Tumbelty's Warrant & Kill Tally

[How Brown]

One of the arguments or concepts regarding Tumbelty that I have been wanting to start up....is that several of those who favor or have him high on the list of potential Rippers....seem to want to discard Mary Kelly from the list of victims attributable to the Ripper...not necessarily to make Tumbelty "fit"...but because of a few other factors.

Tumbelty, in this line of speculation, was not necessarily detained just prior to the Kelly murder and then engaging in that murder....but that he was the killer in the Nichols,Chapman and Eddowes cases. Tumbelty, theoretically, was possibly detained for some sort of complicity in these cases and did not,as the speculation proceeds, then go off an kill Kelly.

Whether or not this idea floats...my argument against Tumbelty would be that on August 31st, the same day as the Nichols murder, he was engaged in some male bonding with Arthur Brice.

In addition....I'd also like to know about the "warrant" which is mentioned on page 270 of "The First American Serial Killer"....the passage below is that quote:

" The fact that the court issued a warrant against him on the 14th would tie in with him being granted a police bail to that date".

Is this mere speculation or has this warrant ever been established as fact? I admit I should spend more time on Tumbelty.

Anyone have comments or an answer to the latter query?

[A.P. Wolf]

Wassup, How, you wanna start World War 3?
Ah yes, the warrant and bail question in regard to our dear old friend Tumblety. As you know we have debated this vexatious question back and forth for many a long and pleasurable hour; and despite the best endeavours of some pretty smart cookies to convince my good self that Tumblety was ever on police bail, or under warrant, I remain totally unconvinced that this is anything but wishful thinking on the part of those who would have it so.
I like to think of this particular question as representing what I'd happily call the 'Dream Time' of Ripperology, with people long after the event of which they have absolutely no knowledge, attempting to carve their convictions into wet mud which will never set.
Interpretation does not represent knowledge.
Evidence does, and that is sadly lacking in this regard.

[How Brown]

My dear A.P....Why if I wanted to start up WWIII, I'd simply ask why its okay to challenge the provenance of the Swanson Marginalia but not the Littlechild Letter......since the former has been deemed just as legitimate as the latter has.

But I won't.

What other views do you folks have on this issue?

[A.P. Wolf]

Well, How, I guess that might just do it.
As you know I was away when such sheenanigans took place, otherwise I would have certainly left my mark on that debate.
There are those who both misunderstand and misread my intentions and motives when I challenge documents which form the central core of their theory and speculation, and this is something that I have never understood, for if you base your theory and speculation on one single document, then basically that is all there is to challenge. And when I do this I do it with an honest intention, and that is to get at a simple truth.
Quite honestly, the bristling and fluffing of petticoats that occur from those concerned when I mount this type of challenge, are a direct threat and hindrance to honest and earnest debate.
My point of view is simplistic to the extreme, if someone publicly puts a document up to support a notion or theory then they must expect that document to be challenged, and that with some vim and vigour to boot.
It is simply not good enough to cry 'foul', and then hide the document behind such nonsense.
That is not what this about.
Personal reputation is now't when compared to historical accuracy, and I believe a serious researcher should have carte blanche to question any document in regard to its historical accuracy.

[How Brown]

Actually, A.P....I said that tongue in cheek, since you and I don't depend on anyone to do our thinking for us. Challenging the Swanson Marginalia ( the proposition that two different pencils were used for a starter...) is actually a good thing to me. Since I am not one of those individuals who believe in the Hove Identification as a step in the right direction towards a solution...and although I have great respect for those who do...I keep an open mind to that and occasionally entertain the notion that despite the conflicting data, maybe SRA was right.

In the end, its all to our benefit to challenge things to keep the blood flowing.

Back to this warrant problem.....

Anyone else have observations on this issue ?

[R.J.Palmer]

Hi Howard - Getting back to your original post on this thread. Now that the Ripperologist has (unfortunately) reprinted much of A.P. Wolf's bad interpretations in the guise of Ivor Edwards' latest article, perhaps this topic needs to be revisited.

The spirit is willing, but, alas, the flesh is weak. Particularly when so much of the same old misinformation is being repeated over and over, and so many of the viewers (as far as I can judge) don't even seem to bother to take the time to study the arguments. So let me pose an entirely selfish question: what do I get out of it?

I'm willing for you to call forth the spirits of Ivor Edwards and A.P. Wolf to this thread and 'have it out' with me in a structured debate. They can, in addition, call forth all the powers of the internet and whatever confederates they wish to drum-up.

