|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through August 11, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
A Statement:
Archive through August 11, 1999
Author: S P Evans
Monday, 09 August 1999 - 10:56 pm |        | I was pleased to participate in the Casebook Productions debate on Sunday, and it was nice to see so many people with a genuine interest present.
From conversations there, and on these boards, it is very apparent that many interested in this case suffer from the 'closed mind syndrome' which is very understandable. It is something which results from preconceived ideas, usually from reading biased books. I too in the early days of my research suffered from the problem.
My own knowledge on the subject is based on the huge database and collection I have built over the past 35 years. I try to keep an open mind and remain objective. Obviously I have opinions, but I look at all possibilities. This became very apparent in the discussion on Sunday.
Unfortunately for me, many see my name and think "Tumblety" and assume that all my thinking is thus affected and biased because I have written of one suspect. NOT SO. Let me say here that Tumblety is not my suspect, he is a real, viable, contemporary suspect suggested as a "very likely one" by Chief Inspector Littlechild, a head at Scotland Yard in 1888. He knew more of the case than any of us ever will.
Littlechild did not dismiss him at the time, therefore I find it amazing when some modern theorists dismiss him out of hand with such statements as "too tall", "homosexual", "too old", "too flamboyant", or "in custody at the time of the Kelly murder." All of these points I have addressed in the past.
It must be remembered that in 1888 Tumblety was not the flamboyant figure of his earlier days, and the likelihood is that he was not even in custody at the time of the Kelly murder. As I have explained many times before, for those with no idea of police procedures, he was detained on November 7, 1888, for a misdemeanour. The police could not hold him for more than 24 hours without charge and a court appearance. Their only options were to charge and detain him for an immediate court appearance, or to bail him on police bail for 7 days to re-appear for charging when the file was prepared. The latter would appear to have been the case as he was not taken before the court until November 16.
The case, therefore, was that he was most likely free at the time of the Kelly murder. Critics say that I reject Kelly as a 'Ripper' victim because it suits my Tumblety argument. This is sheer nonsense as I keep a totally open mind on the subject. This is so with Kelly, she may have been a 'Ripper' victim, she may not. There are many dissimilarities between her murder and the previous ones, and these are not easily dismissed. I have heard cries of "there couldn't be two such killers operating at the same time," and "no-one could do such a thing but the Ripper." Both these arguments fall down.
First, as Alex Chisholm has suggested could be the case, Kelly may have been murdered by Barnett in a domestic crime passionnel, and statistically this is the most likely scenario. In such a situation, having murdered her by throat-cutting, one of the commonest methods of murder in those days, he would be number 1 suspect (which indeed he was). His only 'way out,' would have been to make it look like another 'Ripper' killing, and he thus inflicted mutilations which he thought would make it look such. And if he did it, it worked! Some of the worst mutilations of women, in the history of crime, have been inflicted by husbands and lovers, usually in an attempt to cover their tracks. Far from being unlikely, this is a very likely scenario.
But all this remains, and always will remain, speculation and theorising. I still say Kelly may have been a 'Ripper' victim, or she may not. The ones with the really closed minds are those who blindly accept that she was a 'Ripper' victim, that it was his final spectacular murder, and then try to weave all sorts of wonderful and fantastic stories around it. All options should be considered against a background of hard facts (and there are not many of those!).
So, further to the Kelly discussion of Sunday, it may be fairly said that Barnett is a good bet as the killer of Kelly, but not as the 'Ripper.' Hutchinson is a very unlikely 'Ripper,' and is not likely to have been the murderer of Kelly. But, all options remain open, and the final answer will never be known for certain.
I hope that this clarifies my position a little, those who know me will know of my work in transcribing all the official records, and the fact that I have an immense collection of 'Ripper' material including hundreds of contemporary newspapers, photographs, much unpublished information, every book on the subject (I have some 4,000 books in my collection) and many other items. When I speak please credit me, at least, with an open mind, even if I do often play 'devil's advocate.'
Stewart |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 01:52 am | | Hi, Stewart:
Thank you again for participating in the Casebook Productions chat on Mary Jane Kelly on Sunday and now for writing this clarification of your views on the case and how others view it. I would like to think that people are not as "closed-minded" as you state, and that we are open to different interpretations. As you know, we all bring varied backgrounds and experiences to this field. Some, such as yourself, have done extensive study of the case, for many years, others are relative newcomers. As you remarked, in your earlier years, you tended to be more closed minded. As each of us continues with the study of the Whitechapel murders and becomes more exposed to new theories and points of view, I would prefer to think that every one of us will "leave our options open."
