|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 9:47 am: | 
|
Caroline Morris
Here's a hint - it's the word "but" that makes it clear he was doubtful whether Tumblety committed suicide or not.
Obviously, Littlechild was saying he didn't know whether he had really committed suicide, but in any case the murders stopped after he left London.
This really isn't difficult.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2069
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
To me, 'doubtful' is a bit stronger than 'don't know either way'.
Littlechild gave Sims the information that it was believed Tumblety had committed suicide. It was a suggested explanation for the murders ceasing and the suspect never being heard of again.
Ok, try this:
It was believed he committed suicide, but known for certain that the murders stopped when he disappeared.
That in no way suggests an awareness that the belief might have been - or was - a mistaken one.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
If only you could learn the difference between objective facts and your own slanted interpretations, a lot less time would be wasted on these boards.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 26, 2005) |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 857
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Thanks for the advice, though I fear you are several years out of date with both of your concerns. It might be a good idea to do some homework yourself. One good way to kill two birds with one stone would be to subscribe to Ripper Notes. That way you could see the article you are criticizing and the newspaper references it provided, as well as also have a better idea of the respect that I (and the other regular contributors) have already been earned in the field. We didn't get named the #1 Ripper periodical by the Whitechapel Society 1888 Journal and the Casebook reader poll for nothing.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
I have been thinking about Tumblety's escape by boat. If he were suspected of being the Ripper,I think it is reasonable to assume that when he jumped bail that detectives would be sent to watch the pier. They would identify themselves as being from Scotland Yard and give the boat captains a description of Tumblety. Yet somehow he managed to get on board. I would have to think that this is the result of a bribe. Here is my point in all of this --- Unless the boat captain were a complete fool, he would have to realize that Tumblety was wanted by Scotland Yard for something quite serious. It was also right after Mary Kelly's death which was covered by all the newspapers. If he put two and two together, he would come to the conclusion that he could get a sizable amount of money out of Tumblety. If this scenario is correct, would Tumblety have been willing to pay a great deal of money just to beat a charge of homosexual activities?
c.d. |
Mikael
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Mike, other characteristics of Tumblety which would tend to work against him as a suspect: his presumed homosexuality, his height, and his extravagant character. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Harry,
Thank you for response to my post. I guess what I am trying to get at is how much importance should we put on the fact that someone was "arrested" in connection with this case.
c.d. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Dan N.-I’m not talking about Ripper Notes, nor am I responding to Mr. V’s article (which I have read, by the way) Yes; you’ve done a fine job with the magazine, and should be happy with the praise.
I’m responding to arguments and misleading claims that are placed on a public message board without citation or evidence.
“The press loved to cover him, and were already well used to trying to link him to great scandals of the day.”--Dan Norder.
Hmm. I ask again. Is it possible you’ve entirely misread the situation? Can you present any examples of the American press linking Tumblety to the “great scandals of the day” in the many years leading up to news of his Whitechapel arrest? All that press coverage came after-the-fact, Dan. You would have to go back 23 years to the Lincoln assassination, and EVEN THAT does not meet your criteria, because Tumbelty wasn’ “LINKED” to the ‘scandal” by the "press," he was genuinely arrested and sent to Old Capital Prison....the docmentation still exists in the National Archives, and the press reported this fact. What you're trying to imply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Let’s see if the claim that Tumblety’s "link" to the Whitechapel Murders being an American press invention also fails to hold up to scrutiny...
The following is the first mention of the arrest in an American newspaper. Note that this is coming not from a London correspondent. It is dated November 18, 1888. (NY World)
Please note that this London dispatch was a long article about ANOTHER SUSPECT ALTOGETHER, about a character of British Interest (Sir George Arthur) who was the actually the brunt of the article ... Tumblety is not even correctly identified! The name “Kumblety” is given in passing.
“LONDON< NOV 17.....[After Three paragraphs discussing “Sir George Arthur”, ]: “Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety [Sic] of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession..”
Oops.
How real of a "possibility" is it that the “story came first” and the “suspicions later” considering the fact that the initial report, doesn’t even show any indication that the LONDON correspondent knew who the heck the man was who was arrested!!?? The Whitechapel connection is mentioned before the suspect is even properly identified! Not only does the article not get Tumblety’s name right, but the correspondent is clearly unfamiliar with the suspect because he scratches his head and states, “The police say this is the man's right name,” indicating that has no idea of whether it was or not, or who the guy was.
So much for the "story first" theory...