On my side, it will be just little old me. The rules of engagement is that you find five objective viewers who will decide, when all is said and done, who is peddling the 'smoke and mirrors.'

But ah, what will the stakes be? How about a page long recantation in an upcoming copy of Ripperologist, admitting that the loser of this debate is 'full of it' in 36-point italic? Naw, that will never do. I don't honestly believe that Wolf and Edwards are the 'mea culpa' types.

[How Brown]

Rajah:

I sent the post you have placed before this one to Ivor 2 minutes ago.

I asked Ivor if he wanted to register in order to discuss it or send emails to me so I could place them here for your perusal and A.P.'s.



If anyone would wish to be one of the 5 judges of a proposed debate/discussion as Roger has proposed, by all means let me know.

[How Brown]

If this debate or discussion does materialize and I had my choice of judge(s), I'd "like" JMenges, Robert Mclaughlin, Tim Mosley, Debra Arif and Caz to participate....a mix of ladies and gents and all objective folks.

Just a thought.

[R.J.Palmer]

Howard - Thanks, but don't go out of your way, because I'd first need to be assurred that APW would be willing to retract any bad arguments, and he's already told me that the only thing he retracts is 'his telescope.' I take his word of it.

I do find it remarkably regrettable that the 'Rip' would give even a hint of a soapbox to Edwards' flimsy attempt at suggesting the Littlechild Letter is a forgery. Perhaps it is time to reprint the following comment by Stewart Evans:

“Littlechild letter is beyond question and has been well documented and the subject of a Channel 4 Secret History documentary. Before investing in a programme about this letter the TV company wanted proof that it was genuine and interviewed antiquarian dealer Eric Barton the original purchaser of the George R. Sims collection in which he found the Littlechild letter c. 1961. They then went further by having the letter extensively tested by the skilled document examiner Dr. Audrey Giles and the paper expert Peter Bower. Both declared it to be genuine.”


APW, who inspired Edwards' insipid suggestion, has never given a whiff of evidence that casts any doubt on Barton, Evans, Giles, or Bowers.

His entire argument has been based on an alleged anachronism in the Littlechld Letter where Littlechld refers to the date of the Thaw investigation, rather than the date of when the boy was whipped. This is nothing. It's a commonplace. I've yet to meet the man or woman who was convinced by this strange argument, and it might be recalled that AP started his odd and unconvincing campaign by arguing the boy in question was Fred Gump!!! It might as well have been Forrest Gump!! When this was shown not to be the case, he quickly changed tack.

It should also be recalled that AP later retracted his argument and admitted the Littlechild Letter was authentic (when he found other examples of Littlechild's typed correspondence) but then retracted his retraction. Oh brother. This left the viewer with the impression of a hasty commentator who is basing his opinons on whim rather than research.

I realize that the Rip is not responsible for the opinons of their contributors, but editors can and do decide what to print based on whether or not the general public might be deceived. If Edwards or AP Wolf can come up with some coherent arguement that casts doubt on an authenticated document they should be given air time. They didn't; they can't; and those particular points should have been removed to the round file.

In my humble opinon, as always.

[Dan Norder]

I'm not sure any arguing with Ivor and AP on one side and RJ on the other should be something where people are expected to pick a winner with the other side apologizing. Both sides are pretty extremist views and way outside what the evidence actually supports.

And, yes, the idea that the Littlechild Letter is a forgery is completely without basis and totally irresponsible.

[R.J.Palmer]

Norder - Is that a bolster in your holster or are you just happy to see me?

[Dan Norder]

And the funniest thing about you, RJ, is that you seem to honestly think that suddenly giving up on an argument you know you already lost to mention the word "bolster" in a lame joke gets you anywhere. Ah well... I guess it's the closest thing you have to actually admitting defeat.

[A.P. Wolf]

You know, RJP, it doesn't seem to matter how many times I say it, but you still don't listen. I'll say it again.
I am concerned with the historical accuracy of the Littlechild Letter - which I have found lacking in several regards - and I have been discussing this with you, and others for some considerable time now, and I welcome a continuation of that debate with anyone.
Especially you.

[How Brown]

Well...A.P., don't count on it coming from Ivor.

I extended a sincere gesture in offering him the chance to put up or shut up....and again,so everyone sees this...I felt he presented his case well.

