety (American pbk ed. p.270-271 Addendum Part 2) Andy Aliffe's research at the PRO, Chancery Lane revealed that each of the four gross indecency charges contained the words "with Force and Arms", followed by four more charges, one for each offense, of 'unlawfully and indecently did make an indecent assault'.

Grey Hunter's post here http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1101&page=2 further describes how this wording turned the 4 men from probable sex contractors into assault victims.

A great problem that is not usually considered is the fact that Section 11 of the 1885 Act was looked upon as a 'blackmailer's charter.' The offence was so private that usually the only witness was the injured party. And there was rarely an injured party, for the acts usually took place between consenting males, thus the four 'victims' in Tumblety's case (probably Post Office boys or the 'rent-boys' of the day) stood to be charged with the same offence! It is for this reason, I think, that the charges against Tumblety in all four cases contain the wording 'with Force and Arms', indicating that Tumblety made them commit the offence. In this way the police could use the four as witnesses against Tumblety without prosecuting them, they could claim he forced them to do it. That he did actually force them is rather questionable, as he was probably paying them. It does rather raise the question as to how far the police may have been 'bending' the facts in order to charge Tumblety.

Further up in GH's post cited, he mentions that the charge of 'buggery' was not made, which seems to infer that the actions of Tumblety fell short of "male rape".

JM

[John Savage]

Hi JM,

Thanks for your fast responce and some information there that I was unaware of, and will need to digest.

Earlier in this thread there is a link to an incident of 1873, that states that Tumblety stayed at the Langham Hotel. There is a Langham Hotel in London today which is only two or three minutes walk from Marlborough Street magistrates court. I just checked thier website which says "The prestigious Langham Hotel, London (http://london.langhamhotels.com/accom/Central_London_Hotels.htm) opened in 1865 as England, and Europe’s first Grand Hotel."

I wonder if Tumblety could have been staying at the same place in 1888?

Rgds
John

[jmenges]

I wonder if Tumblety could have been staying at the same place in 1888?

In 1888 he lodged in Batty Street...

:scared:


JM

[How Brown]

"You are accused of being a woman-hater. What have you to say to that?"


This seemed to amuse the doctor a great deal. He laughed loud and long.

Then he said.

"I don't care to talk about the ladies, but I will show you one little evidence that I am not regarded with aversion by the sex. I will first explain how it came to me. I had received a letter of introduction to a lady of rank, a duchess, who was then at Torquey, which is several hundred miles from London. I presented my letter and was invited to breakfast with her. When I came I presented her with a bouquet of flowers and she picked up a quill which was lying on the table near by and dashed off the following stanzas extempore:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip_tumblety_talks.html (http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip_tumblety_talks.html)
*******************************



Tumbelty consents to the interview with the New York World and if one reads this interview in its entirety...one sees that Tumbelty isn't too troubled by the efforts of the British constabulary...but bothered enough to bring along a poem written by the "lady of rank" to dispell the myth that he was a "woman hater" or misogynist.

If you or I were under suspicion for the WM...I know that I would take these charges seriously enough to counter them in sober fashion and not attempt to make fools out of the British police. By Tumbelty's actions and how he downplayed...and he doesn't avoid discussing the charges...the WM charges and yet brings along this poem and shares it with the readership....it appears ( to me,once more...) that he is more concerned with the perception that he is a misogynist/woman hater and went so far as to bring along what he considered "evidence" to the contrary in the form of this little ode to his personage.

Could Tumbelty have had someone who knew him fairly intimately pass along the same sort of story he told Colonel Dunham or perhaps some other explanation as to why he avoided the fairer sex and it become something that he wanted to live down for once and for all? Could it also be an attempt to skim over his homosexuality by presenting "evidence" that he was comfortable in the company of women and they with him? Remember we're talking about 1889 here....

Tumbelty,among all the other things he was,was a businessman. Obviously,being considered a woman hater is pretty bad for business.

I find it more than coincidental that of all the things Tumbelty could have brought to this interview....he brings or rather whips out this poem the second the Interviewer asks him.."You are accused of being a woman hater...what do you have to say to that?".

This brings up the matter of whether or not this interview could have been staged. It almost seems rehearsed that the interviewer is immediately shown this poem.

Mr. Evans has stated on Casebook:

"Tumblety did not go to the press with this story. Tumblety was in hiding at the time and it was the press that found him, thus he was unable to avoid an interview."

Unless he had a gun to his head,Tumbelty didn't necessarily have to acquiesce to any interview. In fact,by the tone of this interview....he seems to have wanted to engage in dialogue over the issues at large and in particular,the reputation that he had or was gaining as a woman hater....which he was uncannily quick in countering.

Perhaps uncannily quick because he and the interviewer had rehearsed it. Just a thought.

How about you folks? Any ideas?

[Joe Chetcuti]

Yes Howard you're correct. I've said right from the start that it was a staged interview. Tumblety was in complete control over it. No questions were allowed to be asked about any of Conover's allegations that were featured in the Dec 2nd NY World.

* No questions about who bailed Tumblety out of jail in London.
* No questions about who is sponsor and seconder were in the West End clubs he frequented.
* No questions about Brice, Fisher, Doughty, and Crowley.
* No questions about his history of peddling porn or having been an abortionist.
* No questions about who is legal council was in London.
* No questions about where his lodgings were or of his whereabouts on the nights of the murders.

The only questions that were allowed to be asked usually were for the purpose of providing Tumblety an opportunity to employ his mockery. A question was asked which allowed him to chide the English police. A misogynist question was asked which allowed him to recite a sarcastic Torquay tale about a Duchess who died during the Autumn of Terror, and how Tumblety had bestowed flowers upon her.

I feel that the doctor spoke of his involvement with the West End clubs to let his English tormentors know that the Pall Mall name will be shamed if they try to mess with him.

But pertaining to the misogynist issue, just look at how the doctor fed the flames of controversy. It sure looks to me that Tumblety coached Martin McGarry before his protege made his speech to the NY World on Dec 4th. It was here where McGarry stated,

"(Tumblety) always disliked women very much. He used to say to me 'Martin, no women for me.' He could not bear to have them near him. He thought all women were impostors, and he often said that all the trouble in this world was caused by women."

Did Tumblety purposely raise the misogynist issue to the NY World through Martin McGarry just so he can deny the misogynist allegations in the NY World a few months later?

Whew! I've talked enough these past few days. I'm taking a few weeks off! Keep going strong you guys.

[Chris G.]

I wonder if Tumblety could have been staying at the same place in 1888?

Rgds
John



In 1888 he lodged in Batty Street...

:scared:


JM

How do we know that he lodged in Batty Street other than Gainey and Evans hypothesizing that he did so???

Chris

[jmenges]

How do we know that he lodged in Batty Street other than Gainey and Evans hypothesizing that he did so???

Chris

We don't know that he lodged Batty Street, I was just trying to respond to John with a little joke. I do love "Lodger" discussions though.

JM

[Chris G.]

We don't know that he lodged Batty Street, I was just trying to respond to John with a little joke. I do love "Lodger" discussions though.

JM

Thanks for clarifying what you meant, JM.

Dr. T might well have been "Batty" -- but whether he was ever in Batty Street is another question entirely. :yo:

Chris

[Robert Linford]

Given Tumblety's unfailing instinct for publicity, I am surprised that he didn't fasten on the murders as soon as they became hot news, and put forward his own suggestions for snaring the killer. At the very least he could have tried to sell the women some kind of protection or repellent - not exactly "banish disembowelment with Dr T's pimple cream" but you get the idea.