Like Littlechild stated... “he was among the suspects.” |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Sorry. That sixth paragraph should read: Note this IS coming from an London correspondent. In other words, the news of the arrest wasn't even from an American source to begin with.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on August 27, 2005) |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
Hi Mike the mauler,
I too believe that serial killers do not just stop killing. If you believe the kelly murder was the last ripper murder, Then something must have happend after the kelly murder to the ripper. There is only three reason why the murders would stop in WC, 1. The ripper dies. 2. The ripper moves away, and his new murders are not connected to the WC murders. 3. The ripper is locked away in prison or an asylum. Tumblety does fit the bill. He fled London at exactly the right time for the murders to stop. However, motive is the variable. We do not know the motive for the killings. Some have suggested a political motive, and others suggest that Kelly was the target. I think that the ripper was a sick man with no particular motive. I feel the three reasons I have posted stand.
It is possible the fact that Tumblety was caught, and had to flee to America, combined with his advanced age, and a decline in his lebito, may have made it easier to keep his urges in check. He may have quit killing after the WC murders. However, serial killers usually start much earlier then 58 years old. I believe that there would have been lots of murders commited by Tumblety before the WC murders. Good research is being done concerning Tumblety. Malta Joe and others are trying to determine Tumblety's movements before the ripper murders, and I think that this is the way to go with this particular suspect.
C.D.
Tumblety often fled to avoid arrest. It would not be beyond him to bribe anyone in order to escape, no matter what crime he was being acused of commiting. The fact that the police took such an interest in him is strange. Would they really contact Newyork and follow him there just because of a minor charge? Why would they contact Sanfrancisco and ask for a copy of Tumblety's handwriting? I feel there can be know doubt that Tumblety was a suspect at the time the murders were being commited. I think they began suspecting him in October. However like RJ writes, he was one of many suspects. I am under the opinion that he was a top suspect.
Tumblety's arrest on November 7th was not his first rodeo. I find the dates that Tumblety was arrsted and the dates of the ripper murders interesting. The dates that he was arrested seem to either be right before a ripper murder or right after. I think that it is possible that he got some sexuall charge from the killings that made him look for sexuall release. The humiliation of being arrested may have caused Tumblety to take his frustrations out on his victims. It is possible that Tumblety did not understand his homosexuality, and the embarrasment of being arrested because of his urges caused him to take his frustration out on his victims. I think the police had already had enough runins with Tumblety that they knew his discription before the Kelly murder. I think that Tumblety was arrested after Hutchinson came forward whith his discription, and I feel that the desription that George gave led to Tumblety's arrest. Hutchinson's description may have matched the way that Tumblety was dressed when he was arrested on the 7th.
Your friend,Brad
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
c.d.
No need to feel guilty.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 113
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
c.d.
Your question is a darn good one. I couldn't agree more with you in respect to Tumblety killing one more after skipping bail, and trying to dodge the police. Good Points.
regards
Julie
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 160
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
c.d.
Normally the police would not arrest any one,unless there existed a reasonable cause to do so.It is near impossible,in the ripper crimes,to base an opinion on why any particular person was arrested,as no,or very little documentary evidence has survived.
As no one was ever charged,the likelyhood is that,in every case of arrest concerning the ripper killings,no evidence linking those persons to any one or all of the crimes,could be supported.
In addition to those arrested,there were scores more who attended at a police station voluntarily,and again through lack of information,it is impossible to attach any importance to those doing so.
There was no evidence of guilt in 1888 or at any time after,that can reasonably be directed at any one person,and there has been none shown that could reasonably lead to arrest and charge.
Hope that helps. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
Brad,
Hi. You made some good points regarding Tumblety. It certainly seems that Tumblety was a suspect at the time but as Dan Norder pointed out we just don't know why. There is no evidence that it was in connection with the Ripper murders. It might have been related to his alleged Fenian activities or perhaps he was running one of his many scams when he was there. Tumblety was someone who simply could not stay out of trouble.
You made reference to the cable to the New York police and the sending of Scotland Yard detectives to America. I would turn that argument around. Had Scotland Yard stated that Tumblety was a serious suspect in the Ripper murders or even that he was suspected of unspecified serious crimes and had jumped bail, it follows that they would have asked the New York police to hold him until the Scotland Yard detectives arrived. Yet, we know for a fact that the New York police were there at the dock when Tumblety arrived and did NOTHING but tail him and did such a half ass job of that that he was able to get away again. This leads me to believe that the cable simply said keep an eye on this guy for us.
I have attempted to point out this inconsistency many times but have not been able to get a response. If I am missing something here I would appreciate anyone letting me know. Thanks.
c.d. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Harry,
A very clear and precise explantion of the arrest process. Much appreciated. Thanks.
c.d. |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 124
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.
I'll try to tackle your question about the apparent lack of effort the NY Police gave, and I'll use your Aug 24th posting as the foundation.