Chris George
Casebook Productions Inc. |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 05:36 am | | Hello Mr. Evans,
I particularly enjoyed your last post for the simple reason that, although you have a written a book detailing a suspect, you now retain enough humility to accept that your theory may be wrong. How refreshing.
Finally, I tried to participate in the debate you mentioned and failed dismally. Either I came on-line at the wrong time, or more probably, a senior moment clouded my understanding of the technology. Any pointers, as to how I can take part in these debates, would be appreciated.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 07:29 am | | Hi, Rabbi:
I am very sorry you were unable to take part in the discussion on Mary Jane Kelly on Sunday. In fact, we just missed each other in the Casebook Productions chat room since I had checked in a couple of hours early to check that everything was in good working order. That was at 12:45 p.m., US Eastern Daylight Time, and you had just been there. The discussion was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. You were in the right place but at the wrong time! As Dave Yost has mentioned on another board, the next meeting will be on Martha Tabram at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday, September 19. We would love for you to join us, and hopefully Stewart and perhaps other authors may be able to participate and give us the benefit of their views. Please make allowance for five hours difference, since I take it you are on UK time and the meeting time for you would be, I believe, 8:00 p.m. on that date.
Best regards
Chris George
Casebook Productions |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 10:20 am | | Dear Stewart,
I've just read your posting and very interesting it is too.
However I wonder if you could clear up something for me. You say that Tumblety was Littlechilds 'contemporary' suspect, which to me means he was suspected by Littlechild at the time of the murders. I am ignorant of any information that backs up this assertion, obviously my own collection of bits & pieces is far inferior to yours. I was under the impression that the first time Littlechild mentions Tumblety is in a letter to G R Sims written almost a quarter of a century after the murders.
You describe Littlechild as being a 'head at Scotland Yard' and knowing more about the case than any of us ever will. I was under the impression that he was attached to the Irish Bureau at the time, can you tell me exactly what part he played in the Ripper investigation?
I am also a little confused at the way you label people who accept Kelly as a Ripper victim as having closed minds. Surely those that do are relying heavily on the professional opinions of practically every police officer who investigated Kellys murder and labelled it as a Ripper killing. I cannot recall any police officer at the time saying it wasn't.
I find it strange that to lend credance to the opinions of so many professional men is to have a closed mind, and yet apparently you are advocating acceptance of the opinion of one police officer, who as far as I know had nothing to do with the investigation, and only mentions it in passing almost a quarter of a century later?
As I have said its quite possible you are in posession of more information than I have relevant to this matter and I look forward to your reply.
all the best
Bob |
Author: S P Evans
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 11:18 am | | Bob,
You obviously didn't read correctly, or didn't understand, what I wrote.
I stated that Tumblety was a contemporary (i.e. 1888) suspect, which, of course he was. Not only is he stated as such in the 1888 U.S. newspapers, Littlechild said in his letter, "I never heard of a Dr. D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one..." The phrase in bold is a statement of fact, whilst being a very likely suspect is clearly Littlechild's opinion. He was very modest in this assertion, and was by no means bragging that he knew who the 'Ripper' was. Ergo, Tumblety was a contemporary suspect, and no one, other than you, has ever seriously questioned this.
There were five Chief Inspectors at the Yard in 1888, departmental heads, and Swanson and Littlechild were two of them. As head of the Special Branch (not the Irish bureau) Littlechild was probably the most trusted and important. In fact, Littlechild was there in that rank five years prior to the murders, and for five years after the murders until his retirement in 1893. Not only this he was an old colleague of Swanson's and worked together with him and Abberline on the Burton/Cunningham case in 1885, for which all three were rewarded.
In dealing with terrorist crimes, Littlechild's men would have been permanently in evidence in the East End, under cover, as the area housed many foreign and Irish activists and terrorists. (A point noted by Paul Begg in his book). As such there would probably (and I am not stating this as a documented fact, just as a likelihood) have been a role for his men in the East End, as regards being on the look-out for suspicious characters.