Robert

[SirRobertAnderson]

Tumbelty,among all the other things he was,was a businessman. Obviously,being considered a woman hater is pretty bad for business.

I find it more than coincidental that of all the things Tumbelty could have brought to this interview....he brings or rather whips out this poem the second the Interviewer asks him.."You are accused of being a woman hater...what do you have to say to that?".

This brings up the matter of whether or not this interview could have been staged. It almost seems rehearsed that the interviewer is immediately shown this poem.

Mr. Evans has stated on [B]Casebook:

"Tumblety did not go to the press with this story. Tumblety was in hiding at the time and it was the press that found him, thus he was unable to avoid an interview."




The interview reads like an infomercial, How.

[Chris G.]

Given Tumblety's unfailing instinct for publicity, I am surprised that he didn't fasten on the murders as soon as they became hot news, and put forward his own suggestions for snaring the killer. At the very least he could have tried to sell the women some kind of protection or repellent - not exactly "banish disembowelment with Dr T's pimple cream" but you get the idea.

Robert

Hi Robert, Sir Bob, How, Joe, JM, etc

Actually, as Joe has shown a number of times, one of Tumblety's party pieces or specialties was playing "the injured party" so it would have been very much in his nature to offer not advice on how to catch the killer but to use his arrest to portray himself as being "wronged" for being put under suspicion for the murders. The Whitechapel murders were, I believe, thus "good for business" for him in that respect. Once more, as with his arrest following Lincoln's assassination and with other episodes that involved him, he used something that had personally occurred to him for personal gain by posing as the aggrieved party.

Chris

[Spiro]

I think that Chris G and jmenges miss the point. It is not that Tumblety can or cannot be proved to have resided in Batty Street that is at issue. But that there was a strong indication of a Batty Street inquiry that had perhaps involved an American suspect which is of some ongoing interest.

[jmenges]

I think that Chris G and jmenges miss the point. It is not that Tumblety can or cannot be proved to have resided in Batty Street that is at issue. But that there was a strong indication of a Batty Street inquiry that had perhaps involved an American suspect which is of some ongoing interest.

Hi Spiro,

Saying that I miss the point of the Batty street issue fails to take into account that Batty St. was mentioned by me as a joke to an inquiry as to whether T stayed at the Langham in 1888. The Batty Street lodger was never an issue, nor was I trying to make any particular point.

that being said, I agree with your last comment as it should be obvious to all that there is ongoing interest in a possible American suspect in Batty Street, I said as much when I revealed my "love" of that topic.

JM

[jmenges]

No questions were allowed to be asked about any of Conover's allegations that were featured in the Dec 2nd NY World.

But pertaining to the misogynist issue, just look at how the doctor fed the flames of controversy. It sure looks to me that Tumblety coached Martin McGarry before his protege made his speech to the NY World on Dec 4th.

This is all rather puzzling.

The reporter, by asking him if he is a woman-hater, gives Tumblety an open door to attack not only McGarry (whom Joe seems to think is in cahoots with T) but also, and more importantly IMO, Conover, who not only leveled the most bizarre allegations concerning his relationship with women (or rather their reproductive organs) but who probably was the man responsible for Tumblety's imprisonment in the Lincoln conspiracy.

Tumblety had already in print attacked Conover over the Old Capitol Prison incident, which may have led Conover to tell these tales about Tumblety 30+ years later. Ever since Tumblety's arrest in the Lincoln assassination there has been this back and forth between him and Conover.

Why did Tumblety not expose Conover for what he was?
Why not attack him when the opportunity arose and disparage the source of the charges?
Was T afraid to bring up the Lincoln matter since it would shed unfavorable light upon his character? Cause the readership to second guess?
But why not if, as Chris says, he enjoyed playing the part of the injured party? There is a single man injuring Tumblety across 30 years, and Tumblety makes no attempt to point this out.

I have my own opinion as to why this is, but does anyone else have ideas?

And Joe: If it appears to you that McGarry was in collusion with T to discredit his character, only so T can later refute the charges, then for what reason does the same not hold true for Conover? Or maybe in your opinion it does?

JM

[A.P. Wolf]

Looking at Melville's relationship with the French government, I am surprised that he was not able to move on Tumblety, that's if Tumblety was a serious suspect in the Whitechapel Murders, for at exactly the same period Melville was heavily involved in the extradition of 'infernals' from London back to France for the Paris bombings of the period... which would seem to indicate there was some kind of extradition treaty betwen the two nations at that time.
Melville was not a man to be trifled with, once pouncing on an 'infernal' at Waterloo Station, where the chap drew his gun and fired, as they rolled across the platform in a desperate struggle - much to the astonishment of the commuters attempting to board their trains - and in another incident was shot at four times as he wrestled the 'infernals' into submission.
He was a big, powerful man who brooked no notice, and I reckon he employed Tumblety over those years... and they had a little chat in Le Havre.
He liked magic, and Tumblety had plenty of that.

[jmenges]

Hi AP,

Do we have any source for this story besides the Cook book? I've tried emaling the author but the address I found for him was out-of-date. It would be nice to read some solid information (or at least the section of the book itself) rather than rely on what little detail is contained in a book review. I'll try to get the book and we'll see if this detention is properly sourced.

For what it's worth, this author is the same one who claimed that Rasputin was killed by the British Intelligence Service. Edit- And he wrote the book on Prince Eddy http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prince-Eddy-Britain-Revealing-History/dp/0752434101

JM

[Joe Chetcuti]

Grrrr....I posted my good-bye yesterday, my luggage is in my car, I'm all set to take off to Santa Cruz California for a two-week vacation, a no-computer vacation no less...but I just couldn't resist clicking into this thread one last time before driving off! Doggone it, now I've got JM asking me a series of good questions that I can't leave hanging for two weeks!

I hope your infant son gives you a 3am wake up call tomorrow morning, JM!! :baby:

Just kidding, buddy. I'll do this quickly, then I'm hitting southbound Highway One to paradise. When I pointed out that no questions were asked during the interview concerning Conover's allegations against Tumblety, the allegations I was referring to was:

* The doctor's "uteri jars" collection.
* Tumblety's previous "marriage" to a prostitute.
* Tumblety's history of mailing anonymous letters to Government officials.
* The Canterbury Music Hall masquerade story

None of these subjects were brought up by the NY World reporter during the interview even though the NY World printed up these allegations in their Dec 2nd issue via Conover.

JM brings up a good question as to why Tumblety didn't retaliate against Conover right then and there in the NY World interview. We can only guess as to why. Tumblety could have been saving his response as a trump card in the eventuality that he would someday face charges for the WC murders. That's not a bad sounding defense:

"The man who accuses me of being a uteri collector, an anonymous letter writer, etc. is in fact an ex-con himself. Colonel Dunham is none other than Sanford Conover, a former convicted perjurer."

No need to waste a defense like that in a NY interview. Save it as a trump card in case there is a future trial.

Do you get the feeling that Tumblety and Conover knew a lot of dirt about each other? They previously spoke disparagingly about each other in print, and I bet they had a lot more to say about one another. But for whatever reason in late January 1889, Tumblety felt that now wasn't the right time to re-ignite that war.

Old Joe is now heading for the Coconut Grove at Santa Cruz Beach. Desi Arnaz, Tex Beneke, Guy Lombardo, yup all the greats once brought their bands into that classic venue to perform. That famous ballroom is calling me! If I only knew how to dance, I'd have a really great time.

