|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Tumblety...why or why not!!
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Tumblety, Francis:
Tumblety...why or why not!!
Author: Josh Matrone
Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 08:35 pm |        | Hey everybody!! Just curious as to what your opinions are on the chance that Francis Tumblety is the Ripper. Let me know your thoughts, ideas, inner feelings, etc.!!
Thanx!
Josh |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 08 November 1999 - 12:26 am | | Hi Josh. Unless you have some new information which links Tumblety to the so-called Diary of JtR ... You might want to move this discussion to a more appropriate board, like, Suspects> Tumblety. And don't be shy - tell us about your research on the man. ;-)
Regards,
Ashling |
Author: barry
Friday, 19 November 1999 - 08:59 pm | | | Tumblety seems the most logical suspect to me mates. You? |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 20 November 1999 - 04:14 pm | | Barry
The simple answer to that is....we dont know enough about him yet.
We can place him in London at the time of the murders, but the same is true for Kosminski, Klosowski, Druitt and many others.
We can say the murders must have stopped because he departed, but the same was said of Druitt due to his suicide.
We know of nothing to actually connect Tumblety with the murders, the rings dont do it, all we have is the Littlechild letter refering to him as 'amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one'.
We know he hated women, loved boys, was a charlatan, an Indian Doctor, a liar, a cheat, a coward, loved attention, was flamboyant, proposed the use of herbal remedies, abhored the use of the knife, had a vast collection of organs, some of which were uteri, but this was 25yrs or so prior to the murders.
Having said all that we realize that we know very little of the man except from interviews by the press with people who had met him at one time.
There must be a wealth of information out there on this guy, he travelled Eastern Canada, across the United States, toured Europe, had run-ins with the authorities all the time.
What do we need to know in order to bring him closer to the murders? thats the next step. We need to dig deeper.
So, like I said, we dont know enough about him yet. He's an interesting suspect, we dont know why he was a suspect, or what he was suspected of.
The term used, 'Wanted in connection with the Whitechapel murders' is rather like our modern day euphemizm, 'To help us with our enquiries' but what did the authorities think?....that he was the knife wielding miscreant, or that he hired a knife wielding miscreant?
Tumblety may not be the kind of person to dirty his own hands.
As the Scots would say 'Not Proven'
Regards, Jon |
Author: Sara
Saturday, 20 November 1999 - 05:35 pm | | Gentlemen:
A new "article" on Tumblety has been placed on the CP web site under Members' Corner at
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/mc/columnist.htm
- this relevant message was forwarded to me by the kind folks at Casebook Productions. I thought you might be interested.
All the best,
Sara |
Author: Katarina
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 12:55 pm | | Franis Tumblety- (possible suspect)-successful physician. There has been numerous incendents involving Tumblety, aborted the pregnancy of a hooker (arrested but never charged)that was in (1878). In 1860 one of his patient died under his care. Testimony of Colonal Dunham:
He was arrested in being connected to the lincoln murder. Tumblety was released of these charges.
The following is what is bothering me:
The bisexual Sir Henry Hall Caine had a affair with Tumblety. Why would a doctor of that preference kill whores?
He was arrested in liverpool in 1888 on charges of gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms against four men between July 27th- November 2. Tumblety was then charged on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders on the 12th. |
Author: Katarina
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 12:57 pm | | Tumblety fits many requirements of what we now know as the ‘serial killer profile.’ He had a supposed hatred of women and prostitutes (the abortion with the prostitute Dumas, his alleged failed marriage to an ex-prostitute, his collection of uteri, etc.)
Tumblety was in London at the time and may indeed have been the infamous ‘Batty Street Lodger’ -- he therefore may have had fair knowledge of the East End environs.
Tumblety may have had some anatomical knowledge, as inferred by his collection of wombs, his ‘medical’ practice, and his short-term work with Dr. Lispenard in Rochester.
He was arrested in the midst of the Autumn of Terror on suspicion of having committed the murders.
There were no more murders after he fleed England on the 24th November, if one counts only the canonical five murders.
Chief Inspector Littlechild, a top name in Scotland Yard, believed him a ‘very likely suspect,’ and he was not alone in his convictions.
Tumblety was fond of using aliases, disappearing without a trace, and was the subject of police enquiries before his arrest.
Scotland Yard and the American police had been in touch numerous times concerning Tumblety’s flight from France to New York.
One of the three detectives inspectors assigned to the case was sent to New York at the same time, perhaps to pursue Tumblety.
Tumblety evaded capture in New York City once again.
Tumblety had the wealth necessary for frequent travel and could afford to change his clothes frequently should they have become bloodstained.
He was an eccentric; but shrewd.
He had a tendency toward violence at times, and his career may have included other offences both at home and abroad.
Several acquaintances of his in America believed it likely that he was the Ripper when interviewed in 1888.
There is a strong case to be made that he was indeed the Batty Street Lodger. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 02:28 pm | | Hi Katarina,
The thing that gets me about Tumblety is his physical description.
He would stand out a mile.
And I do not remember reading about any witness that describes such a man.
I know that it does not discount Franny but it makes me wonder.
Monty
 |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 03:11 pm | | Hi Kat.
A few of your points for Tumblety above are incorrect, especially the one that he was arrested on suspicion of having committed the murders.
This is not true, he was arrested in connection with indecent acts totally unrelated to the Ripper murders.
He was apparently pursued to the USA for jumping bail and we read that two detectives who escourted a common thief back to Canada were asked to look up the whereabouts of Tumblety while they were here. Thats a rough summary but like I pointed out above (Nov. 20/99) we do not know enough about him to regard him as a suspect.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 08:44 pm | | Hi All,
Problems I've found with Tumblety as a suspect:
1.) As many have already stated, there is a major problem with Tumblety's appearance. One he's over 6 feet tall. Two he is rather eccentric in dress. Even in his later days he was still dressing up in Soldier's Uniforms. He's also 55 years of age during the killings. And he likes to be the center of attention, wherever he goes.(This is documented by many people who knew him, or met him at high end parties.)