Obviously, and I have never stated otherwise, Littlechild was not ostensibly involved in the investigation as an active member of the team. However, as a close colleague of Swanson, like the other chiefs at the Yard, he would have taken a great interest in the Whitechapel murders in view of their importance, and the political problems they were causing. And indeed he did take an interest as witness what he says in his letter. Or are you suggesting that the only policemen with any knowledge of the crimes or the investigation were those actually on the case? As an experienced police officer I can assure you that that would not have been the case. Also, are you seriously suggesting that you, or any other modern researcher, knows more of these crimes than Littlechild did? Surely not?
However, you have responded much as I would have expected in view of your adverse comments on both my book and Tumblety in your book.
I would also like to say that I am not stating that Kelly was not a 'Ripper' victim, merely allowing for the possibility that she wasn't. There is evidence to suggest that this could have been the case. Like Stride, the majority of the police at the time did think she was another 'Ripper' victim, and if the Barnett scenario was correct then that was just what they were supposed to think.
You have also totally misinterpreted what I said in the context of closed minds. I said that "...many interested in this case suffer from the 'closed mind syndrome' which is very understandable." And in this sense if someone totally believes her to be a 'Ripper' victim, such as you do, and does not even allow for the fact that she might not be, then that is having a closed mind on that point. Or do you not understand that? If you don't please supply the solid proof that Kelly certainly was a 'Ripper' victim.
In saying this I am denigrating no one, for it took me nearly thirty years to realise that such could be the case. Up until then I had unquestioningly accepted her as a 'canonical' victim. I realise, of course, that if she wasn't a 'Ripper' victim it totally knocks your own Hutchinson theory on the head. Still, in my own opinion there is absolutely no way that Hutchinson was the 'Ripper.' I told the late Brian Marriner the same thing many years ago when he informed me of his own thoughts in that direction, several years before your book.
Stewart |
Author: S P Evans
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 12:00 pm | | In view of the foregoing I would like to make a further comment. I have left these boards in the past, for lengthy periods, for the very reason that is becoming apparent here. I do not wish to become embroiled in lengthy arguments, disputes or exchanges on contentious points which the two parties will never agree on.
As regards Tumblety and Littlechild, all my arguments have been presented in the past, in my books, on these boards, and in discussions. I have responded to Bob because he put his points in this public forum, and they required an answer.
May I say here that I do not wish to argue further on these points here, but I am quite happy to discuss them when next we meet. To argue at length here is futile and pointless. If it continues then, sadly, I shall again leave these boards
As I have always stated I am very happy to assist others with information, material and to factually answer questions. I am not interested in argument, except face to face.
Stewart |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 12:17 pm | | Speaking from my own personal experience, I can also say that the "closed mind syndrome" is also likely to strike the amateur researcher who has put many years into the case, purchased all the books, copied all the files and participated in all the on-line discussions as well as the relative newcomer ("relative," of course, encompassing anything from a month to 10 years!).
For example, I have always said that I discount Elizabeth Stride as a canonical "Ripper" victim, because the immediate activity prior to her murder seems out of place with the MO of a quiet killer seeking to do his work quickly and without calling attention to himself. I will, however, also say that this is only my own personal opinion, based on my years of study, and therefore is just as likely to be completely wrong as right.
In the case of Mary Jane Kelly, I find it difficult to pronounce definitively one way or another (unless, of course, Alex Chisholm is bending my ear), but the possibility that she was murdered by Joe Barnett independently of the "accepted" Ripper series is one worth considering, no matter one's stance on a particular suspect.
I think that the reason many people regard the proposal of separate murderers for the canonical victims as "fantastic" is that it destroys the years of neat symmetry that have grown up around the case; the progressive danse macabre from Nichols to Kelly. Suggesting that more than one person may have contributed to the Great Victorian Mystery causes people to question their assumptions and their knowledge - an activity that, I can assure you, is most uncomfortable.
Which is not to say that if even as well-versed a researcher as Mr Evans confesses to less-than-dogmatic thought on the subject, we are all welcome to chime in with whatever we like to believe. There has to be a clearing of the ground somewhere; there has to be discussion of probabilites, and whether our dogged search for one man to have murdered Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Stride and Kelly (see, there's bias right there) will always be doomed to failure. Can we get any closer to the Ripper's identity than we are at this moment?