Joe

[A.P. Wolf]

JM, I have two degrees of hesitation here with the story of Melville's arrest of Tumblety.
The first is that I do not believe the French authorities would have stood in the way of a request from Melville to extradite a dangerous fugitive from France back to England, especially if that fugitive had 'infernal' connections, or had been a murderer.
Of course if the fugitive concerned had merely committed a 'misdemeanour' then yes, the scenario is plausible... but that must be matched with the idea that Tumblety may well have been a police informer working for Melville.
This would not have been unusual given Melville's unusual style of policing.
My second degree of hesitation is based on the information that Melville left Le Havre in early December 1888 to concern himself with the visit of the Shah of Persia to London at that time, but I don't believe the Shah of Persia visited London in 1888 at all.
I believe he was detained in Paris at the time.
I'll try and track down some more reference to this.

[A.P. Wolf]

The following, taken from 'Dramatic Days at the Old Bailey' by Charles Kingston, 1923, just scratches at a little more detail on this. I'd like to know more about Patrick Quinn.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/mel2.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/mel3.jpg

[A.P. Wolf]

The Irish press made much of the Cook-Melville-Tumblety story, but I was interested to find the following qualifying in the Irish Examiner:

'Mr Cook’s book inspired the exhibition. For the book, he was given access to secret MI5 files that will never be released. '

Now that could just be a truth.

[jmenges]

Hi AP, et al,

I'm having the University interlibrary loan the Cook-book for me. It could be a week or so but when it arrrives I'll transcribe the relevent passages here.

I have two degrees of hesitation here with the story of Melville's arrest of Tumblety.
The first is that I do not believe the French authorities would have stood in the way of a request from Melville to extradite a dangerous fugitive from France back to England, especially if that fugitive had 'infernal' connections, or had been a murderer.

Neither do I.

Of course if the fugitive concerned had merely committed a 'misdemeanour' then yes, the scenario is plausible... but that must be matched with the idea that Tumblety may well have been a police informer working for Melville.
This would not have been unusual given Melville's unusual style of policing.

Melville does not stike me as someone who would take "No" for an answer when it came to apprehending a fleeing and wanted criminal, regardless of the severity of the current charges. Especially if more serious allegations had been leveled against them. As far as Tumblety being a police informer for Melville, I doubt that, but if you would care to expand on your reasoning I'll hear you out.

My second degree of hesitation is based on the information that Melville left Le Havre in early December 1888 to concern himself with the visit of the Shah of Persia to London at that time, but I don't believe the Shah of Persia visited London in 1888 at all.
I believe he was detained in Paris at the time.

Let me know what you find on this. I'll reserve final judgement on Mr. Cook's tale until I've read the book, but I'll say from what I've read about him and his other works, he does seem to have a reputation for forcing together mismatched puzzle pieces (the Rasputin allegation), and stretchy historical revisionism/interpretation (the Prince Eddy book).

If I come to find that his evidence of Melville's detention of Tumblety came from "top secret MI5 files never-before-seen except by the author" then I'll be sorely disappointed and more than a little suspect.

edit- (note your article above calls him "Walter" and not "William". Walter Melville was the name of a popular stage actor and playwright from the early 20th century)

Take care,

JM

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks,JM, be interested to see what turns up in Cook's book.
I think the Irish Examiner article well worth following up as it concerns an exhibition that was held in Melville's home town about his police work, and there could be a few gems hidden amongst that material.
Like you I don't think Melville would have let Tumblety slip through his fingers, if there were really serious charges held against him.
Regarding some sort of relationship between Tumblety and Melville, I am merely struck by the extraordinary relationship that Melville and Houdini enjoyed, with much talk about Houdini being in fact a police spy in the pocket of Melville... and then that Melville seemed to enjoy the company of fraudsters, especially those who seemed adept at escaping the long arm of the law.
This would also offer an explanation for Tumblety's relative ease in escaping the avid attention of Scotland Yard, and his consequent easy passage out of Le Havre.

[Chris G.]

Thanks,JM, be interested to see what turns up in Cook's book.
I think the Irish Examiner article well worth following up as it concerns an exhibition that was held in Melville's home town about his police work, and there could be a few gems hidden amongst that material.
Like you I don't think Melville would have let Tumblety slip through his fingers, if there were really serious charges held against him.
Regarding some sort of relationship between Tumblety and Melville, I am merely struck by the extraordinary relationship that Melville and Houdini enjoyed, with much talk about Houdini being in fact a police spy in the pocket of Melville... and then that Melville seemed to enjoy the company of fraudsters, especially those who seemed adept at escaping the long arm of the law.
This would also offer an explanation for Tumblety's relative ease in escaping the avid attention of Scotland Yard, and his consequent easy passage out of Le Havre.

Hi, Bolks

I may be missing something here. I thought I saw AP posted a page or so from the Cook book, or did I imagine that? Can someone point me to a post where the Cook book and the arrest of Tumblety by Melville is discussed?

Thanks in advance

Chris

[jmenges]

Hi Chris, AP

What AP posted back on page 3 of this thread was from a review of the book by Andrew Cook. The entirety of which can be read here

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/ireland/article498310.ece

Here is an article by Andrew Cook describing Melville's supposed recruitment of Houdini (containing a passing reference to Littlechild).

http://www.britannica.com/magazine/print?query=Houdini%2C%2BHarry&id=1&minGrade=&maxGrade=

There is a new book out many of you have probably heard of claiming Houdini was recruited by Melville as a secret agent The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America’s First Superhero. Many critics are pointing out that at the time that this book has Houdini working for Melville in Germany (1900), Melivlle's job was in homegrown counter-insurgency, not foregin military intelligence.

So, I gather from what I've read Melville's recruitment of Houdini as an active agent is still in the realm of speculation based on non-specific diary entries by Melvile.

But, if we wish to stretch this out into the realm of IMO complete fantastical speculation to ask, if Melville did recruit Houdini as a foregin spy and therefore could have recruited Tumblety(since they were both showmen of sorts...but Tumblety not anywhere near the status of Houdini), would we think that Tumblety was recruited as a inside-the-UK spy? Or working as a British agent for work inside the US and Canada? And then Melville let him go at Le Havre purposefully?

As much as I may believe that Tumblety could have been an agent/courier for the Confederacy in the early 1860's (who had connections with the British Govt., it musy be remembered), for him to have retained that low-level spy status with the British government all the way up to 1888 is, for me, way too out there. Especilly if based on the shakey Melville/Houdini evidence.

JM

[Chris G.]

Hi JM

Many thanks for this useful information which better puts me into the picture. It looks as if Cook is claiming Melville tried to nab Tumblety for the Ripper murders in Le Havre, presumably after he jumped bail in London -- or else he has the Tumblety story mixed up.

The so-called "Ripper murders" in U.S. cities sounds mixed up too....Cook may be referring to Carrie Brown in New York, of course, since Dr T was in Brooklyn, maybe also the Austin, Texas, murders etc, though there is no evidence Tumblety had any connection to the crimes in either city. It also sounds as if the Houdini connection, per the review, may stretch no further than as the reviewer says, the agents learning escape techniques from Houdini, rather than that Houdini was an agent.