Who cares what I think right? Lets see what Ivor thinks:


Howard,
Is Palmer thick or just plain stupid ? Firstly, it was not APW who inspired me as he suggests. Secondly, I have not stated the Littlechild letter is a forgery a point I might add that Chris George had to point out to Mosely who like Palmer rushed in head first like a fool…fools rush in as they say.

I do not like R.J.Palmer and find him insufferable to say the least. His post on your site which I just viewed terminated any possible contact between the two of us. He is so far up Stewart Evan’s backside one can’t tell where Stewart starts or Palmer ends. If Stewart Evans isn’t prepared to debate the subject with me then why should I be prepared to debate it with his insignificant pet cock roach Palmer ? I told you before I have my own website and my forums will be up and running again shortly so anyone who wishes to debate the matter with me can do so on jtrforums.co.uk. For the record like Ally and many others I know your game and all the trouble you tried to cause in the past….and still are trying to cause so don’t try insulting my intelligence. You can show a copy of this e-mail to that insidious cretin Palmer so he knows exactly where he stands with me.To be honest you must be quite mad to think that I would join a site operated by you and Mosely after what the pair of you have done in the past. Please do not contact me again. Ivor.

[How Brown]

Rajah:

In light of this wimp-out by Ivor ( what do you expect from a guy who is unwilling to even debate the very thing he makes money from in this field and can't back up the arguments he makes about "his" suspect ?), perhaps you would care to go another route here. I'm sorry, but I did try.

[admin tim]

Did I say that Ivor thought the LL to be a forgery somewhere? :tape:

[How Brown]

Timmers:

Of course you didn't....but that doesn't matter. Ivor says you said it and thats all that matters.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks How, for your efforts.
I understand of course that old feuds are very much a part of this strange little world we inhabit; and I understand that some of us might find it difficult to compromise, or forgive and forget, and then just get on with some brave new venture that makes us all shine a little better... instead of all that old tarnation.
We are in for a rapid sea change in the wind, in many regards, and you either sail with the wind or against it.
I would appeal to all concerned to forgive, forget and to stop treating some folk as if they are infallible gods and the documents they possess are somehow indisputable because of this.
They are not and they are not.

[How Brown]

A.P.

Thats a noble gesture ( The forgive and forget part...I forgive Ivor and I forgot him, believe me.... )....but in brief:

By the time he gets his website back to speed, this Tumbelty issue and his article will have plummeted down the memory hole. This refusal to debate or discuss on The Forums or elsewhere is a calculated move. What difference does it make where he discusses or debates his article with R.J. ? Thats right, it doesn't. He claimed he is "banned" from Casebook, but nevertheless felt compelled to ask someone to place a rebuttal to Mike Covell's factual work for him. He can do that here as well, I would accomodate him.

This is standard operating procedure for the old boy.

I know this gesture to have him appear was questioned even by Forums members, but I was sure he would do exactly what he did. And I was right.

I,for one,am used to his aversion to debate or discuss issues in an open manner.

Thats why I have asked Rajah if he would like to approach this in another fashion...maybe even cutting the article's author out completely and proceeding from there...with someone who agrees with his position debating in his stead.

Remember that this is a guy who schleps around on television documentaries belching out old myths about Stephenson to the civilian population....but runs and hides when Ripperologists want to confront his "work" and cash cow, the Donston Hoax.

Ask yourself, A.P....if someone wanted to discuss either negatively or positively, "Jack The Myth", would you turn into a turtle and avoid discussing it? Whats so different about you that doesn't prevent you from running away from real discussion ?

[Mike Covell]

"fools rush in as they say"

They certainly do Mr. Edwards, They certainly do!

[Paul]

I,for one,am used to his aversion to debate or discuss issues in an open manner.

Thats why I have asked Rajah if he would like to approach this in another fashion...maybe even cutting the article's author out completely and proceeding from there...with someone who agrees with his position debating in his stead.

Remember that this is a guy who schleps around on television documentaries belching out old myths about Stephenson to the civilian population....but runs and hides when Ripperologists want to confront his "work" and cash cow, the Donston Hoax.

Ask yourself, A.P....if someone wanted to discuss either negatively or positively, "Jack The Myth", would you turn into a turtle and avoid discussing it? Whats so different about you that doesn't prevent you from running away from real discussion ?