The largest gathering of Irish-born people in the later half of the 19th century wouldn't have been found in any city in Ireland. They'd be found in New York City. Sadly, they were faced with many signs which read, "Job Opportunity - Need not apply if you're Irish." The Irish community would fill New York jobs in the low paying areas of fire fighting and police work. (I watched a documentary once that said the Irish Catholics wanted to establish themselves in NY with these community service jobs because it would publicly prove that they can still have an allegiance to America while retaining an adherence to Vatican doctrines.) But the point of this is that I'd think Inspector Andrews or any other Scotland Yardsman shouldn't have expected more than just token support from the NY Police in regards to an Irishman like Tumblety. The doctor knew NY was the place to hide. Heck, the North American Fenian Brotherhood was born there. Byrnes wasn't going to put his head on the chopping block with his own people, especially since Andrews had no hard evidence against Tumblety. Byrnes even hinted in the Dec 4, 1888 NY World that Scotland Yard is going to have to come up with something more before he'd issue any order that went beyond tailing Tumblety. I think Scotland Yard sensed this, and so their NY pursuit of Tumblety whimpered out quickly. |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 125
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
The doubts c.d. had about why Tumblety would kill Kelly immediately upon his release from a London jail cell is interesting when compared to CB's Aug 27th comment about "The humiliation of being arrested may have caused Tumblety to take his frustrations out on his victims." The course I'd take here would be to look for any previous circumstances where Tumblety killed just after he was involved in trouble with the law.
On Fri Aug 10, 1860 a Police Magistrate in St. Johns pronounced a judgement against Tumblety. Local physicians had brought charges against the quack. Tumblety fought back, and on Monday Sept 10, 1860 Supreme Court Judge Parker reversed the decision. Very near to this Sept 10th date, Tumblety would commence the slow poisoning process upon his patient James Portmore. The Sept 29th Morning Freeman reported that the first liquid phial which Portmore consumed was given to him by Tumblety "about three weeks ago." (Aproximately Sept 8th.) Portmore would eventually die from continued use of this poison on Sept 25th.
Should we link the legal matters which the local physicians brought upon Tumblety to the poisoning of Portmore? Well, Tumblety's comment which was printed in the Morning Freeman two days after Portmore's death showed what was on his mind. He bragged about his court victory and claimed "Facts are a stubborn thing - read them." Tumblety spoke this same victorious quote in the Montreal Pilot in 1857 after he came out on top against the local physicians who tried to ruin his life in the Dumas case. When Tumblety announced his innocence for the Portmore matter in the Oct 16, 1860 Morning Freeman, he made sure to mention Judge Parker's court decision before speaking of Portmore's death. Tumblety then blamed his patient's death on these local St. Johns physicians. The same doctors who brought charges upon the quack before the Police Magistrate.
Are these indications that Tumblety turned his Police and Court of Law problems into immediate murder? If Tumblety killed Kelly right after his Nov 7th arrest, it may have not been without precedent for him.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 823
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Hi Joe,
Actually, all it shows is that Tumblety never lost an opportunity to practice his quackery an make a buck. Certainly he would have felt secure after his court success, but he had just faced expenses for his court appearance and defence, and he was in need of replenishing his wallet.
It would be more to the point if after the reversal in St. Johns on Sept. 10, 1860, Tumblety had killed a woman (or even a man) with a knife under horrendous circumstances. That he did not do so would suggest that he was not seeking to release pent up frustrations and anger by killing patients or anyone for that matter.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
Hi Joe,
Welcome back. Always a pleasure to read your posts. They are always well reasoned and thought provoking. This one is no exception. I think I made clear in my previous post that my idea that the New York police would have been unenthusiastic in their pursuit of Tumblety because of possible Fenian sympathies was a bit of a stretch. I don't think that they would have been the least bit sympathetic simply because of an "Irish" connection (if I understand your post correctly).
First of all, they might not have realized that Tumblety was Irish. I know that he was allegedly born in Ireland, but I myself am of Irish descent and I would never have considered that anyone named Tumblety might be one of my boys.
I would have to assume that those Irishmen on the force would have just read that a young Irish girl named Mary Kelly was brutually mutilated by someone thought to be Jack the Ripper.
The New York police captain, Thomas Byrne, would have had to have been a complete fool not to realize what it would mean to capture Jack the Ripper or even someone who was strongly suspected of being the Ripper especially if he had any political ambition. I also think the flip side of this would be true. There were some very powerful people high up in the British government that very much wanted the Ripper caught. If they learned that the New York police deliberately botched the job, I think that they could have exerted enough influence to make some heads roll even from across the pond.
Finally, I don't think that we can assume that Tumblety deliberately sought out the port of New York. For him, it might have been a case of any port in a storm.
Keep those posts coming, Joe.
c.d. |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 127
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Howdy Jeff! Welcome to the party. Next time bring beer, heh heh.