I wonder if our ace genealogists can come up with information on Melville's residences and information on his time as a London policeman when he did his disappearing act in Ireland and popped up as a bobby. :rolleyes:

All the best

Chris

[A.P. Wolf]

It's unfortunate that the only records I can find relating to Melville's - and Quinn's - involvement with such things are much later than 1888.
One faintly amusing report comes from 1899 where DI Quinn of Scotland Yard is presented with a pair of brass candlesticks by Queen Victoria at Balmoral.
One hopes he had somewhere suitable to put them.

But I think this report from September 17th 1896, from of all places, the 'Butte Weekly Miner', does provide a unique insight into what was going on at the time, especially in regard to relations between France and Britain:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/quinn2.jpg

[A.P. Wolf]

This is a photo from the opening of 'Spymaster', the story of Melville's life, check out the image on the wall directly above the woman in the pink top... that is Tumblety isn't it?

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/spymaster1.jpg

[Chris G.]

This is a photo from the opening of 'Spymaster', the story of Melville's life, check out the image on the wall directly above the woman in the pink top... that is Tumblety isn't it?

Is it Tumblety or is it Littlechild? The image does not seem to correspond with the images of Tumblety that I know.

Chris

[jmenges]

Hi all,

Andrew Cook's source for Melville apprehending Tumblety at Le Havre are "anecdotal accounts from within the (Melville) family".

More specifically, according to the notes, "Melville's eldest son, William, gave a number of talks on Radio Station 2YA, New Zealand, commencing 24 August 1937. Melville's involvement in the Ripper episode was one of his anecdotes."

The rest of his Tumblety account is entirely sourced from Evans/Gainey, warts, specimens and all, with Cook himself stepping in to make a couple of pretty big errors.

I'm awaiting word from management on whether I should (or can) post the revelent pages from the book M: MI5's First Spymaster here on the thread.

And AP, I believe the photo you spotted above is of Sergeant Patrick McIntyre, not a new image of Tumblety, as Mr. Cook reprints the wellknown image of T in the quasi-military uniform and giant mustache.

JM

[jmenges]

Here it is...I hope it's large enough to read.

From M:MI5's First Spymaster by Andrew Cook, Tempus Pub. 2004

http://img107.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/09/04/m72-47pzj1qdd.jpg
http://img104.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/09/04/m73-47pzj1qml.jpg
http://img103.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/09/04/m74-47pzj1qvb.jpg
http://img107.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/09/04/m75-47pzj1r0v.jpg
http://img103.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/09/04/m76-47pzj1r6h.jpg
http://img106.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/09/04/mnotes-47pzj1re9.jpg
The Three endnotes missing are 29 Quoted Evans and Gainey,ibid,p.225; 30 Evans and Gainey,ibid,p.228 et seq; 31 Evans and Gainey, ibid.

JM

[Chris G.]

Thanks, JM. It seems the writer makes a number of bloopers. One being that Littlechild wrote his letter to Sims in 1912 and not 1913 as was the case, another being that Tumblety used the name "Booth" at the time of the Civil War. The latter seems to be a garbled version of the story of Tumblety's use of the name Blackburn. It would also appear to me that the whole discussion of Tumblety is to fill out the book with a few sensational pages, since Cook evidently has not used official documentation that Melville was involved in the pursuit of Tumblety but rather bases putting Dr T in the book, as he admits, based on family "anecdotal" information that Melville was so involved. Rather unsatisfactory. I can't speak for the story that Tumblety might have been the Dr. Williams who bought the knives for the Phoenix Park murders but that might be a stretch as well. Certainly the idea that Tumblety went to Central America and committed murders there in January 1889 (in which Cook is following what Evans and Gainey stated in their book) is uproven.

Chris

[jmenges]

Thanks Chris,

And what about this line from the last paragraph:

"Macnaghten, in a report produced in 1894, believed that the murderer had fled to America and there died in a lunatic asylum;"

This obviously refers to the 1894 report refuting the Sun article. As we know, Macnaghten didn't say this at all. His suspect drowned in the Thames.

???????

JM

[Chris G.]

Thanks Chris,

And what about this line from the last paragraph:

"Macnaghten, in a report produced in 1894, believed that the murderer had fled to America and there died in a lunatic asylum;"

This obviously refers to the 1894 report refuting the Sun article. As we know, Macnaghten didn't say this at all. His suspect drowned in the Thames.

???????

JM

Hi JM

Quite correct. Mr Cook has obviously garbled his information there yet again. All of this a very good lesson why not to trust secondary sources but double-check the primary sources! Thanks, JM.

Chris

[jmenges]

The New Zealand radio broadcast would be interesting, but possibly difficult, to trace. The author is unclear whether this supposed broadcast by William Jr. (born July 3, 1883) still exists. He has the date of the broadcasts' series beginning, but I wonder if the subject matter is verifiable from a source outside his family.

I would be remiss if I didnt thank AP Wolf for bringing this to our attention, and adding another book on my to read pile.

JM

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks JM, there is much in what you posted to ponder.
Got more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese, but still of great interest.

[A.P. Wolf]

JM, it might be worth sending the tv and radio presenter, Phillip Schofield, an e-mail,as he was in his youth a presenter on various New Zealand radio stations - including the major one - and then later went on to play JtR in a theatrical production of 'The Lodger'.
Could be what you are looking for.

[Chris G.]

Thanks JM, there is much in what you posted to ponder.
Got more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese, but still of great interest.

Well, yes, maybe. Although when an author has a line of argument so hokumed up with misinformation, one has to wonder about the value of it.

All the best

Chris

[aspallek]

Hi all,
And AP, I believe the photo you spotted above is of Sergeant Patrick McIntyre, not a new image of Tumblety, as Mr. Cook reprints the wellknown image of T in the quasi-military uniform and giant mustache.
JM

It looks rather like a well-known photo of John Wilkes Booth but I am sure it is not.

[jmenges]

This has not received any reaction on the thread over at casebook, which devolved into a bunch of name-calling (including me being accused of belonging to some sort of Norder/Vanderlinden cabal :twitch:).

But it turns out that the supposed radio broadcast cited in the Andrew Cook book never took place. At least not on the date and station claimed, nor any time for one month afterwards.

Here is the email I received yesterday...

24 January 2008

S.AR.002.001.020-v49

Dear Jonathon Menges

Your email to the Alexander Turnbull Library of 18 January 2008 asked for information about a talk, which was part of a series, given by William Melville on 24 August 1937 on Station 2YA.

A search of the 'Radio record' for that date and all the following weeks up to 24 September 1937, (which was the last date on the microfilm reel), did not find any listing of, or reference to, the series of talks. Nor did William Melville's name appear. There was no mention of a British spymaster.

I am happy to send you photocopies of the pages for 24 August 1937, but before I do that, would you confirm that the date is correct.

Yours sincerely

Mary Cobeldick (Mrs)
Librarian
Research Centre
Alexander Turnbull Library

***
I have emailed Mary back confirming that that was the date claimed, and as soon as I receive the photocopies of the 'Radio Record' I will scan and post it here.

JM

[A.P. Wolf]

Radio Ga-Ga then, JM?

[jmenges]

Not quite yet, AP.

I'll try to have the librarian check a few other years in case it could be a misprint.

It will be interesting to see what actually was broadcasted on this station, at this date in 1937. Maybe a chuckle or two can be had...

I thanked you on the casebook for being the first to bring this account to our attention, so I thank you here again, Sir.

JM

[Joe Chetcuti]

Hello JM,

Welcome back from your California vacation. I'm sorry that you missed our California Gold Rush by almost 160 years, but it was still good to have you around here anyway. :thumb:

Back on post #28 I mentioned that I still have the paperwork on the Melville matter. And I added, "I didn't think much of it, but I'm willing to listen and learn."