A small thought. Since Ripperologist is not an adjunct of any web site there is no reason why an author should discuss an article published therein on a message board or web site. Perhaps a letter or email to Ripperologist could be passed to the author and he could reply to it or not.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks How, obviously I cannot speak on behalf of Ivor when it comes to the actual article he has written, but I'm more than willing to discuss the points he raises, which as you know, do reflect much of my thinking on this risque subject anyway.
But that of course should be a historical discussion, and not one based on the cult of personality or other personal issues that some posters appear reluctant to shed.
Basically put, RJP must learn to sheath his sword and get on with history.

[How Brown]

Dear Mr. B:

Better yet, why not ask Ivor to participate in a discussion with me...mano a mano...over the Donston Hoax...for The Rip?

Or...I could write up something for the Rip and let Ivor discuss it afterwards...

He's already made a mistake on the thread on Casebook, "Stephenson AS A Suspect"...with his declaration that RDS stayed strictly in the Davies Ward. Its a shame he didn't ask Stephen to put more "stuff" up so the number of errors would increase.

Stephenson was in the Currie Ward when he wrote his letter to the police on October 16th, 1888...and Ivor as well as his mentor knew that.

Stephenson MAY have been sent to the Davies Ward later on ( some windfall perhaps from Stead )...but as Spiro Dimolianis proved in 2006, the word "Currie" had been written over and "Davies" substituted, indicating perhaps a switch of wards later on.

Or it was a mistake in the first place when RDS was admitted into the Currie Ward and someone wrote the wrong ward down.

I'm ready to jam, Mr. B...lets rock and roll.:playball:

[Shelley]

Hi, This thread is it about Tumbelty's arrest warrant about something to do with some sexual indecency with a girl or girls that were not adult/s but minor/s? and later he fled to the USA? and what is kill Tally? Anyone know? because i haven't heard of some of this.
Cheers
Shelley

[How Brown]

Shelley:

Actually, its about an article in Ripperologist Magazine that Ivor Edwards wrote...which was critical of the Tumbelty-as-Ripper theory.

Kill tally means simply how many people a serial killer murders ( since this site is devoted to discussing and arguing about a serial killer...or is it killers?).

At this time, there exists no evidence that Tumbelty sexually assaulted any females, much less murdered, and his offenses were committed on 4 males in 1888. One such sexual assault occurred on August 31st, 1888...the date of the murder of the first 'canonical', but not necessarily the first Ripper victim, Mary Ann Nichols.

[Shelley]

Hi,
How Brown, thanks for that i did think that Tumbelty was a homosexual, but i didn't know that about the 4 men ( well, i never...?!), i might have mixed up tumbelty with some other person and sexual assault on a girl or girls though.
Homosexuals as far as i know lean more towards the psychopath. JTR is more of the disorganised killer than the organised, so i can understand why people can disagree with Tumbelty as JTR, but some people have brought forward some good suspects on casebook.
Wow! he sexually assaulted a male on the 31st August 1888, i wonder if he may have been in police custody at the same time as the first canonical murder?
Cheers How Brown.

[Paul]

Dear Mr. B:

Better yet, why not ask Ivor to participate in a discussion with me...mano a mano...over the Donston Hoax...for The Rip?

Or...I could write up something for the Rip and let Ivor discuss it afterwards...

He's already made a mistake on the thread on Casebook, "Stephenson AS A Suspect"...with his declaration that RDS stayed strictly in the Davies Ward. Its a shame he didn't ask Stephen to put more "stuff" up so the number of errors would increase.

Stephenson was in the Currie Ward when he wrote his letter to the police on October 16th, 1888...and Ivor as well as his mentor knew that.

Stephenson MAY have been sent to the Davies Ward later on ( some windfall perhaps from Stead )...but as Spiro Dimolianis proved in 2006, the word "Currie" had been written over and "Davies" substituted, indicating perhaps a switch of wards later on.

Or it was a mistake in the first place when RDS was admitted into the Currie Ward and someone wrote the wrong ward down.

I'm ready to jam, Mr. B...lets rock and roll.:playball:

My point was that no contributor to Ripperologist is obliged to answer questions about articles therein that are posed on a website.

As for you and Ivor going 'mano on mano', I personally see no real advantage to the rest of us in a fight between the two of you. Why not simply write an article about Donston presenting the facts as you know believe or understand them to be, correcting the errors that have appeared in earlier work. Frankly, I'd love to see a solid, comrehensive account of Donston's life, so why not pen one for the Rip and if Ivor disagrees with what you write then he can write a letter or counter article?