The Fenians were most likely footing the bill for Tumblety's St. Johns expenses, including his legal fees. (They had done the same for him in Montreal by providing him with the Fenian attorneys Devlin + Drummond.) I can't really buy into the thought that Tumblety was in need of funds after these St. John court matters, and neither could the March 28, 1861 St. Thomas Weekly Dispatch:
"Tumblety boasted to a gentleman who met him in Eastport (Maine) of the large sums he carried away, and from my connection with the Commercial Bank (in St. Johns) I knew he took a large amount of specie from that institution."
Tumblety didn't accumulate all this St. Johns cash from his business front, the Herb Doctoring office. I think most of this money came from Irish political contributions. St. Johns was a political hotbed in the summer of 1860 due to the visit of the future King of England Edward VII. The Fenians appeared to coordinate Tumblety's St. Johns visit to coincide with Edward's visit. St. Johns had a large Irish population that mainly immigrated from southern Ireland. Edward's visit would have sparked a lot of fervor from these Irish citizens and the money would have flowed accordingly. That's a set-up that seemed to cry out for Tumblety's arrival.
As for Portmore's death, I think Tumblety's goal was to unjustly blame the medical doctors of St. Johns for the killing. (Tumblety felt he got screwed by the Canadian medical faculty in Montreal during the Dumas sting operation, and he tried to screw them back here in St. Johns.) Portmore's death had to come about by evil medical treatment. This allowed Tumblety to blame Portmore's death on St. Johns doctors, thus his quote, "One of the faculty had an interview with Portmore and advised him to abandon (Tumblety's medical treatment) and take his medication instead. Portmore took the advice and the medicine and died."
That's why we didn't see a butchering knife murder. Portmore had to die from faulty medical treatment. Well, at least that's how I view it! It's interesting how the presider at the Coroner's Inquest for Portmore''s death was Dr. Bayard. This same Dr. Bayard had acted as council for the informant against Tumblety at Judge Parker's Sept 10, 1860 Court Hearing. The linkage between Tumblety's Court of Law problems and Tumblety's killing of Portmore gets further exemplified by Bayard's opposing involvement in both matters. Legal problem followed by immediate murder. Food for thought when considering Tumblety's Nov 7th Whitechapel arrest.
Enjoy what's left of the summer, Jeff! Thank you for all the help you've given me with this research.
Joe
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 128
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
c.d. thanks for the welcome back. My brother's dog didn't die on me after all. He even surprised me by loading the fridge with John Courage beer! I like that stuff.
Thanks for your comments, and I'll consider what you're saying. Byrnes knew of Tumblety's New York antics for many years, so I think it's safe to say that he realized the quack was an Irish sympathizer. New York was Tumblety's home base most of his life, and I think he'd feel very comfortable hiding in his neck of the woods.
Your counter point about Mary Kelly being an Irish woman is a solid one no doubt. It's great to see new folks getting interested in this suspect. Hopefully we can all learn more. Bye! |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
I am still a little unclear on this. Was Tumblety ever officially arrested and charged in connection with the Ripper murders?
c.d. |
Sandra James
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 5:18 am: |
|
Hey! I don't know if anyone will be able to answer this in time for my assessment but im doing an assignment for school discussing Tumblety as a major suspect. He was arrested on the 7th November and charged on suspicion of the Ripper murders on the 12th...but where was he between those dates? The net sites and books ive bought say these two dates allowed him to commit his crime, But was he in prison or released on bail? Because nowhere i look explains this properly. Thanks! I hope you can help me. |
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 70
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Good question,
As far as I know he was never arrested or charged in connection with the Whitechapel murders, but on other charges of homosexuality or lewd conduct.
Of course, this does not mean that the police did not consider him a suspect, but they may have been using a smokescreen to get him on other charges and trying to make him slip up. It seems fair to say that the police became very interested in Tumblety towards the end of 1888.
I'm sure he was arrested but released on bail - does anyone know the facts?
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 129
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Hello Sandra,
Good luck with your assignment. To help answer your question, I'd focus on page 270 of Jack The Ripper First American Serial Killer:
"The relevant copy of the court calendar showed that Francis Tumblety, physician, was received into custody (i.e. arrested) on Wedneday 7 November 1888 for committing an act of gross indecency..."
A separate second arrest warrant gets spoken of too:
"A warrant was issued on Wednesday 14 November, and Tumblety was bailed on Friday 16 Novemeber 1888, at Marlborough St. Police Court before the committing magistrate James L. Hannay. This now made sense. The (Nov 7th) offences with which he was charged were misdemeanors, not felonies, and were not serious enough to warrant his remand in custody. The police were required to either charge and bail or bring the prisoner before a court of summary jurisdiction within 24 hours...Failing this, they were obliged to grant police bail, usually for seven days, whilst they prepared their case, gathered evidence, and drew up charges. Thus from the 7th, police bail would be for Tumblety to return to the police station for charging in seven days (i.e. the 14th) in order to bail him to the court."