Well I have been listening to what you've been saying lately JM, and I'm learning right along with you. Thanks for sharing your New Zealand research with us. You take a good approach to this and I agree with the decisions you're making.

[A.P. Wolf]

I'd like to see you disagree on them, Joe.

[Joe Chetcuti]

A.P. why do I get the feeling that you're somebody's little baby brother? :rolleyes:

[A.P. Wolf]

As I said, JM, no worries, always my pleasure to wound doves.
As much as I love 'em.
Surely it is possible to find out whether William Melville Jnr, was ever in New Zealand in 1937?
If he was then I think we should tread very carefully.

[A.P. Wolf]

And JM, I fear there might well be even more doubt concerning whether or not Melville was ever in France in 1888 - let alone Le Havre.
In 'A Gallery of Rogues', London 1924, Kingston devotes an entire chapter to Melville, and he seems to be at great odds with what Mishter Cooke says about Melville's career.
As a for instance, Kingston maintains that Melville actually left Scotland Yard due to poor health in 1903, and then went immediately on to become a private detective, only joining the 'secret service' at the start of WW1 when he was stationed in Le Havre to keep a weather eye out for Johnny Foreigner.
Kingston also mentions Melvilles role in protecting the Czar when he visited England, which does seem to have been in December of 1888 after all.
This is cutting things with a very sharp blade indeed.
But it also appears that Kingston implies that Melville was only in Le Havre in the very early days of his career, this is from page 217:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/great1.jpg

[A.P. Wolf]

And check this out from Cook.
This sounds and reads just like what happened to Tumblety.
Oh my gosh!
Melville used Indian Herbalists.

'In early 1896, for example, we find him establishing Rosenblum & Company at 9 Bury Court in the City of London. Ostensibly a consultant chemist, it would appear that in reality, much of his work centred on the manufacture and distribution of patent medicines. Within six months he had succeeded in being admitted to the Chemical Society as a fellow, and nine months later was admitted to the Institute of Chemistry. But as popular and lucrative as cure-all patent medicines were in the 1890s, they failed to generate the kind of money to which Rosenblum's lifestyle aspired. According to police records, it would seem that he was soon supplementing his income by acting as an informer. Scotland Yard's Special Branch, being particularly keen to keep a close eye on the cocktail of revolutionary radicals and anarchists it perceived sheltered within the Russian émigré community, found Rosenblum a valuable commodity.
Within the next three years, he provided information on a number of people and organisations, including the Society of Friends of Russia Freedom, which police believed was essentially a front organisation channelling funds and propaganda to revolutionaries in Russia itself.
In 1898 he moved Rosenblum & Company to Imperial Chambers, Cursitor Street, changing its name in the process to the Ozone Preparations Company. Because Rosenblum's activities lay more in the field of patent medicine peddling than in the more professional field of consultancy work, he relied almost totally on advertising his miracle cures to the gullible. However, since 1893 the Institute of Chemistry had taken a strong line against its members advertising - a contentious issue among its membership, a number of whom dissented from this ruling. Not wishing to court expulsion from such a prestigious body and thus losing his status as a fellow, Rosenblum concocted a scheme that would enable him to continue advertising unhindered, while at the same time retaining his membership.
By changing the name of the business from his own to that of a corporate trading identity he concealed his connection with the business. By moving premises he also covered the tracks of Rosenblum & Company, making it difficult for anyone to draw a connection between the two enterprises. Although the accommodation at Cursitor Street was somewhat restrictive, space was not a major consideration because he was not actually manufacturing the bulk of the products himself, but buying from drug manufacturers and selling on the re-packaged potions to customers. It is also more than possible that the move helped in avoiding the come-back of dissatisfied customers looking for refunds, which must have been an occupational hazard for those in the patent medicine racket.
About the time Rosenblum moved to Imperial Chambers, a racket of a more ambitious kind had recently been uncovered in the Russian capital of St Petersburg. Counterfeit roubles of such quality that they were almost indistinguishable from the real thing, were coming to light in the western provinces of the Russian Empire, and were causing great concern to the Russian Finance Ministry. It soon became evident that these were coming into circulation from abroad, and the Imperial Russian Secret Police (the Ochrana) were therefore called in to investigate.
On 17 April 1899, Petr Rachkovsky, chief of the Paris Ochrana, wrote to William Melville, the head of Scotland Yard's Special Branch, seeking information concerning named individuals residing in London who were 'without any doubt' involved in the rouble-counterfeiting ring.
Rosenblum's name was not initially connected with the investigation, but emerged when attention turned to how the forged money was being shipped out of the country. Once Rosenblum's role was uncovered, Melville would have had good grounds to fear that his connection with Scotland Yard might prove a severe embarrassment if discovered by the Ochrana. The safest thing all round would clearly be for Rosenblum to leave the country post-haste with Melville's assistance. With a new passport in the name of Sidney George Reilly, Rosenblum and his wife were thus able to leave the country in June 1899, and head for probably the last place the Ochrana would think of looking for them - Russia. It would not be the first, or indeed the last time that he would disappear just as the net was tightening around him.
Four years later in 1903 it was Melville's turn to disappear from the public eye. Resigning suddenly from Scotland Yard without any apparent reason, speculation was rife at the time as to why he had done so. It was not until 1997 that files released to the Public Record Office revealed that Melville had in fact been recruited to Military Intelligence in 1904 and played an important part in the organisation that ultimately became known as MI5. Operating under the codename 'M', Melville had evidently not forgotten Reilly, and used his nefarious skills to great effect during the course of his first assignment in the south of France. '

[A.P. Wolf]

And I think this one shows where Cook got his idea from.
But I still advise caution, as I have found a review site where it is stated that Cook did indeed have access to Melville's diary, and he could be playing with a card under the table.
What fun!