Cheers
Paul

[How Brown]

Dear Mr. B:

Actually, it wouldn't have been a "fight"....I meant "mano a mano" in the sense of going head to head over the Donston Saga....hang on....yeah, you're right...it would have turned into a fight.:boxing:

I am just about ready to begin putting a Donston book together anyway. Let me try to put something together for the RIP over the weekend.

[jmenges]

Ivor:

"Strictly speaking, of course, credit for discovering the letter should go to Eric Barton, who was fully aware of its contents prior to selling it to Stewart Evans"

Eric Barton, in the 2006 documentary 'Jack the Ripper - The Whitechapel Murders':

"I gave very little attention to the letters which I had, and then I decided as I was going to close down, that I could get rid of a great many things, including these letters. I had no particular interest in the letters. I realized that everybody who had written about Jack the Ripper would receive masses of letters. Scotland Yard I believe destroyed thousands of letters. I had no reason to think that in these particular letters that I had there was any vital clue."

So, it appears that Eric Barton may not have been fully aware of the contents of the Littlechild letter after all.


JM

[jmenges]

In order to "discover" a historical document, one must have some inkling as to its significance. This does not appear to be the case with Mr. Barton and the Littlechild letter. It looks to me like Mr. Barton simply possessed the document, and Stewart Evans did the discovering.

JM

[How Brown]

Thanks as always JM...

One other misinterpretation within Ivor's article deals basically with the same issue.

Mr. Evans is quoted as saying..." I found the Littlechild letter naming a brand new suspect that nobody had ever heard of before..." ( On page 2 of Ripperologist # 88 ).

Ivor, and correct me if I am wrong here, JM....because Ivor won't respond...seems to be inferring that SPE, as you have previously pointed out, claims to have discovered the letter. As I mentioned to you before the last Rippercast program, thats not what he is saying at all.

All he was saying in this instance was that he, SPE, found a brand new suspect within the letter. Thats clear to me, at least.

I liked several sections of the article and sincerely wanted to get No Show Edwards to appear here to discuss those elements of the article. Alas, the Emporer has no balls and has opted to duck out of a decent discussion once more.

For Mr. Begg:

On second thought, Mr. B....I am going to wait a while until I get rolling with "the book" on Stephenson before I spend time on an article on Stephenson for The Rip. I have asked the last surviving member of The Lost Cause of Tautriadelta to answer a couple of easy questions on Stephen's site and will probably be collecting social security before he answers my simple questions.

Back to the thread...and thanks for getting the ball rolling here, Jon.

If SPE wanted to respond here, he is always welcome as well to do so.

[jmenges]

Thanks as always JM...

One other misinterpretation within Ivor's article deals basically with the same issue.

Mr. Evans is quoted as saying..." I found the Littlechild letter naming a brand new suspect that nobody had ever heard of before..." ( On page 2 of Ripperologist # 88 ).

Ivor, and correct me if I am wrong here, JM....because Ivor won't respond...seems to be inferring that SPE, as you have previously pointed out, claims to have discovered the letter. As I mentioned to you before the last Rippercast program, thats not what he is saying at all.

All he was saying in this instance was that he, SPE, found a brand new suspect within the letter. Thats clear to me, at least.

Hi Howard,

I honestly cannot find in my copy of the program Evans uttering the words Ivor Edwards quoted and sourced in the article.

"I found the Littlechild letter naming a brand new suspect that nobody had ever heard of before..." - The Whitechapel Murders, Jack the Ripper. Written and Presented by David Jessel. Produced and directed by Stephen White for Channel Four television.

What he does say on this subject of finding the letter is the following:

"It has been the dream of researchers to put a name to the unknown killer of the East End. We have found a leading police suspect, a prime police suspect."

and

Narrator: Evans went home to sort through Eric Barton's material for anything that would add to his own collection, but nothing prepared him for what he was to find in the Littlechild Letter.

SPE: "I was absolutely amazed to see a name in Littlechild's letter that I'd never seen before. Having researched the subject, read all the books for nearly 30 years. I couldn't believe I was reading the name of what was obviously a prime police suspect that nobody had ever heard of before."

So, either Ivor Edwards has an alternate or unedited version of the documentary than what I have; these words were spoken by SPE in a teaser for the television program that is not on my copy, or Ivor may have misquoted what was said by SPE in the broadcast.