Hi c.d. I'm with you. Though we've heard about Tumblety's Nov 12th arrest for suspicion in the Kelly murder, I too would like to see something concrete about this. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2081
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Hi Joe,
My brother's dog didn't die on me after all. He even surprised me by loading the fridge with John Courage beer!
What a smart doggie!
Love,
Caz
X |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Well wait a minute here. Tumblety is arrested on November 7th. At that time, four women have already been killed. Rumors abound that the killings could have been done by a doctor and Tumblety passes himself off as a doctor. He has a long checkered history full of previous arrests for various activities, and possible Fenian connections. He is in a foreign country and not well liked by the police. Would he be so absolutely stupid and naive as to believe that he was simply being arrested for homosexual activities? Yet just two days later we are asked to believe that he killed Mary Kelly. Sorry, I can't buy it.
c.d. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
If the police had reason to believe that Tumblety had Fenian connections, it would seem to me that the last thing that they would want to do was to put him in jail on some minor charge. Wouldn't it make more sense from their perspective to simply tail him and see who he contacted?
Does anyone know how zealously the police prosecuted lewd conduct like Tumblety was accused of or was this just a way to throw a scare into him and make him slip up as Martin surmised in a previous post?
Does it seem likely that the police would have watched Tumblety as soon as he arrived in London because of his alleged Fenian connections? And does it seem likely that Tumblety would know he was being watched to the extent that homosexual activities could be chanced but not murdering prostitutes?
c.d. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 8:19 pm: |
|
Hi CD,
Thanks for your responce! I too am a question asker, and I enjoy your comments. It is unclear to me aswell if Tumblety was ever charged with the Kelly murder, or if he was just questioned. I doubt that they had any hard evidence against him.
It was very hard to get a murder conviction in 1888. It is harder still when the suspect and the victim have no obvious conection. Kelly was a prostitute who was seen in the company of several men that night. It would be almost imposible to assume that Tumblety was Kelly last costumer. No fingerprinting, nor blood typing were available. Even if the police knew that Tumblety was in the company of Kelly the morning she was killed, they still could not be certain he was the killer. They almost had to catch Jack in the act of murder. I think the police did the best they could, and I feel Tumblety was a srong suspect, but I doubt that they had enough evidence to charge Tumblety with the Kelly murder.
Interesting thing to me is the fact that the Newyork police did not detain Tumblety. This tells me that they did not have any hard evidence against him. If they had notified the Newyork police, and said that Jack the ripper was on a boat heading to Newyork. If Scotland Yard had claimed to have conclusive proof, or if he had been charged with the Kelly murder, the Newyork police would have detained him. Murder is an extraditable offence. The crime that he had fled bail on was not. The Newyork police really had there hands tied. They could not detain Tumblety for the charges that he had jump bail. I am not sure just how good a relationship the London police and the Newyork police had.
Hi Malta,
Always good to have you in the discusion!
Your friend,Brad |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 130
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Hello Caz,
I'm still not sure if it was my brother or his dog who left me the John Courage beer! The beer was of Scottish brew, but the dog is an Australian Terrier. I'd have an easier time figuring this out if the fridge was filled with Fosters. Sadly, we'll be losing our best friend to the great kennel in the sky soon. Bye Caz!
C.D.'s Aug 31st 4:11pm posting really gets to the center of the astonishing world of Tumblety, doesn't it? That posting expressed the kind of thought which I'm so familiar with when trying to figure out this suspect. The point it made pretty much was:
"Why would Tumblety have been so foolishly reckless to murder anyone on Nov 9th, especially after so much speculation had just been placed on him?"
Boy, that question can Pied Piper so many other similar Tumblety-thoughts:
"How could Tumblety have been so blindly arrogant to cross-examine the widow of a man he had just killed? The Coroner's jury for Portmore's death knew Tumblety was guilty as all sin to begin with."
"How could Tumblety have been so daring to circulate obscene poetic verses throughout his NY neighborhood which defamed his rival, William Giles? The police were on Tumblety like a flash and immediately jailed him for this."
"How could Tumblety have been so careless and fearless about selling forged military discharge papers a few blocks from the White House during the Civil War? Didn't he know the risk he was taking?"
We can go and on with this. Tumblety was a deadly schemer who took remarkable chances. Keep in mind that besides the Miller's Court murder, we're also looking for a man who had the uncanny self-confidence to plan + execute his Mitre Square crime within the confines of a constable's 14 minute walking beat. I'd take an interest in learning about any Ripper suspect who had an established record of perpetrating high risk crimes and maneuvers.