'
As the 100th anniversary of the death of Queen Victoria approaches,
Sunday Herald, The (http://www.jtrforums.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156), Jan 14, 2001 (http://www.jtrforums.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20010114) by Kenny Kemp (http://www.jtrforums.com/p/search?tb=art&qa=Kenny+Kemp)
.When the burly Glasgow police burst into the Victoria Hotel in West George Street late one Saturday evening after a tip-off, they had little idea they were about to thwart one of the most audacious assassination bids ever contrived.
Archie Carmichael, a lieutenant in the Glasgow Police, and Sergeant Macguire of the Irish Constabulary moved swiftly after acting on instructions sent by telegram from Scotland Yard in London.
They arrested an American hotel-owner, who had signed the register as Edward Bell. This was no ordinary American tourist Bell was on a mission to kill Queen Victoria and Nicholas II, the Tsar of all Russia, as they enjoyed a family holiday at Balmoral.
It is a fantastic story which shocked Victorian Britain but has been long forgotten. As the 100th anniversary of Victoria's death approaches on January 22, the remaining pieces of the jigsaw have fallen into place to reveal how a Scotland Yard inspector foiled the assassination after a police operation in Chicago and New York.
It started five days before the Tsar was due to leave for Scotland, when an undercover police officer infiltrated an ultra- left revolutionary cell which had organised secret camps near Chicago to train terrorists for extremist militant republican groups in Ireland.
The "plant" tipped off Scotland Yard that a party of four, known as the Dynamitards, were planning to assassinate Queen Victoria as she welcomed her beloved and beautiful grand-daughter Tsarina Alexandra, her husband Tsar Nicholas and their new daughter. The Dynamitards had landed in southern France, made their way to Antwerp, and were now actively preparing for a rendezvous somewhere in Scotland. Ironically, the Tsar's visit had been diverted to Scotland because the British government believed it was too dangerous for him to go to London.
Acting on the information, French police seized Patrick Tynan - an Irish-American alleged to be the notorious leader of the Dublin Invincible Conspiracy - at the Hotel de Folkestone in Boulogne as he was preparing to cross the Channel.
The organisation had committed the Phoenix Park murders 14 years earlier, when Lord Frederick Cavendish, the new Irish chief secretary and a London appointee, and his under-secretary were stabbed to death. After the murders Tynan and his accomplices had slipped away to new lives and identities in the United States.
After his Boulogne arrest, Tynan was held at the Channel Port Hotel until Scotland Yard's real life Sherlock Holmes, Chief Detective Inspector William Melville, arrived to arrest him. Tynan was said to be carrying a forged note which declared he was a special envoy of Queen Victoria and was authorised to deliver a letter to the Tsar in person.
Another two members of the Dynamitards, John Kearney and Tom Haines, had been rumbled buying deadly hardware in Antwerp and were under surveillance by Melville's officers. When Melville's men swooped on a small house in Rue de Champs in the Berchem suburb of Antwerp they uncovered an amazing bomb-making factory. There were brass devices and detonators, large wooden tubs containing iced water and pailfuls of nitric acid and carbuoys of vitriol (sulphuric acid), with bottles of glyercine prepared and ready to mix for bombs 800 times greater than gunpowder.
Kearney and Haines were held briefly by British agents but, in an amazing blunder, they were released when they complained to the Dutch authorities that they were being badly treated. In the confusion which followed they were able to bolt back to the United States on the first available steam ship. Melville was, understandably, furious.
That left the fourth member of the plot - Bell, whose real name was Edward Ivory - in Glasgow, looking up some Irish Scots friends in an effort to prepare the way for the assassination. He scoured some of the pubs but found most of the likely helpers befuddled with drink. Bell was a 26-year-old bar owner from New York City. He lived at 2011 Lexington Avenue, a popular drinking establishment for the Irish near Harlem. It was in the back room of this gas-lit bar that the assassination plot was hatched.
His foray into Scotland ended with his arrest at the Victoria Hotel. When Archie Carmichael rummaged through Bell's hotel room and luggage he found he had #160, an alarmingly large amount of money at the time, and a number of documents, including telegrams from his US accomplices. Unshaven and ashen-faced, Bell was brought before the criminal police court in Glasgow on September 16, 1896. Later that day the prisoner was taken to Bow Street Court in London, where he was charged with conspiring with others to commit outrage using dynamite in Britain.
Bell's case went to the Old Bailey but the prosecution struggled to conclusively prove Bell's involvement with bombmaking. Certainly Bell was seen in Antwerp with the others but he steadfastly claimed he knew nothing about the bombs.
The whole affair threatened to spark a major diplomatic incident between Britain and the US. A high-powered Irish-American member of the US Bar Association was called in to defend Bell. '

[A.P. Wolf]

Anyone notice the same?

'
Melville also arrested the man many believed to be Jack the Ripper. Francis Tumblety, a doctor from New York, had skipped bail on sex charges and Melville caught him at Le Havre while on port watch for Special Branch.
To his fury, the French authorities allowed Tumblety to go free because of the lack of official paperwork and the doctor made it back to the United States.'

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks AP.While it looks like Tumblety could have been involved these reports they dont entirely concur with what I have read about the events.But it interested me that there was a reference to a "doctor" providing instructions to Callan and Harkins who were both Clan na Gael members from Philadelphia.The instructions concerned the Jubilee Plot and dynamite transfer.As I recall Joseph Moroney [alias Joseph Melville-no relation to William[!] was in charge of the "operation" he was ofcourse a leading Clan-na-Gael Sullivanite but no doctor as far as I know.But there was a "Dr Cronin",who was murdered on Sullivan"s orders because he had accused Sullivan of fraud.Sullivan and Moroney were later [1889] accused by a coroners jury in Chicago of complicity in the muder of Dr Cronin.
Finally there is Dr Tumblety! Could he have been mixed up with any of these Philadelphia/New York/Chicago, " Clan na Gael" members?Some of those mentioned undoubtedly had connections with "the Invincibles", the faction alleged to have carried out the murders.Those that hadnt been caught and hanged had fled to America.It is believed the surgical amputation knives that were used in the assassinations of 1882 were bought in a specialist shop off Oxford St which sold 12 of these enormously expensive knives to a man posing as Dr Hamilton Williams in 1881......
Natalie

[jmenges]

Surely it is possible to find out whether William Melville Jnr, was ever in New Zealand in 1937?
If he was then I think we should tread very carefully.

Hi AP, and thanks for all of the above info.

Something tells me that the author Andrew Cook did place Melville, Jr. in New Zealand at the right time, but I'll have to re-order the book thru the library in order to double check. Then, I'll also find out what the book says of Melville Snr. in France, and I'll draw up what he claims is the general outline of his career. It'll be a few days...

Obviously, what is to be completely trusted in the Cook account is of paramount importance when I use him as a source, and I'm sure we'll all keep that in mind.

On the subject of the author's credibility, though, I have emailed his publisher in order to get in contact with this author. I'll post here anything that comes of that effort.

Take care,

JM

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Natalie & JM
The interesting possibility that this information seems to lead to, is that it appears entirely probable that someone in authority aided and abetted Tumblety in his flight from England, to France, a new identity and America.
We now know that Melville did this sort of thing, so...?
Whatever, it does seem to me that Cook might be slow roasting his own goose here with a confusion of sources.

[How Brown]

Outstanding effort, J.M. in pursuing this matter.:first:

[R.J.Palmer]

On the subject of the author's credibility, though, I have emailed his publisher in order to get in contact with this author. I'll post here anything that comes of that effort.

I've already done that sometime back, JM. He's not an easy man to get hold of. And by the way, nowhere did I ever say you were part of a Norder cabal, nor would I. I did mention you in the same breath, because the point you made was similar to Vanderlinden's. It's not worth rehashing, but my original point had been misinterpetated and misstated; until the onus was obviously being thrust on me to PROVE that Melville's son's memory was not hazy. I was merely pointing out that Cook's allegedly unreliability should no have been quickly transposed onto Melville's son. Sigh. Perhaps because I was fortunate enough to have had very lucid grandparents that I get a bit ruffled when a man in his early 50s (which was what William John Melville was in 1937) is implied to have been a dottering man with 'hazy' memories.

[R.J.Palmer]

Acting on the information, French police seized Patrick Tynan - an Irish-American alleged to be the notorious leader of the Dublin Invincible Conspiracy - at the Hotel de Folkestone in Boulogne as he was preparing to cross the Channel. The organisation had committed the Phoenix Park murders 14 years earlier, when Lord Frederick Cavendish, the new Irish chief secretary and a London appointee, and his under-secretary were stabbed to death. After the murders Tynan and his accomplices had slipped away to new lives and identities in the United States'


Let me just repeat my plea that someone on the UK end of things should really search the Folkestone papers for any further information on a man of 'gentlemanly exterior' who in early November, 1888 (?) checked into a lodging-house in Folkestone, and evidently had bloody clothing. Folkestone was, and is, one of the major ferry crossings to Bologne, and according to Littlechild, a city where Tumblety was briefly spotted.