JM

[A.P. Wolf]

JM, I struggle with the concept of anyone researching this subject for 30 years and not stumbling across a reference to Tumblety and the Whitechapel Murders in the American press.
And why is it that I can stumble across references in the English press almost 40 years later that indicate that Tumblety was indeed up before the beak on charges that might have migrated to murder?
But the original researchers missed 'em.

[jmenges]

Hi AP,

As you and I both know, the original researchers missed a lot of things, and often messed up what they didn't miss.

If you want to fault them for not looking everywhere, like in the American press 1888 (particularly the NYTimes) then that's fine by me. But when they had no point of reference, you shouldn't be at all surprised that researchers failed to find information contained in newspapers 40 years removed from the date of the murders.

Need I say what has been repeated time and again, that even as little as 5 years ago, what we can do at the click of a mouse took others time away from their jobs and family, and hours of physically combing through the pages of newspapers.

Things get missed by some, messed up by others, but then they also get unearthed, rediscovered and facts become corrected as time goes by. That's the whole point of being a part of a community of historical researchers.

JM

[A.P. Wolf]

Agreed, JM, but in the late 1980's when I came across an obscure reference to Thomas Cutbush in connection with the case - a dismissive reference I might add - I took the trouble to fly into London from foreign parts and spend the week at the British Library reading the 'Sun' reports from cover to cover in their original; which enabled me to lay the ground work for the 'Myth'.
I didn't first take that obscure reference and then publish a book around it.
I know onions can make you cry when you peel them, but by god they fry better.

[How Brown]

This just in from "Mr. Warmth" of Ripperology:


Brown,
Please put this up on your site on the Tumblety thread.
No balls to debate with you! don't flatter yourself Dumbo... that one had me falling off my chair laughing as did your comment about writing a book on D'Onston. You couldn't write a kid's book on Humpty Dumpty let alone JtR. Everytime in the past we have crossed swords you have ended up shooting yourself in the foot. Put what you have to state in Ripperologist (if only to make yourself look a fool yet again) or don't you have the guts ?. Stephen for whatever reason decided not to place a reply I sent you on Casebook and as i'm banned from the site I cannot post there. In future I do not intend to bother Stephen again.By the way in reply to J.M. I did not misquote Stewart Evan. I made it quite obvious a long time ago that I wanted nothing to do with either you or Mosely nor that propaganda site jtrforums.com. If one lays down with dogs one will catch fleas and you are one rabid, flea ridden dog as far as I am concerned. That is the REASON why I will have nothing to do with you...is that plain enough or are you that dumb you still can't grasp it ?

[How Brown]

Ivor:

Not afraid of debating me? What are you waiting for then daddio? Bring it on.

Answer the questions I provided over at Casebook at once or leave the field of Ripperology and go back to whatever you did before.

[How Brown]

Ivor:

After you pick yourself off the floor...and get situated, do the manly thing and lets debate the whole b.s. story of a guy that you and your mentor fluffed up knowing full well that he wasn't even a legitimate suspect after Dec. 26th, 1888.

Unless you want to live up to my expectation of you and wimp out like you always do.

Folks:

Sorry for diverting the thread...

Back to the Tumbelty issue !

[Shelley]

Hi Howard,

I honestly cannot find in my copy of the program Evans uttering the words Ivor Edwards quoted and sourced in the article.

"I found the Littlechild letter naming a brand new suspect that nobody had ever heard of before..." - The Whitechapel Murders, Jack the Ripper. Written and Presented by David Jessel. Produced and directed by Stephen White for Channel Four television.

What he does say on this subject of finding the letter is the following:

"It has been the dream of researchers to put a name to the unknown killer of the East End. We have found a leading police suspect, a prime police suspect."

and

Narrator: Evans went home to sort through Eric Barton's material for anything that would add to his own collection, but nothing prepared him for what he was to find in the Littlechild Letter.

SPE: "I was absolutely amazed to see a name in Littlechild's letter that I'd never seen before. Having researched the subject, read all the books for nearly 30 years. I couldn't believe I was reading the name of what was obviously a prime police suspect that nobody had ever heard of before."

So, either Ivor Edwards has an alternate or unedited version of the documentary than what I have; these words were spoken by SPE in a teaser for the television program that is not on my copy, or Ivor may have misquoted what was said by SPE in the broadcast.