I think we can, but how?
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 12:35 pm | | | There has been a lot of discussion on other boards about how Jack had to have some anatomic knowledge in order to find the organs he found and remove them in the way he removed them. In order to postulate a different killer for Kelly you have to accept not one but two homicidal maniacs with expertise at or approaching that of a doctor. Kelly's uterus was found and removed and placed under her pillow. One lunatic with that amount of expertise is remarkable. Two stretches credibility. |
Author: S P Evans
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 12:55 pm | | Wise words CM.
One of our leading pathologists over here has stated that the victims' mutilations were crudely done.
In the case of Kelly the bodily evisceration was almost complete, with virtually all the major organs cut out of the thorax. No real expertise exhibited there.
As I have stated in the past, I have witnessed dozens of autopsies, and it takes little skill to open up a body and remove the contents.
Apart from this the history of crime has thrown up many killers, who with no training or particular skills have eviscerated bodies. |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 02:48 pm | | Had to remind you all that Dr. Bond in 1888 came to the same conclusion about JtR's so-called surgical ability.
Bond is da man!
If we aren't satisfied with any of the contemporary suspects, it is obviously to our advantage to find new suspects. How do we do this without throwing in anachronistic thinking, bias, etc?
My opinion:
1) Take what hard evidence that's come down to us from 1888 police officals -- including doctors, coroners, etc. In the short time I've been here, I've seen this step abandoned far too often and too quickly for subjective, speculative thinking. How many people realize that Phillips thought that JtR wanted to remove one or more of his victims' heads? If you don't know what something means (like the decapitation business or the Goulston St. graffito), do not throw it out or manufacture cases to dismiss it. Admit it means nothing to you at the moment and move on...it may become clear later...or it may never be clear. Manufacturing explanations leaves a bigger mess for later researchers to clean up/sort out than was there to begin with.
Bob Hinton's research into Eddowes' purported prostitution is a recent case in point. If there is no contemporary evidence of her engaging in prostitution, are we not in danger of muddying the case by insisting on the traditional speculation that she was a prostitute at the time of her death? I may not agree with Bob's other points or conclusions surrounding this discovery, but it should make us pause in our thinking of who or what the killer was based on this apparent deviation from his pattern of choosing victims. The deviation in victimology may not be real, but the burden of proving Eddowes' status in prostitution shifts to those who believe she was a prostitute...they must answer Bob's challenge for evidence. What's at stake? If Eddowes wasn't a prostitute, and JtR only killed prostitutes, we have a stronger suspicion of two separate, independent killers -- especially adding the facial mutilations that also deviate from previous victims. OR we have another unexplained fact about a single killer...why change types of victims, and only in this one case?
2) As the 1888 police came up with a pool of suspects based on conculsions such as the murders were the work of a madman, a doctor, a medical student -- we should expand our category of suspects, starting with relatively safe ones like men with previous criminal records in sexual assault, robbery, murder, etc. This will provide an almost umanageable list of names.
3) To narrow that list further, you need a second reference point. Here you enter dangerous waters. What would your second criteria be? An occupation in the East End of 1888? A contemporary reference from a newspaper? A later reminiscence? Another list of names might emerge....from what sources, only good luck and good research will tell.
4) If you can compile two lists, compare the two lists of names for matches.
5) If you find any matches, you now have a new pool of suspects.
That's just one approach. None of the above is easy -- maybe even possible. Nor does it guarantee that JtR's name would be among the list. Computerizing the records would help the search enormously. But the above procedure still means a lot of hard drudgery.
Without expanding our pool of suspects -- and over a century too late, at that! -- we'll be going over the same few names, the same few facts, the same few theories another century from now.
Yaz |
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 06:35 pm | | Further on Mr. Evans above post RE Tumblety as a contemporary police suspect: Nick Connell found a reference in the San Francisco Chronicle (dated Nov. 23, 1888) to a telegram that Robert Anderson wired to P. Crowley, Chief of Police, San Francisco. Crowley sent Anderson info that they (S.F. police) had samples of Tumblety's writing. Anderson's wire read: "Thanks, send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety
ANDERSON, Scotland Yard".
(cited from Ripperana no. 21, July 1997, p.7) |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 07:05 pm | | 1. Great post, Scott! Very pertinent. Tumblety was indeed a contemporaneous suspect. Anderson must have debunked Tumblety, since he turns out to have favored a different suspect. I wonder how he did this--?