Morning Advertiser, 27 November, 1888:

A strange story comes from Folkestone. About the date of "Jack the Ripper’s" earlier exploits, a man of gentlemanly exterior is said to have taken lodgings for a day or two in Sandgate-road. He alleged as an excuse for his brief visit that he merely wanted to rest on his way and get his clothes washed. These articles were sent to a laundress, who on opening the bundle found that they were saturated with blood. She at first was disposed to decline the work, but as she knew of no suspicious circumstances beyond the state of the articles, she washed the linen, sent it home, and the owner departed forthwith.

I find it particularly interesting that this story was leaked (or merely published) only 3 days after Tumblety's flight from Le Havre. The man, whoever he was, may have been lying low in Folkestone, and then decided to go a different route.

[A.P. Wolf]

So like he hadn't washed or changed his clothing from two weeks after killing Kelly, RJP?
Get a life.

[R.J.Palmer]

So like he hadn't washed or changed his clothing from two weeks after killing Kelly, RJP?
Get a life.


I don't understand your point, AP, but then, I often don't. Are you saying the man stood naked when he handed the washer woman his clothing? Or that he only owned one suit?

I suggest you re-read it more carefully.

The Morning Advertiser, if it can be believed, dates the event to earlier in the month--to the time of the murders. Maybe even October--it's rather vague. But it doesn't say a damned thing about the man having worn his clothes for weeks. It's stating that the event happened some weeks earlier.

Indeed, one of the more interesting aspects of the article is that it was old news. It wasn't released until November 27th. You don't suppose the coppers had any reason to be investigating Folkestone in late November, 1888, do you, when this story finally surfaced? Particularly since a certain Chief Inspector later made a point of mentioning a certain bloke had fled to Bologne?

Obviously, the story would need further corroboration, which is why I've been making an appeal for someone to research it further. Don't let it worry your dreams.

[Robert Linford]

RJ, are you linking this to the letter/postcard purporting to be from JTR, sent from Folkestone and received soon after the Kelly murder?

Robert

[R.J.Palmer]

Robert -- No, not really, but I have noticed the odd coincidence of that letter, and have wondered about it. The whole thing could be terribly garbled, admittedly, and perhaps it was even investigated and dismissed. We don't know. But I do find it interesting that something so obviously far away from the scene of the crimes is given a little air play, and may, potentially at least, be connected to events on the other side of the channel. I suppose the blood-stains will turn out to have been oil paints, and Sickert will have his day in court!

[Robert Linford]

RJ, I've emailed Folkestone archives, I'll see if I can get anything out of them.

[R.J.Palmer]

Well, I appreciate it. I did contact a bloke who did research at Colindale a year or two ago, to see if he would check the Folkestone Chronicle and Advertiser, and a couple of other journals, but if I remember correctly, he wanted half a day's pay at £18 an hour or some such fee. If I had Patricia Cornwell's research budget, I would have bit.

[R.J.Palmer]

AP -- It is curious that William Melville’s son James is listed in the 1901 UK census as having been born in France 1885/1886 if the family wasn’t really stationed there at the time. I guess when it came to counter-intelligence even the census takers had to be fooled.

UK 1901 Census

James Melville
Age:
15
Estimated Birth Year:
abt 1886
Relation:
Son
Father's Name:
William
Mother's Name:
Amelia
Gender:
Male
Where born:
France Gus Sub
Civil Parish:
Clapham
Ecclesiastical parish:
Holy Trinity
County/Island:
London
Country:
England


The following link might help you sort it out:


http://www.the-wood-family.org/Tom/Teaching/DissertationPart3.htm


“we have no information on how a young man from those environs happened to join London’s Metropolitan Police at the age of twenty, but Melville did so in 1872. By 1885, he was married and working for the Special Branch in France: son James, who would go on to serve as solicitor general in Ramsay MacDonald’s second Labour government in 1929-30, was born in Le Havre in April 1885.[33] Most likely, Melville was then taking part in a programme agreed between France and Britain that allowed British agents to keep watch over French ports in an effort to stem the trafficking of girls and women for prostitution. By 1887 [sic] he was back in London, and by the time the anarchist scare erupted in early 1892, Melville’s reputation was already on the rise. A French source in London sent an unsigned report (longer and more analytical than the usual agent reports, and, unusually, typewritten) to the Paris prefecture in May 1892 describing how indispensable Melville had proven himself to be as a liaison for continental regimes:


[L]’inspecteur Melville … n’a peut être pas l’admirable perspicacité de feu Williamson [former Special Branch chief Adolphus Williamson, who died in December 1889], mais … est un agent d’une grande expérience, très apprécié de la Reine…. [S]pécialement en ce qui concerne les réfugies russes aurait, s’il n’avait pas été à chaque instant empêche par ses chefs, rendu les plus grands services au gouvernement russe, dont la cause en cette question est intimement liée aux principes essentiels de toute société moderne. Melville est parfaitement au font des ramifications des anarchistes anglais avec les anarchistes étrangers, des complaisances des fabians, du patronage que les socialistes anglais même modérés accordent aux nihilistes, aux communistes, aux fénians et aux «*invincibles*» irlandais, aux irrédentistes italiens, aux démagogues allemands et autrichiens. Il n’y a pas une ambassade à Londres qui n’ait eu recours a lui, pas un diplomate tant soit peu exerce qui n’ait cherche a le connaître, et il est d’avis que l’anarchie anglaise, si elle est étouffée au berceau comme on vient de la faire, n’est pas dangereuse pour l’Angleterre. Il réserve son opinion en ce qui concernles pays étrangers.[34]

33. Biography of Sir James Melville by Archie Potts, in Joyce M. Bellamy and John Saville, eds., Dictionary of Labour Biography, vol. IX (London, 1993), pp. 213-215.

34. Report datelined London, 3 May 1892. A.P.P., B/A 1508, ‘Anarchistes en Angleterre jusqu’en 1893.’

[A.P. Wolf]

Good point, RJP, but 1886 or even 1887 ain't 1888, and your quote appears to have Melville based back in London by 1887.
I also agree that I should have responded better your machinations about the Folkestone business, and will dig about myself to see if I can find further information on this.
Believe it or not, I hope you do find proof positive that Melville was in Le Havre in late 1888.

[A.P. Wolf]

RJP, I think the report you cite from the 'Morning Advertiser' might well have more to do with Canon Baynes, the former vicar of Folkestone, who falling on hard times -presumably after lifting his frocks once too often - started to blag his way around the hotels of Folkestone in November of 1888, impressing the folks with his gentlemanly appearance, whilst ripping them off for his stay and services which must have included his washing.
I assume the blood would have been that of Christ?
Anyways he seems a good bet, brought to brook in late December of the same year in Oxford.
But there is always the chance that the poor chap you imagine to be Tumblety was one of the crew of the cross channel steamer between Folkestone and Boulogne, when one of the engineers fell into the machinery, was ripped apart and splattered his fellow workers with gore.
That actually happened in late 1888, and the crew would have to get their gear washed somewhere.
Hope this helps.

[Robert Linford]

RJ, I have received a reply from Folkestone Library. The local studies room is undergoing urgent repairs and they can't use it until the end of March. When it gets closer to the time, I'll ask them to do a free half hour search. After that there is a fee of £14 per half hour (!) so, unsurprisingly, the search will be discontinued at that point.

If I ever get to Colindale I will try to find something in the Folkestone papers.