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Joe,
You make an excellent point. Tumblety really did like to live on the edge. All I can say is that there is risk taking and there is RISK TAKING, just as there is jail time and there is hanging.
c.d. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:04 pm: |
|
Mary Kelly was killed on November 9th. According to the Casebook, Tumblety was arrested on November 12th on suspicionof having committed the Whitechapel murders. According to New York Police Inspector Bryne "There is no proof of his (Tumblety's) complicity in the Whitechapel murders... He goes on to say that the crimes with which Tumblety was charged, homosexual activities and jumping bail, were not extraditable offenses.
So now we know that Scotland Yard's cable to New York did state that Tumblety was wanted in connection with the Whitechapel murders. But according to Brynes' statement, Scotland Yard must have used the word "suspicion" rather than "charged." So here is my question...Why not tell the New York Police that Tumblety had been charged in connection with the murders and demand his extradition? If Scotland Yard had any real suspicion/evidence that Tumblety was the Ripper, certainly his jumping bail would have raised their suspicions considerably. Wouldn't that have allowed them to change the initial charge from "suspicion" of murder to "wanted" for murder?
Even if technically he was simply under suspicion, why not word it so that Tumblety can be extradited? What recourse would Tumblety have had as a foreigner? Could he have brought a lawsuit for false arrest or slander?
It just seems to me that if Scotland Yard really thought that Tumblety was the Ripper, they would have played every card they had to get him back to London to stand trial. Just some thoughts. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 881
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Hi c.d.,
We don't know that the cable to New York said Tumblety was wanted in connection with the Whitechapel murders... Byrnes was being interviewed by members of the press already asking about the idea that Tumblety was wanted in connection with the murders, that's where that whole line of questioning came in.
But, yes, if there was any truth to the idea that Tumblety was considered as a suspect by police (on either side of the Atlantic) at that time instead of just the news media selling papers, they sure didn't do anything to treat him as a serious suspect.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
David Radka
Police Constable
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 9
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
"Scotland Yard." What does that mean? Does that refer to every employee in the Yard? Just to the Chief of the CID? Just to some detectives and not others? Just to all the Police Constables and no one else? Honestly, we should attempt to understand what we mean by a term before we employ it.
"Treating Tumblety as a serious suspect." What does that mean? Writing up specific reports that say "Tumblety is a serious suspect of the CID, signed Littlechild" and making sure to save them in a vault for posterity? Cabling New York but not arresting him? Hoisting a big red banner over Scotland Yard reading "Francis! Turn yourself in!?"
Can't you folks see where you are loading in a double-dip of your own relativism here? You are sunk so deeply into the morass of your own discount brand of "common sense" that you can't appreciate the sense in which you attempt to stand on quicksand.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 883
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Hi David,
Actually, considering that you are the one trying to twist some fairly basic English phrases around to mean patently ludicrous things it seems odd that you'd be complaining about other people allegedly using relativism.
I think what you are falsely labeling as relativism here is the fact that some people are honestly admitting that we may not be able to figure out what the objective reality was due to a lack of solid evidence. Not having the answer and being willing to consider different possible answers that fit the available evidence is not at all the same as saying there is no right answer.
I really do find it astounding that someone like yourself who claims to have a solid background in philosophy could be so confused about the terms. It looks more like you are saying things you know to be false just to try to lash out at others.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 11
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Please see my 9:20 PM post to the thread above.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 9:03 pm: |
|
David Radka
Who are you referring to as "WE"?
I do not have a problem with my common sense, do you?
You ask questions, however, not ones that can be answered by the intelligent people on this casebook.
If you have something to say, please say it.
If you have a genuine question please form it as a question that can be addressed.
If you are just out to insult us, which has been the norm, than spit it out, don't beat around the bush.
Julie
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the clarification on the cable issue. As for your conclusion, I could not agree more.
c.d. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
David Radka.....common sense...I like it.....
Common sense says that homosexuals do not butcher women in the street.
There are a whole world of possibilities that open up IF you can get past this one thing because, ladies & gentlemen, if the good 'Doctor' was in fact homosexual then the chances that he was Jack the Ripper are miniscule.
I also have a tiny problem with this......
But the point of this is that I'd think Inspector Andrews or any other Scotland Yardsman shouldn't have expected more than just token support from the NY Police in regards to an Irishman like Tumblety.
Really? We are expected to believe that the NYPD would not assist Scotland Yard with the apprehension of the worlds most infamous killer because.......he was Irish?
Get serious - PLEASE. Can you imagine the political repercussions? I'd also point you in the direction of the co-operation between Britain & America in putting an end to New Yorks Irish Brigade plans for an 'irish uprising' in the wake of the American Civil War.
IF Tumblety was homosexual, even allowing for his 'objections' to the fairer sex, going from being a conman to a serial killer is a leap of faith that is hard to take. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 710
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
"they sure didn't do anything to treat him as a serious suspect.'
This is really a non sequitur, confusing the difference between action and suspicion. For one, we don't have the faintest idea what the NYPD did or didn't do behind the scenes.