2. Yazoo, congratulations for getting back to Dr. Bond. Everyone on these boards should read your old hardball post on him--it was maybe the best post ever to this web site. Anything more you might have to say re: Bond would be welcome.
David |
Author: Alan
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 10:20 pm | | | Anderson didn't de-bunk Tumblety, he escaped back to the U.S. pursued by Scotland Yard men who failed to catch him. No wonder Anderson later opted for another suspect. |
Author: Villon
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 02:11 am | | I've looked for Yazoo's hardball post on Dr. Bond, but can't find it, so he may have already covered points I raise here. bear with me.
Firstly, I gather that one doctor (Philips) thought our Jack DID have medical knowledge, while another doctor (Bond),thought not. So we don't have anything approaching a consensus on this point even at the time.
Secondly, I also gather that of these two men, only Philips had actually seen most of the corpses. Is this right?
So, on this basis alone I should think Philips' testimony is worth more than Bonds. Isn't he in fact, da man? If not, why not?
Also consider: the answer to the question 'did Jack have surgical skill?' will vary according to the criteria adopted by the man giving the answer.
For example if you asked me - did Jack's work look like the work of a surgeon at the table, I'd have to say, no, of course not; if any man took a uterus out like that in an operating theatre he would kill the patient and end his career.
If Bond was making this comparison he would be bound to say 'no surgical skill'
But I think it is the wrong comparison.
Jackie was not IN an operating theatre he was in a dark street, with a murdered woman beside him and just a few minutes to perform his task.
I have to say again as I have elsewhere, under those circumstances, only someone with a degree of surgical knowledge would have even a chance of doing what he did.
Believe me.
The uterus is one of the most elusive organs in the body. As a student, I've embarrassed myself searching for a few, and even once extracted a grossly swollen cystic ovary under the impression I had it (not, I hasten to add on a live patient). Our Jack HAD to have known what he was looking for, where to find it and what to cut in order to dissect it away in just a few sweeps of the knife.
Mr. Evans, your point about evisceration is true, but if you don't mind me saying so, slightly off the point. It IS comparatively easy to open up the abdomen and extract the intestines, in fact they tend to 'extract themselves' as soon as the body is opened up. This is a totally different question to performing a hysterectomy in the dark. The uterus is the size of a clementine and tucked right away inside the bony pelvis. A layman could be rummaging for hours before finding it. And he would be very unlikely to recognise it when he did.
I posted on some other board I think the blood-poisoning one, on exactly how difficult this operation would be, Take a look if you are interested.
Having said that,I also think that the total gutting of MJK could have been accomplished by a layman. The man who operated on her clearly had a lot more time. For sure he got her uterus, but he also got pretty well everything else in her thorax and abdomen. Basically if he chopped out enough, he would be almost bound to find even that organ eventually.
What makes the other victims' uterine excisions significant, in my opinion, is the way in which this tiny organ was removed with great speed and obvious intent and under the most incredibly difficult circumstances.
For what it's worth I do seriously think that all suspects who had no medical training probably ought to be eliminated. But I can see this won't happen because by now too many people have too much to lose, and just SO much emotion invested in their favourite ideas.
So far as I can see such elimination leaves only Tumblety amongst the contemporary names! But personally, I favour some unknown med. student from the London Hospital, who probably died or went insane in the autumn of 1888.
Regards to all
Mike |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 04:01 am | | Hey!
Thanks, David, but the old post on Bond wasn't that interesting or meant to be definitive. And I can't find it either, Mike. I hardly remember it, to tell you the truth.
Here's what I recall:
Bond was ostensibly brought in to settle the issue of the murderer's medical knowledge. He only examined the body of Kelly. There is a question of how many resources Bond used to make his report to Anderson et al. that the murderer had no medical knowledge or skill. And yes, Phillips and others sometimes believed the murderer had some medical skill.
Bond was considered a qualified expert to make his opinion. He had all the doctors and their notes and all the PCs to use in making his determination. He did make mistakes, such as when he described Kelly's body as being totally nude when she was wearing some undergarment that covered her two shoulders. Technically, Bond was wrong; his impressions of the body being nude (the impression the killer wanted to leave by so exposing Kelly's body) stuck with him even after he examined the corpse.