Robert

[A.P. Wolf]

What happened there at Folkestone, Robert?
Did the almighty Nan Dorder park his mighty and weighty knowledge on one of their rickety chairs and then the whole lot plunged into the fiction section one floor below?

[Robert Linford]

Don't know, AP, but it looks as if it'll take a while to sort out. I figure that if it isn't in the Folkestone papers, then it won't be anywhere.

I'm just thinking that if renovation means a place gets closed, it's time Parliament had a good makeover - something lasting 50 years or so. With plenty of teabreaks for the workmen.

[jmenges]

For what it's worth, here is an email I received today saying I should expect the photocopies from New Zealand soon.

Mary Cobeldick to me
show details 3:49 PM (6 minutes ago)

Reply

29 January 2008

S.AR.002.001.020-v49

Dear Mr Menges

Your email of 25 January 2008 in reply to my email of 23 January 2008 provided the source for your statement that William Melville gave a series of talks on Radio 2YA, beginning on 24 August 1937.

Another look through 'Radio record' from 24 August to 24 September 1937, which is the last issue on the microfilm reel, did not find any mention of the talks or William Melville.

I will post some photocopies to you today. They include the cover, the contents page, and the page giving highlights of the week, for the weeks beginning 20 August to 24 September 1937. For 24 August I have included the day's programmes for the YA stations and the ZB stations. There is no charge for the research or the photocopies.

Also included are the programmes for 24 August 1937 as printed in the 'Evening post', one of the Wellington daily newspapers.

Please contact me again if you want more research done.

Yours sincerely

Mary Cobeldick
Librarian
Research Centre
Alexander Turnbull Library


JM

[John Savage]

Hi AP

I beleive that the library down there in Folkestone suffered a fire a while ago.

As Dan is not noted to be an arsonist, I think perhaps he may be absolved of blame for this one!

Rgds
John

[Dan Norder]

And by the way, nowhere did I ever say you were part of a Norder cabal, nor would I. I did mention you in the same breath, because the point you made was similar to Vanderlinden's. It's not worth rehashing, but my original point had been misinterpetated and misstated; until the onus was obviously being thrust on me to PROVE that Melville's son's memory was not hazy.

It's pretty desperate for RJ to continue to whine about Wolf portraying some recollections as "hazy" (all recollections are inherently hazy to some degree to begin with, but it seems like a logical conclusion when claims were made that contradict all known evidence that the memories were off) when it turns out that the supposed recollections appear to have never happened in the first place. So RJ was doggedly pushing that some wild story that turns out to very likely have been completely fabricated as if it were the truth and finds out that, once again, he was completely wrong and hopes to save face to telling people to be upset at Wolf for originally given the story the benefit of the doubt and only labeling it an error instead of the lie it looks like it was. I guess in RJ's world it's better to clutch desperately at every wild story from every unreliable source and insult anyone who doesn't buy into it whole heartedly than it is to point out that something is unlikely to be real in language that is more fair than there's any right to be considering the circumstances.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Back on post # 11 a good hint was given about how the West End of 1888 London would have been an alluring sector to those who were seeking a private homosexual atmosphere. I didn't publicly respond to that post last August because I was working on an article at that time which happened to study into this matter. I didn't want to end up blabbing the contents of my article prematurely on this thread, so I clammed up.

Well, the Rip article is out now, and it explored into what post #11 was driving at. If you were looking for a private homosexual setting in 1888 London, then certain West End clubs would have fulfilled this need. A literature critic named Elaine Showalter once wrote of "the shadow of homosexuality that surrounded clubland." The Pall Mall area would have been a conducive place for hosting men of financial means who sought out this type of an environment.

In author Barbara Belford's book, it was said how the Beefsteakers "...with their hearty male bonding created a homosocial world of masculine privilege in which women were used as pawns."

Tumblety claimed he was a frequenter amongst the Beefsteakers, and we can see how this private West End atmosphere would have appealed to him.

An idiotic comment was placed on the Internet recently which implied that my employment of this direct quote from Belford's book should somehow be construed as a 'glaring misuse' of the verse. Fortunately JM promptly admonished that moronic quip. You were great to work with as usual JM, and I really appreciate the way you quickly obtained for us the Belford book when it was needed.

[jmenges]

Hi Joe!

I guess in my reply over there I said it was Showalter, not Belford, who used the term homosocial. My mistake made in haste.

Oh well, the same applies in that anyone who cares to learn more about the environment at the Beefsteak Club can pick up the sources you mention in your article. Few will, I'm afraid, so folks will have to trust that your descriptions, based on your research, are accurate.

Congrats on the article, Joe. It was a good one.

JM

[Joe Chetcuti]

Thanks JM,

At times, the article was more demonstrative than how I usually write. But I intentionally wrote it in that manner to show the roller coaster rides of emotion and frustration that one may experience while conducting Whitechapel research. The entire Ripperologist issue was certainly well worth waiting a few extra days for. The Rip team should be commended for their work. Though you wouldn't get that impression if all you read was the lame critique that was recently posted.

[jmenges]

Here is some documentation sent from New Zealand concerning the programing on 24 August, 1937 Radio 2YA.

If you would like all 29 pages I received, containing 6 issues of the 'Radio Record' from the period dating 20 August-26 September 1937, I'd be happy to convert them into a pdf file and email it out.

From The Wellington Evening Post 24 August 1937
(look to the right under 'Broadcasting')

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-3/1159990/NZ1.jpg

From the Radio Record for the week beginning 20 August 1937. This is its entry for Radio 2YA, 24 August.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-3/1159990/NZRR1.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-3/1159990/NZRR2.jpg

So we can see that there is no mention of any broadcast featuring William Melville Jr's reminisces on the date and station claimed by Andrew Cook in his book M: MI5's First Spymaster.

JM

[jmenges]

Now that we've got the two Wolves here, if we could resurrect this topic of Andrew Cook's claims, Melville's doings and not-doings etc.

Many opinions I wished I had saved were expressed on the Casebook boards pre-crash and are now lost forever.

Please, if you gentlemen would do me the honor of returning to this subject or at least summarize your thoughts. I would appreciate it.

More research is about to be done in the way of checking other dates for this supposed broadcast and I'd like to be reminded of some opinions.

Thanks

JM

[How Brown]

Bump Up

Original post:
As always,nice work JM.

Hope all is well.

[jmenges]

Thanks, How.

Here are the missing jpegs from above.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2009-2/1334619/NZRR1.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2009-2/1334619/NZRR2.jpg

JM

[How Brown]

You're more than welcome and thanks for posting the jpegs once more.

HB

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Can anyone take a shot at why Tumblety wasn't arrested until 7th November for an offence committed on 27th July?

Also, if John Doughty [2nd November] brought the class-action against Tumblety, how did he know about the other three men?

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Simon:

You know...thats a question I had a while ago as I am sure this isn't the first time you've thought of that either. I wonder if SPE, being a former policeman, would know.

Wouldn't there be a statue of limitations on something like that ? Lets face it...it wasn't like Tumbelty robbed a bank or committed a crime with no statue of limitations. It wasn't a homosexual act with a child of 8 or 9 years old...or raping a woman...it was some male bonding 113 days prior to the day it was brought up to court...and unless there was tangible proof or a witness that Tumbelty did something on that order,wouldn't it just be hearsay ? Something's queer about this whole thing...

Thanks for bringing this up Simon. I'll be damned but I forgot how long the original charge was from the day he had to appear. Thats 16 weeks !!!