2.) He's still rather well to do at the time of the murders. Yes, he did have a few financial problems a few years previous, as well as a few years after the murders, but for the most part he is a well off gentleman. So why is he staying in Batty Street? It was a lodging house yes, however look at the area it is in. Rather poor and squalid, which is completely against the areas that Dr. T liked to be seen in. After all he is WELL KNOWN for his extravagance.
3.) I don't doubt that he went 'slumming' in Whitechapel, it appears all the upper class of the area did at least a time or two. However, every one of them were typically picked out by the Bobbies, or even the regular citizens cause they just couldn't fit in the area.(Easiest example of this is, if your upper middle class, grab some old clothes you may have lying in some dark corner of your closet, and then try and walk about in the worst section of town.(Preferably around Inner City Project Housing.) The people will still be able to spot you out.)
4.) Everyone talks about Littlechild like he was an expert on the case. However, Littlechild had LITTLE, if not NOTHING, to do with the Jack The Ripper Case. He was part of the Special Branch, which mainly dealt with the problems of Irish(Fennian) Terrorism. Yes, he may have known a little about Dr. T., since it is quite possible that the good doctor was an Irish Sympathizer, but that doesn't mean he has the exact information about the case that would be needed to connect ANYONE to the case.
5.) Even if Littlechild is WELL-VERSED in the case. He still states that Dr. T. is a good suspect, however doesn't fit the profile of Jack the Ripper.
6.) People often speak of Inspector Andrews as one of the Three Inspectors(the other 2 being Moore, and Abberline) concerned with the day to day investigation of the case. If this is true, then why is Andrews in Canada extraditing prisoners 10 days before he shows up looking for Dr. T.? I mean, the Jack the Ripper case was HIGH-PROFILE, so whoever was fully assigned to the case would have had their case-load dropped for the sake of catching the serial killer. Yet Andrews is off in Canada babysitting prisoners across the Atlantic? Doesn't make much sense to me.
7.) Tumblety was a coward. Read the press reports about him. There is more evidence of his backing away from confrontation more than there is of any supposed violent tendancies. So are we to believe the man who was brave enough to have challenged Scottland Yard and countless Vigilance Committees by killing woman after woman is someone who runs from a fight?
8.) Tumblety didn't hate women. In Evans and Gainey's book, 'Jack the Ripper, First American Serial Killer', they state a story about Tumblety speaking fondly of a Southern Belle who stood defiantly against the Union Soldiers at the Prison that the good doctor was residing in during his suspicions of complicity in the murder of Lincoln. Now I'm not saying Dr. T. wouldn't bad mouth women, especially when the subject was brought up by handsome young gentleman that the good doctor may have been interested in. After all Dr. T. is a NOTED homosexual, as well as rather jealous when his limelight was stolen from him. I know quite a few homosexuals that would speak badly of women, eventhough they have no foul thoughts about the fairer sex. It is true that Dr. T's tale of his marriage to a prostitute may cause a bit of rage against women that shared her profession, but if it was to manifest itself into full-blown MULTIPLE-MURDER I would think it would have happened much sooner in his life.(That is of course if the tale is even true. Anyone ever try to see if Dr. T had a Marriage License out there?)
9.) Dr. T. DID NOT elude capture in New York. The crime he was responsible of was NON-extraditable. So Andrews and his detectives(if there was even more than one, by all reports I've read only one was ever noticed watching Tumblety.) could only look into what Dr. T was up to in New York, nothing more. It's true Dr. T did move on unnoticed, however, if you had already been arrested once for involvement in the murder of a President, then there is suspicion cast on you about a HIGH-PROFILE SERIAL KILLING, wouldn't you run and hide?
10.) There are even more people that knew Dr. T that stated he couldn't have been Jack the Ripper.
11.) I'm sure with VERY little checking one could find more than a 1,000 people who left London(whether it be by traveling to somewhere else on this planet(voluntarily or involutarily) or maybe into the next plane of existence(i.e. died)) around the same time that the murders stopped. Does this mean that all of these people are part of the crime?
Doctor Tumblety is one of the better suspects that were ever thought to be Jack the Ripper. But there are too many inconsistancies that make him much more likely having no involvement in the crime whatsoever. These are just a few problems I came up with, I'm sure others have even more.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 04:00 am | | Although I like to stress that I am totally objective in my approach to this subject and I do not like to become embroiled in suspect debates and arguments, I really do feel the record needs setting straight here.
I am surprised that Jon made the comments that he did as I have, in the past, covered the point above that he obviously does not understand. Inspector Andrews' role in the Whitechapel investigation is unclear, and the main reference we have is the following from the book I Caught Crippen by Ex-Chief Inspector Walter Dew, London, Blackie & Son, 1938:-
"Let us take a quick look at the men upon whom the responsibilities of the great man-hunt chiefly fell.
The officers sent from Scotland Yard were Chief-Inspector [sic] Moore, Inspector Abberline and Inspector Andrews, assisted, of course, by a large number of officers of subordinate rank."
During the period of the investigation Inspector Andrews arrested a fugitive offender from Canada, one Roland Gideon Israel Barnett from Toronto. This individual was wanted on a charge of fraud as a trustee and fraudulently converting to his own use valuable securities, which offences were perpetrated on the Central Bank of Toronto.
It is not known how Andrews located and arrested Barnett, but the possibility must remain that Andrews located him whilst looking for a North American suspect in connection with his Whitechapel investigations.
What is certain is the fact that once arrested under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, and detained, Barnett immediately became the responsibility of the Canadaian authorities. Thus it was incumbent upon the Canadian Police to collect Barnett and return him to Toronto to face the charges. It was NOT the responsibility of Scotland Yard to take him to Canada.
However, what we do know is that Inspector Andrews DID take Barnett to Toronto, with an escort, in December 1888. This immediately begs the question of why was Andrews' doing the Canadian Police's job for them? When this fact was first discovered I suggested that it was possibly because with such a scenario the Canadians would fund Andrews' trip to North America thus saving the Treasury having to pay for a trip over there in pursuit of Tumblety.