I think Phillips was a victim of his own impressions, too. When he saw the bodies, he felt a strong sense of the medical detachment and surgical fastidiousness in how the bodies were laid out (the positioning of the eviscera, for example). I think Phillips was right in that the murderer wanted to leave that very impression.
I can't argue against your own experiences, Mike. Phillips and others showed some uncertainty and conflict over their impression of the amount of medical knowledge the killer possessed. Bond was certain.
That's why I believe Bond.
I do think someone qualified in the way medicine, and especially forensic medicine, was practiced circa 1888 should look at what medical evidence survives and offer an evaluation of Bond, Phillips et al. Until then, Bond was the man in 1888, so I see little reason to deny him the title in 1999.
Just my opinion (an in this case, it's an uneducated opinion...knowing nothing about medicine myself).
Yaz
P.S., I wouldn't and don't mean to try to eliminate Tumblety as a suspect; he is a valid one. But Stephenson also had medical knowledge, and I consider him a suspect as well, though not as strong as Tumblety. |
Author: S P Evans
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 08:53 am | | I think we have strayed a little off topic here. However, it has resulted in some eminently sensible posts, and the need for me to respond again.
My point in highlighting the totality of the evisceration of Kelly was to show that it was not at all skilled in relation to the other victims. Indeed, it was quite unlike the other two victims who suffered partial evisceration, i.e. Chapman and Eddowes. We all know that one of the arguments to explain this is the time, and opportunity the killer had at his disposal at Miller's Court.
Regarding Dr. Bagster Phillips, yes he was the most experienced of the police surgeons as far as the murders went. Dr. Bond did not see any of the 'canonical' victims other than Kelly.
However, the point Dr. Phillips made in the case of Chapman and Eddowes was that some anatomical knowledge was displayed by the killer in order to locate, and remove the uterus (and kidney in Eddowes' case) under conditions in which he would have been working at great rapidity, and, in the case of Eddowes, in very low lighting conditions. Dr. Phillips, however, stayed with 'anatomical' knowledge, but did not go so far as to suggest that it was medical knowledge.
The great disagreement between the two doctors occurred in the case of Alice McKenzie, where Phillips had already performed the autopsy, and Bond came along the next day to examine the body (with Phillips), and to give his opinion.
The result was that Phillips thought that McKenzie was not a 'Ripper' victim whilst Bond cam to the opposite conclusion and stated that he thought she was.
Dr Phillips: - "After careful and long deliberation I cannot satisfy myself on purely anatomical & professional grounds that the Perpetrator of all the 'WhChl. murders' is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion. This noting the mode of procedure & the character of the mutilations & judging of motive in connection with the latter. I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances & other evidence are considered." - July 22nd '89.
Dr Bond: - "I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skilfully & resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts & a desire to mutilate the abdomen & sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murders." - July 18th, 1889. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 09:58 am | | Dear Stewart,
Please don't get yourself in a flap, it was certainly not my intention to
have that effect. I was not arguing with you, I was simply asking
questions, trying to increase my knowledge on the subject.
As I certainly do not want to be the (unwitting)cause of you leaving these
boards, please consider these questions withdrawn.
Do I have a closed mind as regards to my suspect Hutchinson? Well I
don't actually recall mentioning him in my posting, but may I point you to
the opening lines of Chapter 12 in my book.
'Was Hutchinson Jack the Ripper? It is of course impossible to say, but I
believe that if the same case occurred today he would definitely be
someone the police would want to interview extremely urgently.'
I'm sorry if you read that to mean that I would only accept Hutchinson as
JTR.
I must admit I find it a little strange that someone who professes to have
such an open mind had apparently already decided what I was going to
say!
To anyone else who does not mind providing information:
I'm still trying to establish when Tumblety was suspected by the police.
As I've said the only lead I have is Littlechild (who apparently had
nothing to do with the investigation) who wrote to G R Sims a quarter of
a century after the murders. Is there anything that shows Tumblety was a
contemporary suspect i.e. at the time of the murders, of the police. I
appreciate stories were carried in American newspapers to suggest he
was, but these stories were possibly inserted or leaked by Tumblety
himself.