JM

Just a little comment on the Littlechild letter, after finally reading a copy of it last week, the littlechild letter is stating that a possible mistake could have occurred ' as Dr D sounds like Dr T, it was written from an opinion, and Druitt was put down as a suspect but as far as i know not a ' prime suspect '.
Even though the Ripper killings have a disorganised ring of them, concerning psychotic murders and Dr Tumbelty clearly showed psychopathic behaviour, and not surprising from some information contained in Stewart's book about his childhood background. It is a possibility that the psychoses, autism , ( autism is a mild form of psychoses and has some close links with schizophrenia) can show psychopathic behaviour as there are a few similarities. So it would be possible, (but more of rare ) to have an autistic psychopathic personality, it can occur with injury and damage. Who knows? Stewart may be right after all. But all i can see is that Tumbelty had a preference for men. Oscar Wilde covered up his homosexuality with marriage, ended up in prison too for the crime of homosexuality, Tumbelty chose a male slave ( more expensive male slaves) and a slave he could treat anyway he liked even homosexuality and none would believe a slave, not over the word of a doctor. Besides, if americans found out that Tumbelty was a homosexual, they would have hung him from the nearest tree! Also the time line of the victorian period and present day forensics a consideration as well.

So, in defence of Stewart's book with Tumbelty as JTR......I think he has a very good suspect and a lot better than some other suspects mentioned.

Shelley

[A.P. Wolf]

'Besides, if americans found out that Tumbelty was a homosexual, they would have hung him from the nearest tree! '

My understanding is that Tumblety was very well hung indeed.

[How Brown]

$ 100 to the first person who can find the exact phrase Wimp Edwards claims Mr. Evans uttered.

If JMenges said it ain't there, it ain't there.

For Shelley:

The English have a great saying...."Its a bad cook that can't lick his own fingers..."

Ivor is the ONLY Ripperologist/author who runs and hides from simple questions addressed to declarations from within his own book.

For a guy whose suspec...whoops, excuse me, his once-highly-touted-but-now-ex-suspect, Donston is the biggest house of glass on the block, he of all people should not be throwing rocks at Casa Maybrick or Casa Tumbelty.

[jmenges]

If JMenges said it ain't there, it ain't there.


I played it safe and said that that phrase does not come out of SPE's mouth in my copy of the Channel 4 show. Evans has appeared in many programs and he may have said this, or something very close to this, in another television program.

JM

[Shelley]

$ 100 to the first person who can find the exact phrase Wimp Edwards claims Mr. Evans uttered.

If JMenges said it ain't there, it ain't there.

For Shelley:

The English have a great saying...."Its a bad cook that can't lick his own fingers..."

Ivor is the ONLY Ripperologist/author who runs and hides from simple questions addressed to declarations from within his own book.

For a guy whose suspec...whoops, excuse me, his once-highly-touted-but-now-ex-suspect, Donston is the biggest house of glass on the block, he of all people should not be throwing rocks at Casa Maybrick or Casa Tumbelty.
For How:
I thought a bad cook didn't have any fingers....He burnt them frying the salad !.....Or was it the DUMB waiter served the black chioplatas that day?!

I suspec it was the butler via the Rhino that done it...Good ole Rodders!

Didn't the pilgrims cross over with the maybrick? Or was it that the tax was so high on glass because the bricks kept breaking them?

Still i like the olde.....' a left-handed screw-driver, a glass hammer and a bucket of steam'.

But seriously, i haven't heard much of Ivor Edwards, i'm new here on the thread but i'm sure he's made a contribution, as has everyone else.

[How Brown]

But seriously, I haven't heard much of Ivor Edwards, I'm new here on the thread but I'm sure he's made a contribution, as has everyone else.

I'm gonna take this post to " The Donston Debate", Shelley...so you and I can have a chat,okay?

Back to Tumbelty..

[Shelley]

But seriously, I haven't heard much of Ivor Edwards, I'm new here on the thread but I'm sure he's made a contribution, as has everyone else.

I'm gonna take this post to " The Donston Debate", Shelley...so you and I can have a chat,okay?

Back to Tumbelty..

For How:
Thanks How, i'm sure i'd find it useful, any assistance and help is very considerate and nice. But i for one have made mistakes in the past, junting along, scrambling for info and it's something we all are good at at times, making mistakes, it's relatively human, but at the same time we can all come up with some jolly good stuff too. So, i'm sure with your help i will find some jolly good reading material, that i'll have a bit later on.
Cheers How,
Shelley