Tumblety's flight was reported in only one British newspaper so far located. The Monmouthshire Merlin and South Wales Advertiser of December 7, 1888 had reported:-
"It is reported by cable from Europe that a certain person whose name is known, has sailed from Havre for New York, who is famous for his hatred of women, and who has repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character."
This suggestion is not as contrived as it may sound. The Whitechapel murders investigation was running into financial problems and there were many exchanges with the Treasury and the Receiver over the rising cost of the extra men, overtime and expenses. Also the bail which Tumblety had skipped was for the non-extraditable offence of gross indecency. As a minor misdemeanour there is no way that Scotland Yard would have bothered to pursue Tumblety for that offence alone as it was simply not serious enough. They had the surrendered bail surety anyway.
Later research, conducted by Keith Skinner, proved me to be correct in my assumption. November 1888 was the very month that Tumblety fled to the USA and it must have seemed a great opportunity for the London officials to pursue Tumblety but with the funding supplied by the Canadians. Keith's research revealed the warrant and extradition details for Barnett which showed that Andrews' trip to Canada was paid for by the Canadian Government which telegraphed the handsome sum of £120 to the British authorities, at the end of November 1888, whilst Tumblety was fleeing to the USA.
We know from the New York press that by some means or other (perhaps he actually followed him) there was already an English detective watching Tumblety when he took up lodgings at 79 East Tenth Street New York on December 3, 1888. Fully aware he was under observation Tumblety fled from this address two days later and was effectively 'on the run', by the time Andrews arrived in New York later that month.
When Andrews arrived in Toronto and left his prisoner he immediately went to Montreal where he conferred with the police chief. Now this is very interesting as Tumblety was known to have an office in this city and it is the city where years before he had been arrested on a charge of attempting to procure the abortion of a young prostitute, Philomene Dumas. Andrews' visit to Montreal was reported in the St Louis Republican of December 22, 1888:-
'AFTER "JACK THE RIPPER"
A Scotland Yard Detective Looking for Him in America.
Special to the Republic.
MONTREAL. Dec. 20.- Inspector Andrews of Scotland Yard arrived here to-day from Toronto and left to-night for New York. He tried to evade newspaper men, but incautiously revealed his identity at the central office, where he had an interview with Chief of Police Hughes. He refused to answer any questions regarding his mission, but said there were 23 detectives, 2 clerks and 1 inspector employed on the Whitechapel murder cases and that the police were without a jot of evidence upon which to arrest anybody.
"How many men have you working in America?"
"Half a dozen," he replied; then hesitating, continued: "American detective agencies have offered to find the murderer on salaries and payment of expenses. But we can do that ourselves, you know."
"Are you one of the half dozen?"
"No. Don't say anything about that. I meant detective agencies."
"But what are you here for?"
"I had rather not say just at present."
Ten days ago Andrews brought Roland Gideon and [sic] Israel Barnet, charged with helping wreck the Central Bank of Toronto, to this country from England, and since his arrival he has received orders from England which will keep him in America for some time. It was announced at police headquarters to-day that Andrews has a commission in connection with two other Scotland Yard men to find the murderer in America. His inaction for so long a time, and the fact that a man suspected of knowing considerable about the murders left England for this side three weeks ago, makes the London police believe "Jack" has left that country for this."
It is pretty obvious that Andrews' (and his two colleagues') trip, funded by the Canadians, was doubling up in the pursuit of Tumblety and was thus saving considerable cash in not having to be funded by the British Government. They were hardly likely to admit this to the Canadians who would have then said that as the Yard men were travelling over on their Ripper hunt they could have brought Barnett with them anyway and shared the cost of the trans-Atlantic journey. These facts are rather different to Jon's glib dismissal. How on earth Jon can say "...we do not know enough about him to regard him as a suspect" is truly staggering. Tumblety was one of the few contemporary suspects. Littlechild clearly stated "...but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T." That Tumblety was "amongst the suspects" is stated as a fact, not opinion, and is qualified with Littlechild's belief that he was "a very likely one".
All the reports, and Littlechild's comments show that although Tumblety had been arrested on the gross indecency charges (all that they appear to have had solid evidence for) he was still suspected of complicity in the Whitechapel murders.
I will address the points raised by Chris in a separate post.
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 06:06 am | | To address the points raised by Chris I would make the following observations.
1) Regarding Tumblety's appearance we have here an old chestnut. This is a specious argument that is often used to dismiss various suspects. First, just who did see the killer and give a good and accurate description of him? Something must be obvious from the fact that the descriptions given by three of the generally accepted witnesses, Elizabeth Long, Joseph Lawende and George Hutchinson do not agree. Most of the sightings were in far from ideal circumstances and the accuracy of witnesses as to age and height can be wildly off target. This I know for a fact having taken literally hundreds of witness statements as a police officer. The best evidence indicates that Tumblety was 5' 10" tall, not "over 6 feet". The descriptions of him being flamboyant and dressing garishly all relate to when he was a younger man in the 1860's. the description we have of him in 1888 is much more sober and prtrays him dressed in a long, dark blue ulster coat and a derby hat.
2) If Tumblety was the 'Batty Street lodger' and there is a very good case to be made that he was, it is totally in character with the man to be staying at such an address. He had a history of using hotels and common lodgings. Extravagent habits don't preclude 'slumming it' which was very popular in those days amongst the wealthy.
3) Regarding the statement about "upper class of the area" [?] 'slumming', just where is the evidence that "every one of them were [sic] typically picked out by the Bobbies, or even the regular citizens cause [sic] they just couldn't fit in the area..."? This is really baffling. The East End of 1888 was truly cosmopolitan, and was frequented by all classes from the very rich to the abject poor. Its streets carried all nationalities, many strangers, visiting foreign sailors, soldiers, immigrant folk, traders, wealthy businessmen (like Lusk), well-dressed doctors, rich theatre-goers, and so on. The same is true today in the area.