But more importantly, Scotland Yard already had Tumblety in custody twice. If they had any evidence against him they would have charged him at one of those points. What on earth does his crossing the Atlantic ocean have to do with their suspicion?
The UK was, and is, run by the rule of law. It's a common mistake for laymen to think the police can do whatever they want. I suppose the implied
argument here is that Tumblety should have been kidnapped like the Israeli secret police kidnapped Eichmann and brought back to face...
Face what? If the Met didn't have evidence enough for the Crown to prosecute, they didn't have enough evidence.
No one knew this better than Sir Robert Anderson. He wrote about it on a number of occasions. Mere suspicion--even if it nearly constitutes moral certainty (which he felt they had against Kosminski)-- was not the same as legal evidence. |
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 12
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
""they sure didn't do anything to treat him as a serious suspect.'
This is really a non sequitur, confusing the difference between action and suspicion."
Outstanding, Mr. Palmer! One of your best refutations yet.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
R.J.
Hi. You stated that the UK was, and is, run by the rule of law. That certainly may be true in theory but do you think that there has ever been an instance where the rule of law was stretched a bit, misinterpreted, trampled on, ignored or even given a few good shots to the kidneys with a billy club? I am not saying that this was true in Tumblety's case or that the thought was even entertained with regard to him. But if such things happen (and lets not kid ourselves, they do happen) wouldn't you agree that if Scotland Yard really thought that Tumblety was, or even could be, the Ripper that adhering to the rule of law might not have been their first priority?
c.d. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
HI Cd
I am posting this morning and I am very drunk, so forgive my spelling. It is not an all or nothing with Tumblety. Tumblety was a suspect, but they had no hard evidence. They had lots of suspects. I think Tumblety was or had something to do with the ripper murders. However, Macnaughten,Swanson and Anderson would diagree. I agree with RJ [ sorry RJ ] the police had there hands tied. I agree with you if they were 100% certain that Tumblety was the ripper they might have done more, but it is obvious that they did not think he was Jack for certain. I think that Tumblety is one of the few suspects that is worth looking into. Druit, kosminski, Chapman, and Tumblety. Those are th 4 best suspects. All the other suspects are just window dressing. It is great that you have an interest in Tumblety. It is great that you are not afraid to ask questions. You can not confuse the fact that Tumblety was a suspect with them thinking Tumblety was the ripper. I would like to think that they thought Tumblety was the ripper, but unless you can connect Tumblety with Druitt I do not think we can assume that. However, it is not all or nothing and the fact that the police considerd Tumblety makes him a better suspect then most.
Your friend, Brad |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Mere suspicion--even if it nearly constitutes moral certainty...-- was not the same as legal evidence.
Without legal evidence, any kind of certainty is immoral, surely, and of the gut feeling variety.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 909
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 1:54 am: |
|
Even with legal evidence, Caz, there cannot always be certainty. Look at all the people released (Birmingham Five, Guildford Four, numerous supposed female child-killers) all convicted on evidence in court.
Thus Caz, while I suppose that when you say: "Without legal evidence, any kind of certainty is immoral, surely, and of the gut feeling variety." you are probably right - such an approach would mean we all go home now as discussion would be pretty pointless. I think though, that as historians (NOT lawyers) 100 plus years after the events, we can allow ourselves slightly greater latitude. I believe that reasoned argument, supported by reference to evidence and material from the period, can lead us to robust and relatively certain conclusions, without that being unduly "immoral". That, at least, is my position.
In 1888, the police were desperate enough, in their search for Jack, to suspect many people - Ostrog is a good example. Today, research has shown him to be a relatively harmless con-man and thief, and it is difficult to perceive why or how he could ever have been a suspect. But it is clear they did suspect him - mainly (it seems to me) because his whereabouts could not be ascertained.
Tumblety could have been in the same category - a man the police wanted to see, even felt very interested in (as Littlechild clearly felt and recalled). The "Dr" eluded the police. So they went after him.
But it is quite possible that had Tumblety been brought in and questioned, the mysteries about him might have been resolved (ie he was secretive because of political/Fenian, or homosexual activities) and it would have been seen that he was NOT a murderer.
On the other hand, if Tumblety had been questioned and released, we might now be in the same position we are now with (say) Barnett, with some questioning whether the interrogation and investigation of alibis etc was deep and rigorous enough!!
Let's face it, in 1888, unless the police caught the killer red-handed; found definite evidence at the scene to link the murder to a particular individual (dropped wallet with ID??); found a good eyewitness, backed with other evidence; or extracted a confession - then the chances of conviction were small.