The problem I have is that if Dr T was such a hot suspect of Littlechilds,
and if detectives were despatched in pursuit of said Dr T, I find it rather
strange that Littlechild believes him to have committed suicide after
fleeing from Boulogne. In other words he seemed completely ignorant of
what really happened to Dr T - rather strange for someone who was such
a hot suspect.
It is more than possible that I have missed something which connects
Tumblety to these murders, in which case I would appreciate any
information anyone can give.
Many thanks
Bob. |
Author: Alan
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 10:16 am | | Bob,
The articles on Tumblety's arrest as a 'Ripper' suspect appeared in the American press when Tumblety was still in England. Also there is the fact that Inspector Andrews pursued him to New York.
Alan |
Author: S P Evans
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 11:53 am | | Bob,
You have responded with typical 'Hintonese.' I am not in a flap (whatever gave you that impression?) I just do not have the time to pointlessly argue, an activity which you seem to revel in. You keep putting questions which I have already addressed in the past, and I really do hate repeating myself.
You have written enough in the past for anyone to understand how your mind works on this subject, and the reason that I mentioned Hutchinson was that your whole thinking in regard to Kelly revolves around him. I don't recall saying that you had a closed mind as regards Hutchinson being the 'Ripper,' but I certainly did indicate that you had a closed mind on the status of Kelly being a 'Ripper' victim. I really don't know, and I care even less, who you would accept as 'Jack the Ripper.'
You are also using 'Hinton speak' when you suggest (para. 6) that "...I find it a little strange that someone who professes to have such an open mind had apparently already decided what I was going to say!" What I said was, "However, you have responded much as I would have expected in view of your adverse comments on both my book and Tumblety in your book." That is something totally different, you appear to be twisting words.
Regarding your questions, I will respond, but I have addressed them all in the past.
The fact that Tumblety was a contemporary suspect is indicated both in the U.S. press, as early as November 18, 1888 (San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times November 19, 1888). At that time Tumblety was, of course, on the run in England and would have found it most difficult to be 'planting' stories in the U.S. papers.
Scott Nelson has already repeated the November 23, 1888, San Francisco Chronicle article (above) showing that Anderson cabled the San Francisco police for samples of Tumblety's handwriting. Again when he was on the run and ten days before Tumblety got back to America.
Articles in the U.S. press and the Pall Mall Gazette (December 31, 1888) indicate that Andrews went to New York in December 1888 in pursuit of the Whitechapel murderer.
Littlechild, as we have seen, stated that Tumblety was "amongst the suspects," and G.B.H. Logan in his 1928 book also states that Inspector Andrews pursued the murderer to America.
Your "hot suspect" comment sounds rather disparaging (I guess it was intended to be - indeed you use it twice) and Littlechild's feelings as to Tumblety as a suspect are clearly stated in his letter and can be expanded no further. Yes, Littlechild stated that it was believed that Tumblety had committed suicide after his escape from Boulogne (which route of escape, of course, he has been proved correct about). Any information as to the final disposition of Tumblety would only have reached Littlechild, and the Yard, from Inspector Andrews on his return. Tumblety had fled New York by the time Andrews arrived, and did not reappear in the U.S. until later the following year. We do not know how Andrews terminated his inquiries in New York for Tumblety, but they may well have reached the conclusion that he had disappeared and committed suicide.
I have never, ever, stated that there was hard evidence connecting him with the murders. Just very strong suspicion, and coincidental facts, that indicate that. The Yard suspicion may have been strong, but they did lack anything solid, I explain that in the book. They were keen to get him back to England, could not extradite him for the misdemeanours, and may well have been, as Don Rumbelow has suggested, hoping to trick him over the border to Canada (which he frequented) where British law applied and they could arrest him.
If you are so keen to obtain further information on Tumblety I am sure that you would have read all this before, so I can only think that you are waiting for others to provide you with information so that you do not have to bother to look.
You stated, re- Hutchinson, "...I believe that if the same case occurred today he would definitely be someone the police would want to interview extremely urgently." Well, he was and they did!
I can do no better than to quote Abberline's own report, 12th November, 1888, in this regard: - "An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true..." [MEPO 3/140, ff. 230-232.]
But I believe that you think that Abberline was not 'telling it how it was.'?
This has developed into a rather confrontational exchange (we are both at fault here I believe) and I do not wish to continue any further.
Yours,
Stewart |
|
|
|
|