4) John George Littlechild was a Chief Inspector at Scotland Yard from 1883 to 1893. He was head of the most select and secret department (the Special Branch) he had worked with both Abberline and Swanson, as early as 1885 and had his men on duties in the East End in connection with both Irish and anarchist activities. The Ripper inquiry was of the greatest interest to all the officers at Scotland Yard, it had huge political ramifications, and to suggest that he knew nothing about the case is a total nonsense. Indeed, his own remarks show that he was both interested in the case and had knowledge of it. He would have certainly known more than we do today. It is an insult to him to suggest that his remarks about Tumblety as a suspect were not relevant. Indeed, his remarks are very modest, he's not trumpeting "I knew the identity of Jack the Ripper". He makes the sober statement that Tumblety was amongst the suspects and to his mind a very likely one. His remarks should be treated with all the more respect for this fact and for the fact that he was not seeking to sensationalise them, he made them in a private letter.
5) Need I really make any comment about 'profile of Jack the Ripper'? Profiling is such an overblown idea, which has never resulted in a single arrest, that surely I don't need to point out its shortcomings. (Obviously this will upset the 'profiling brigade' but I'm afraid that many police officers have no time for profiling). Oddly enough and despite this many of Tumblety's traits fit suggested 'profiles'. It just goes to show that you can 'fit' profiles or adapt them for all sorts of suspects.
6) Re- Andrews I have covered this question in my answer to Jon above, and obviously Chris is not fully au fait with the facts.
7) "Tumblety was a coward" - really? Well, equally there is evidence that he physically attacked a newspaperman in New York with whom he had a dispute. But what a totally irrelevant remark. The Ripper was probably also a coward (whether or not he was Tumblety), he attacked defenceless and weak women. Many such killers are cowards, so what does that fact have to do with anything???
8) Tumblety did hate women, and this is a well recorded fact from those who knew him in the USA to Littlechild who also confirmed this. Also it is referred to in the above report about Tumblety fleeing that I quote in the post above. The 'Southern Belle' comment, made in 1866, was one made by Tumblety himself in his book, and is not relevant to his general feelings about women. It would be nice if further details on Tumblety's alleged wife could be found though it is interesting to note that on his death certificate he is shown as a widower. As for killing women, and obviously this is sheer unsubstantiated speculation, we have no evidence that Tumblety had not killed before. He was an itinerant traveller in the U.S. and Canada (and other parts of the world) in the days of the 'wild west'. He may have perpetrated many unaccredited killings in those days that could never be laid at his door. Indians used to leave mutilated victims on the plains for instance.
9) Dr. Tumblety did elude his pursuers in New York, and went 'on the run', as is made patently clear in the New York press reports. Andrews may not have had evidence to arrest him for murder, but Tumblety would not have known that. Don Rumbelow has suggested that the idea may have been to 'trick' or otherwise arrange to get Tumblety over the Canadian border where, under the different laws, Andrews would have had the power to arrest him. This 'run and hide' argument proves nothing either way.
10) There were several who did think that Tumblety may have been the Ripper and they are not outweighed by those who thought he couldn't have been. However, this is irrelevant as in many cases of known serial killers those who know the killer simply could not believe that the person could have been the culprit.
11) I don't understand the relevance of this point. The fact is that Tumblety did run and that Andrews was after him. It's a nonsense to equate these known facts with the obvious statement that many others (such as Druitt, Bury, and thousands of unknowns) would have moved on about the same time. Tumblety ran at the time, Tumblety was definitely suspected at the time.
Of course none of this proves that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper, and the evidence suggests that they had no hard evidence against him; they merely had suspicion. Of course, no hard evidence existed against any suspect anyway.
This is at the same time the frustrating aspect and the appeal of this case. Tumblety cannot be proved to be the killer any more than any other viable suspect. However, he can be proved to be a contemporary suspect.
So, in the end, 'you pays your money and makes your choice'. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am asking for those who argue to internalize the known facts and contemporary commentary and present their views more logically. The most important thing of all is to keep an open mind and to assimilate all the information.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Michael Leonard Tate
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 07:07 am | | Hello,
With regard to statements about upper class visitors to the Whitechapel area may I draw your attention to these extracts from London: A Pilgrimage, a comtemporary journal of the time (written in 1872) often criticized for its portrayal of London's more impoverished regions:
Quote:You put yourself in communication with Scotland Yard, to begin with. You adopt rough clothes. You select two or three companions who will not flinch even before the humors and horrors of Tiger Bay...
Our upper class visitors have "disguised" themselves, yet:
Quote:in the strange, dark by-ways to which we are bound; by-ways, the natives of which will look upon us as the Japanese looked upon the first European travellers in the streets of Yeddo.
And:
Quote:...in the open doorways, low-browed ruffians and women who emphasize even their endearments with an oath scowl at us in threatening groups as we pass...we wonder what would become of a lonely wanderer who should find himself in these regions unprotected. "He would be stripped to his shirt," was the candid answer...
Later in their "tour":
Quote:I and one of our party entered a crowded public-house. We passed into a large room, in the corner of which was a raised piano and a little platform. The entire audience turned towards us faces the combined effect of which I shall never forget.
Further:
Quote:We were to them as strange and amusing as Chinamen; and we were something more and worse. We were spies upon them; men of better luck whom they were bound to envy, and whose mere presence roused the rebel in them. A few of them, loitering about the Whitechapel Road, flung a parting sneer or oath at us...
I think there is a good argument for the fact that not all comers to the area would pass unnoticed. I'm not drawing any conclusions as to the guilt of Dr. Tumblety but thought it might provide an interesting insight into attitudes of the populous of the area towards visitors perceived and recognised as outsiders.
Regards,
Mike |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 08:37 am | | | Stewart--Thanks for the run-down on Andrews' visit to Montreal. Intriguing stuff. Cheers, RP |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 08:56 am | | Hi
Stewart P Evans makes a robust case for Tumblety however I think in truth we can only say that Tumblety was one of a number who make Division One of the suspect list.
Essentially I have always felt that the Police would know best on the matter. I am convinced that they were an efficient force and have received undue criticism both at the time and since. If you follow this line then suspects that are implicated by the Police are clearly the most likely. We are therefore looking at Kosminski, Tumblety, maybe Druitt and Ostrog (although no real evidence against these two).