So, with Tumblety, I see a number of possibilities had he been brought in:
a) he would have been convicted;
b) as with Kosminski, there might have been strong feelings that he was guilty but no proof enough to convict;
c) he would have been put away on some lesser charge (sodomy or some such deviancy charge?) as Kosminski seems to have been put away on sanity grounds;
d) he would have been interrogated and released (like Barnett);
e) he would have been shown, like Ostrog, to have no real charge to answer.
All that said, I do find a lot to interest me in Tumblety, not least in the context of a Fenian involvement of some kind in the JtR case.
As for violent treatment of suspects; and the use of violence to extract confessions, I simply do not know the position in 1888. I am sure prisoners probably were "roughed up" and subjected to brutal treatment, but that has happened in all generations through to today. Maybe AP's researches can shed some light on whether cases of such abuse of authority are known from the LVP and how they were regarded?
Phil
Edited for clarification and to add a point.
(Message edited by Phil on September 23, 2005) |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
Brad,
Hi. I appreciate the fact that you are posting under the influence. I hope that it is a carry over from the night before and that you are not drinking first thing in the morning.
As for our good friend Tumblety, you are right that he is one of the more interesting of the suspects and that something about him made Scotland Yard suspicious. We just don't know if he was ever really a serious Ripper suspect or if it might have been his alleged Fenian connections or something else entirely. My own personal belief is that he was not the Ripper. He had so many scams going and was such a charlatan that maybe he stepped on the toes of somebody high up and that person or persons decided that a little pay back was in order. Bottom line - I think there were a number of reasons why the police were looking at Tumblety and that is what makes him such an interesting suspect.
I hope that all that drinking has given you tremendous new insights into the case. It is always good to change perspective now and then.
c.d.
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
1. Mr. Norder wrote: “Actually, considering that you are the one trying to twist some fairly basic English phrases around to mean patently ludicrous things it seems odd that you'd be complaining about other people allegedly using relativism.”
>>A) Please cite specifically what phrases I am “twisting around,” and what I mean that are “patently ludicrous,” and why it is so. Don’t just give us one of your typical critically-deprived “reality lessons.” Perhaps your strategy works on the stupidest people reading these threads, but I doubt it does on those more reflective. B) I’m not saying that you are “using relativism.” I’m saying that you are neither smart, nor educated, nor perspicacious enough to understand the difference between speaking in a relative sense and speaking critically about truths. I’m saying that you are a Ripperlogical Forest Gump, an accidental, adventitious success.
2. “I think what you are falsely labeling as relativism here is the fact that some people are honestly admitting that we may not be able to figure out what the objective reality was due to a lack of solid evidence. Not having the answer and being willing to consider different possible answers that fit the available evidence is not at all the same as saying there is no right answer.”
>>You soil yourself. Who is it that says there is “no right answer” to the case evidence, you or I? I offer the A?R theory as the right answer, you offer no case solution. “Being willing to consider different possible answers” short of offering an epistemological proposed solution is nothing other than the hundred-year bane of Ripperology: one false book after another, each claiming empirical proof of an empirically different solution. So who is truly the “ludicrous” one between us, Mr. Norder, you or I?
3. “I really do find it astounding that someone like yourself who claims to have a solid background in philosophy could be so confused about the terms. It looks more like you are saying things you know to be false just to try to lash out at others.”
>>Let’s see who it is that makes false claims about his background. Let’s see who it is that is a fraud and a quack, based on your definitions of these as someone who “chronically abuses the facts” and makes “false presentations.” My three academic certifications, the BS, CPA, and MA, are clearly listed in my profile. Please list the degrees you hold, the dates conferred, and the conferring institutions. I don’t believe you have ANY degrees, Mr. Norder. I think you are an uneducated, hypocritical person exaggerating himself, in some ways similar to the way you accuse Cornwell.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 96
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
David
Three academic certifications? What do they mean?
The more you learn the more you realize how little you know. This should be the mantra of all academics, all people really. Anyone who tells me what they know seems to be diverting me from the reality of what they don't know.
You and anyone else who is so concerned about their titles and their degrees need to realize that the only thing that it can be about is separating yourselves from the chaff. Do not go there. Realize that you are as insignificant as the rest of us. Ripperology is nothing more than a pastime on the way to the grave, as is everything we do. It is even more insignificant than human life, but it keeps us on a path that diverts us from dwelling on our own mortality. Please son't depress us by using credentials which are nothing more than culminations of other pastimes, to make you better.
I am insignificant and proud of it.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 19
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 8:17 pm: |
|
Mike,
Yo the Kafkaesque insignificance. I'm all for that myself. But on the other hand, the truth is the truth, and I've got these three certifications. I'm basically just giving folks the straight story about them so they know where I'm at, not trying to build myself up thereby.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 98
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Kafka? Ich habe ihn doch gelesen, aber das ist vor 15 Jahre. Ich muess sagen dass ich ihn nicht gemeint als ich mein email geschrieben habe.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