I would favour Kosminski because he is named by both Swanson and Anderson who were directly involved with the investigation. The weakness (to date) of the Tumblety case is that Littlechild whilst a senior officer was not. Clearly Littlechild was aware of Tumblety as a potential Fenian and would also have been aware of any high level discussion of him in relation to the Whitechapel murders. There may have been some vehicle for sharing information where suspects crossed departmental boundaries therefore Littlechild may well have been involved in discussions relating to the Whitechapel murders and/or other offences relating to Tumblety.
As a senior officer, with a sensational case such as this, Littlechild was bound to have a pet theory. It is natural that he would. This is why we can only take his statement as that of an expert (outside the main investigation), not one of the experts actually involved.
The statement "...but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T." is cautious and professional. It tells us that Tumblety was a suspect and was a likely suspect 'in Littlechilds opinion.' This is very good evidence, but it isn't the best evidence. At this stage Kosminski must rate higher.
The other aspect of Tumblety that I have a problems with is that of witness descriptions. Allowing for the vagaries of witness evidence it is clear that even at 5'10" Tumblety would be a good 4" taller than most witnesses suggest. Additionally there is a clear parallel between a number of descriptions. Here I refer to the fair complexion and moustache, peaked cap, late twenties early thirties, sailor type. I must concede however that in one case (the oft dismissed Hutchinson statement), there is a description that is very like Tumblety. Contemporary illustrations of this, look very like the drawing of Tumblety, even down to the moustache.
In summation I must say that as suspects go, Tumblety is to my mind a very likely one. Just not the most likely (as yet).
Regards
Kev |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 08:57 pm | | I have to agree with Mr. Evans in regards to witnesses. I know very little about Tumblety or any of the other suspects for that matter.
A given in criminal investigations that crosses all boundries and transcends time is that almighty and all powerful witness statement has be carefully examined. Modern investigators now receive many hours of training in how to ask questions, what questions to ask and how to analyze the answers. Multiple people can all witness a certain event and each can give wildly different accounts. When dealing with height, weight, age of a suspect the investigator has to get the person being questioned to think in terms of their body build. Most witnesses will not do this unless they are prompted by the investigator. I have even had to submit witnesses to hypnosis. In one case a witness steadfastly stated she saw the murder victim alive at 3:30 pm while leaving the apartment complex to pick up her children from school. Under hypnosis, it was revealed she had her times mixed up and it was really 7:30 am, while taking her children TO school, when she saw the victim alive.
The investigator has to listen to the witness to determine what sense they use to communicate. A person will normally communicate on either the auditory or visual sense. Some will communicate on the olfactory and sensual senses, but these are few. Even fewer are those who communicate in the sense of taste. The investigator has to determine what sense they are communicating in and shift his communication to the same sense.
ie....
The whole situation just smelled fishy to me.
The whole situation just did not look right.
The whole situation just sounded to good to be true.
The whole situation just did not feel right to me.
The situation left a bad taste in my mouth.
It is possible to move the witness from their channel to your channel.ie..
"When you heard the two people arguing do you remember what you saw or may have seen?"
The sensual channel is the place where the investigator wants to move hard to get along with witnesses and suspects. The most deadly form of questioning comes on the sensual channel, especially when the investigator resorts to the
3F's, feel, felt and found.
"I understand the way you FEEL your reluctance to become involve.Others have FELT the same way. These are dangerous times we live in. Everybody has to look out for theirselves and take care of number one. But this murder involved a little girl. The parents only want justice. I am sure you could understand that. If it was you daughter, sister you would want someone to come forward with any information. And what those who have been in this same position have FOUND is a sense of pride and relief, a sense of bonding with the victim and the victim's loved ones.........."
Usually by this point the tissue comes out. I have reduced and have seen other's reduce reluctant witnesses and suspects to tears using this method.
If this doesn't work....... just take the badge off, close the door and draw the blinds.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 10:48 am | | Hey, Scott! I'll confess! Just don't give me the thoid degree!  |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 11:29 am | | | No problem Christopher. The meaning of all that rambling was to let people know to tread lightly where witness statements are concerned. Read every word, and pay particular attention to those statements that say " I heard nothing unusual or out of the ordinary last night..." or "I saw nothing unusual or out of the ordinary last night..." Then ask for Whitechapel what are the usual sights and sounds versus what are the unusual. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 05:33 pm | | Hi Stewart,
As I stated before I'm not totally against Tumblety being Jack the Ripper. He is one of the TOP suspects on my list, I was just vocalizing my opinions on the troubles with Tumblety as a suspect.(I don't know of any suspect that there isn't a problem with. Not even in cases that are already solved.)
Let me try and clarify some of my statements from earlier though, since some of the points were missed.
1.) I don't go by witness statements. After all, all the witnesses were in the dark and only made a quick glance of Jack the Ripper. I'm just stating how out of place Dr. T, would seem to the area as a whole. I was sure I that I had read somewhere that Tumbelty was about 6 feet.(I believe it was in some of the press reports I've read, which of course aren't totally reliable.) Of course he may have been 5'10" and the heels of his boots made him look a little taller.(Since he was rather fond of army dress, at least in his earlier years.) But I was sure that I had read something about his prison profile giving his height as either 6 foot or 6'1".(However, I'm not quite sure of it.) I do understand that in his later years he wasn't as 'flashy' a dresser as he was in his earlier years. That his clothing was much more sober. However, the problem I have is that even if his clothing was rather sober, it would not have fit in with the locals of Whitechapel. His clothes would have been much newer than that of the typical East Ender. Even better than those of the much more well accomplished East Ender whose job entailed him to wear better clothing than those down on their luck. But even these gentleman who's clothing was actually more cloth than the rags that many wore, would never be spotted in areas near Dorset Street after dark. Not if they didn't want to find themselves mugged in the process.
2.) I won't completely deny that Tumblety could have been the Batty Street Lodger. However, I think he may have been the West End Lodger, rather than the Batty Street Lodger.(For all of those that don't know what I speak of check out the article in the Globe of October 10th, 1888.) It seems that more evidence would support this as the good Doctor's residence. However, I won't deny that he may have just had a room at Batty Street which he may stop at for a night or two during his times of 'slumming'. Yet, when I read the articles it seems to me like the Lodger was a regular at the establishment. Yes he did disappear for long periods of time. But it seemed more like he stayed there on a more regular basis, than I feel Tumblety would stay there. Everywhere I've read Tumblety was known for his extravagance in lifestyle. Even during the days that he was supposedly broke. So I feel that it's harder to believe that he stayed at a location like this for long, since it could GREATLY undermine his social standing if the word got out his staying in such a horrid place.(And as you stated Tumblety assaulted a Newspaper man, this assault was over the Good Doctor's name being tarnished by the reporter.)
3.) Mike already helped to get my point across about this one. I know the area was considered cosmopolitan. But I believe what the papers meant in reporting facts like this, was areas around the main roads.(Commercial Street, Whitechapel Road, etc.) I know here in New Orleans, we have the Garden District, which is well known by the tourists. However a few blocks from this well known area are slums, and inner city housing projects. Any upper class person attempting to walk about in these areas should have a darn good reason for walking about there, otherwise all eyes would turn to them with suspicion. Areas like Berner Street and Dorset Street help me to support this theory, because they are much like the slums here.
4.) I do respect Littlechild's naming of Tumblety as a suspect. I don't deny that their is relevance to the case. However, what I was trying to point out is the fact that Littlechild would not have as much information on the case as those that are actually working upon it. You stated yourself that Littlechild was Chief Inspector of the Special Branch and that his job entailed looking into Fenian plots.(Many of these fenians would MOST definitely use Whitechapel as a staging ground for their ideas. Since it was an area hard to control.) But what you don't see is this. Littlechild is working on OTHER things asides from our boy Jack. Sure he's going to get information on the case. But he's not going to get every single piece of paper involved in the case. He'd be lucky if he even saw half of these. This would be like saying an officer invovled in narcotics would have every piece of information on the murder of a prostitute that had no involvemnt in any of his/her cases.(Let's be honest here, cops will look over pieces of information in hopes of maybe linking things, or even if they just find things rather interesting. But they can't just drop everything they are doing to research someone else's case.) But as I said Littlechild does have my respect in his theory. I'm just stating that he probably didn't have full knowledge of every facet of the case.
5.) What I meant by the profile comment was this. That even Littlechild himself believed there were problems with Tumblety being a suspect because it was then believed that Jack was a Sadist.(Which may or may not have been the case.) So what I'm saying is Littlechild didn't fully state, 'Hey everybody this Dr. T. is Jack the Ripper.' He just stated that Dr. T. was a GOOD suspect(which I myself agree with), however there are a few problems with him being one.(Namely the sadist remark.)
6.) My problem with Andrews is a simple one. The major consensus is that Andrews is one of the 3 inspectors sent to work on the Jack the Ripper Case. However, we have very little documentation on Andrews working on the case. Abberline and Moore had much more paperwork in the case files than Andrews. I'm not stating that Andrews didn't work on the case.(I do believe he did.) However, I don't believe he was as greatly involved in the case as some people believe he was. I feel he did check out suspects, Dr. T. included. But I also feel that he also did other case work as well. I agree with your idea that he used the funding for the extradition to help pay for his trip to America. However, I feel that Dr. T. wasn't the only suspect that Andrews was looking into. I mean let's face it 120 pounds is A LOT of money to spend on one suspect, who their only reason for suspecting is his jumping bail. I think our Mr. Andrews was in America looking into anyone else who may have come abroad after the murders.(We do know that there was a suspected medical student that supposedly came across the sea as well, eventhough he panned out to not be involved.) However, the High Profile was on Dr. T., so what better than a reporter to say that one of Scottland Yard's finest is here following only ONE rather well-known suspect?
7.) There is a difference between cowardice because of someone's actions and the cowardice to commit actions. My comment is about Dr. T's backing down on the witness stand at several of his trials. What I meant by it is, Dr. T probably would have been too cowardly to go about killing more women(whether you believe in the 'Double Event' or not, or even Mary Kelly for that matter.) after the heat was on after the first 2 murders. I won't deny that Dr. T would throw a fit if completely backed into a corner.(After all his reputation was his life.) But the idea of him lurking about in the shadows of Whitechapel killing women when his NECK is on the line seems a little far fetched for me.(But you never know, he just may have.)
8.) I still maintain that Tumbelty didn't have a full blown hate of women. Yes, he would make derrogatory statements about women.(Then again I'd like you to tell me one man that never has done it at least once? However, this does not make him a killer, just means that he had some rather nasty things to say about the fairer sex.) You said it yourself, Tumblety quoted the story of the 'Southern Belle' in his own book. Now why would a man who has such RAGE and HATRED for women that he eventually murders several of them, speak good about a woman? I mean after all if he hates women, why would he publicly announce something in writing that shows his admiration of one of their sex?
9.) Like I said I won't deny that Dr. T eluded the authorities. What I'm stating is that he didn't elude CAPTURE, since there was no capture even planned. He was a suspect like MANY others. And due to the fact of his imprisonment after the Civil War, he got ancy for the fact that he may be implicated in another crime he did not commmit. He'd been persecuted before, so why wouldn't he feel like he may in this instance too. That doesn't mean he's a killer, just means he's afraid of going to jail.(More evidence of his cowardice.)
10.) I agree with your stating the irrelevance that the fact that someone states or does not state they believe someone is a serial killer. Evidence that serial killers are friendly neighbors can be seen in Gacy's and Gein's case. However, you also prove my point. Just cause someone says that, 'Oh because this guy acts odd, then he did it!', that doesn't mean he is guilty of the crime. Yet in your own book you state, 'Several acquaintances of his in America believed it likely that he was the Ripper when interviewed in 1888.' So if it's irrelevant that I state that he's not a killer because someone says he doesn't seem the type, then so is your statement that he is because they stated he was.
11.) What I meant by this last comment is this. That not everyone who left London after the last of the killings was the killer. However, I'm SURE many of them were suspected to be involved. So stating that, just because they are odd, and they became a fugitive from justice because they were arrested for another offence, that makes them a killer. Then I guess that Ischemid, Sadler, James Kelly, as well as many others must have been the killer too, since they did the same thing. I'm not stating that these people could have done it, or even that Tumblety for point of fact didn't. What I'm saying is, if your going to use this arguement for one, you have to use them for all.
Like I stated above, I believe Tumblety as a VERY GOOD suspect. He's DEFINITELY in my top 3. I'm just giving a few problems I see in the theory. This doesn't mean he didn't do it. Just saying that there is as much to substantiate the case against him being the killer, as there are for him.(Then again so are such cases for and against Ted Bundy and other noted killers.)
Best Wishes,
Chris H.
P.S. I do rather enjoy reading your research. I have all of your books on the subject. So please keep up the GREAT WORK.  |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 06:23 pm | | Far be it from me to make any intentionally 'staggering' statements but the point I was intending to make, or possibly failed to clarify was that it is during the critical time period of 1888 when we absolutely need to know of his actions and whereabouts.
The fact that Tumblety was in London is a requirement and in no way can be used in support of Tumblety being made a suspect. He has to be in London to be included on the suspect list. My concern is that we know nothing of him and his goings on until the arrest for sexual misconduct.
If you notice with other suspects (Chapman, Druitt, Barnett, etc) researchers try to locate these individuals at or nearby certain locations within the East-End or try to show how the paths of the victims & suspect may have crossed in order to tie the victims to the suspect. Nothing of this sort is possible with Tumblety and as someone once quoted his appearance "once seen never forgotten" sadly appears to have been totally forgotten five times in succession.
In this regard I feel we know very little of Tumblety and his dealings in London during the critical time period. It's not that he's a bad suspect, on the contrary he would make a magnificent suspect if we could close the loop and trace his actions in London during that dark autumn instead of only having evidence of his nuisance activity of a possibly homosexual nature.
The fact he was a suspect is beyond dispute but we are not privy as to why. If you recall the memories of other high ranking officials they all give us their private suspect but with little or no supporting evidence, we get the impression we are being presented with opinions long after the fact rather than some positive points to give strong reasons as to why this 'suspect' is a good one.
The Littlechild letter gives us the same opinion, John Littlechild was head of Special Branch and they handled political crimes not social issues such as serial killers so where in his daily duties would John Littlechild deal with a serial killer?.
The Littlechild letter, to my mind, is amazing for what it does not say rather than for what it does. Tumblety has been suggested to have been involved in political intrigue and specifically involved with the Irish Fenians. Is this true or is it another exaggerated claim?.
John Littlechild was head of the department which concerned itself with Fenian activities and yet when we read the letter Littlechild makes no hint that he has even been deeply equainted with the name Tumblety, he has heard of him in connection with the Ripper crimes but this is not his departments concern so his recollections appear vague and distant. Surprisingly Littlechild provides much in the way of detail when discussing Harry Thaw, the letter to Sims, if you recall was "on the Ripper subject" yet Littlechild does not provide any lines like ""at one time a frequent visitor to London who fell under the observations of my department due to his Fenian connections....." or something of that nature. Littlechild is relating, to the best of his ability, a story connected with the concerns of another department in Scotland Yard, not the Special Branch.
Surprisingly Littlechild mentions Tumblety as if he knows of him by second or third-hand channels, almost a distant memory. Admitedly he was writing 25 years after the events took place but IF Tumblety had any Fenian connections and IF Littlechild had any reason to become aquainted with Tumblety due to similar political activities then would we not expect something more of substance in a letter purported to be sent to Sims to inform him of something he was not aware of?.
I am of the opinion that the Littlechild letter is another of those 'memoirs' which is being presented by an ex-officer relating to facts which were not within his own departments field of activity and therefore they are of a second or third-hand nature.
Now, having tried to clarify my concerns (above) I am inclined to think that we do not know enough about the activities of Dr Tumblety to make him a suspect.
Following Tumblety across the sea in secret is to be expected, regardless of what they suspected him of.
Which story do you think would likely guarantee them the least social & political opposition in a foreign country, to inform the American public, of largely Irish decent, that they are pursuing a Fenian activist or that they are in pursuit of a serial killer, Jack the Ripper?.
The police had Tumblety as a suspect, but, we do not know why.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Katarina
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 12:50 pm | | | this is what you get when your drinking at five o clock in the morning heh |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 01:14 pm | | Let me just air some concerns I have with the Batty St lodger being Tumblety.
We all know of the story of the landlady who found a blood-stained shirt and reported it to police. The Daily News of Oct. 16th makes some points.
...the police are watching with great anxiety a house at the East-end which is strongly suspected to have been the actual lodging, or a house made use of by someone connected with the East-end murders...
The Landlady had been suspicious of the man since the night of the double-murder, two weeks prior.
Acting on the advice of some of her neighbours, she gave information to the police and showed them the blood-stained shirt. They took possession of it and obtained from her a full description of her missing lodger.
So, the police had his unique(?) description, they took this incident seriously enough to deploy two detectives and two policemen at the house to await the return of this lodger.
The East Anglican Daily Times, Oct. 17th 1888.
Though they (police) say nothing they are evidently convinced that it (shirt) was left in a house in Batty Street by the assassin.
The police had a keen interest in this break in the investigation and the article continues..
there is no doubt that a man was taken into custody on suspicion of being the missing lodger from 22 Batty Street, and that he was afterwards set at liberty.
These above two incidents are confirmed by another article in the Manchester Evening News of Oct. 17th.
...the woman (Landlady) communicated with the police, who placed the house under observation, the detectives at the same time being lodged there to arrest the man should he return. This he did last Saturday, and he was taken to Leman Street Police Station, where he was questioned, and within an hour or two released, his statements being proved correct.
Lets assume Tumblety was this Batty Street lodger. Tumblety's description was firmly in the hands of the detectives at Leman Street. They set a trap for him, arrested him and took him to Leman Street.
Clearly, by this time the authorities were well aquainted with Francis Tumblety, assuming he is the lodger in question.
Three weeks later Francis Tumblety is again brought to the attention of police and placed under arrest, this time for (homo?)sexual misconduct on November 7th.
At some point we read that a further charge is placed against him in connection with the Whitechapel murders. One report dates this as on Nov. 12th, another gives Nov. 18th. I suspect a typing error somewhere, but my concern is that we are led to believe Tumblety is arrested three times in four weeks, and twice for the same crime.
The Washington Evening Star of Nov. 27th suggestes this (second?) arrest in connection with the Whitechapel murders is a ruse to get an undesirable off the streets.
It was his queer method of spending his money which first attracted the Scotland Yard detectives to him, and after a slight investigation he was arrested, the idea being that if he were not the Whitechapel fiend, he is a dangerous character, and is not entitled to his liberty.
Were the police using the Whitchapel crimes as a catch-all to pull dubious individuals off the streets?.
Regardless of the reason Tumblety appears to have been arrested and locked up, at least according to the only news article I know of to refer to this incident.
The New York Times of Nov. 19th 1888.
He (Tumblety) visited both this city and Brooklyn at about semi-yearly intervals and became a member of several questionable clubs. He dropped out of sight some 10 years ago, and the first that has been heard of him since is the news of his arrest and imprisonment in London.
Arrest AND imprisonment.
Appears to indicate Tumblety was locked up following his arrest, until his bail hearing, from the 7th to the 16th of November.
If Tumblety was the Batty Street lodger, would the police arrest him twice in connection with these crimes and still let him out on bail?
And if the N.Y.T. is correct (above) then there was no police bond applied in this instance, he was locked up.
If any of the above is in error I would appreciate the corrections.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 05:22 pm | | I did say that I do not wish to become embroiled in extended suspect discussions as so much hinges on personal opinion, interpretation and speculation. And, again, I repeat, no hard evidence existed afainst any suspect. Without hard evidence there can be no charge and trial for that offence. In 1888 there were no real forensic science aids, and even blood could only be classified as mammalian, not human.
To further address the points made by Chris:-
1) As I said, in an area frequented by all classes of all descriptions, Tumblety would not look 'out of place', especially if dressed in a hat and long dark coat. This whole argument is rendered invalid anyway by the fact that, the same as anyone, he could change the clothes he wore and his appearance, so the argument is specious. Tumblety's height was given as 5'10" by Captain Streeter, who knew him in Rochester. In his army pass it was stated as 6' (presumably in his high cavalry boots).
2) Tumblety was known to have had multiple lodgings (he could afford it) so a good argument could be made for the fact that he may have kept several 'bolt-holes' if he was the killer. The Batty Street lodger can be shown to have been an American doctor. Tumblety was an American doctor at large in London at the time. Tumblety was the American doctor who was pursued to New York in December 1888. Tumblety was suspected of complicity in the Whitechapel murders as may be seen in all the U.S. press reports. I think it is far more likely that Tumblety was the Batty Street lodger than not.
3) The statements that Mike reproduced about the area were from 16 years previously (1872) and there had been changes made in the area such as the building of many new tenements etc. Also theatregoers frequented the Pavilion Theatre and many respectable business men were in the area at all hours. There were one or two 'no go area' streets, but in the main the picture was not as bad as painted. And, as I described, the killer may well have 'dressed down' for his forays into the streets. Dorset Street was claimed to be one, but not Berner Street as may be seen by the cross section of people using it around the time of the Stride murder.
4) Littlechild would have had as much information on the case as he cared to read. He was the same rank as Swanson and may well have read the reports the same as Swanson did. They would not have been kept from him and I would imagine that all five Chief Inspectors at Scotland Yard stayed well briefed on what was happening as it was of such great interest. However, as the identity of the killer was not known this point isn't really relevant. Littlechild didn't need to see 'every single piece of paper involved in the case', so why is that relevant? Most of the paperwork would have been irrelevant to naming a suspect anyway. What is relevant is the fact that Littlechild states that Tumblety was amongst the suspects, which is all that matters. Again I stress here that we are not saying that proves Tumblety was the Ripper, I have never said that, it does prove he was a suspect. A senior police officer of Chief Inspector rank would have as much time as he felt he needed to peruse other case papers if he wished to do so.
5) Psychoanalysing offenders was certainly in its infancy in those days, and such a skill would certainly be beyond Littlechild. The 'sadist' remark is irrelevant as Littlechild is merely stating that Tumblety wasn't one (to his knowledge) and by strict definition the killer was not one either, as he apparently killed quickly and did not inflict pain and suffering. I do not understand your comments here as I have never claimed that Littlechild 'fully stated' "Hey everybody this Dr. T. is Jack the Ripper...", so I fail to see the point of what you are saying. My whole case is for Tumblety being a good suspect, NOT that I can prove he was the Ripper.
6) Having transcribed all the official records, I, probably more than anyone else, am fully aware that Andrews does not appear in them. It is a point that I covered in my book. The point is, however, that he did pursue Tumblety to New York.
7) All these comments about cowardice are specious. I do not understand your comment "Dr. T's backing down on the witness stand at several of his trials..." He never stood trial as far as I know, so I don't know how he could have 'backed down on the witness stand' whatever that is supposed to mean. Your comment "Dr. T probably [my emphasis] would have been to cowardly to go about killing more women...after the heat was on after the first two murders" means that this is only your own opinion, and is based on what? The simple fact is that cowards do go on committing murders when they are serial killers. The force driving them overcomes their feelings of cowardice.
8) It is ridiculous to suggest that Tumblety did not have the reputation for hating women:-
Monmouthshire Merlin and South Wales Advertiser, December 7, 1888: "It is reported by cable from Europe that a certain person whose name is known, has sailed from Havre for New York, who is famous for his hatred of women, and who has repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character."
New York World, December 2, 1888: Sub-headline "HE HAD A BITTER HATRED OF WOMEN."
...Col. Dunham: "Someone asked why he had not invited some women to his dinner. His face instantly became black as a thunder-cloud. He had a pack of cards in his hand, but he laid them down and said, almost savagely, 'No, Colonel, I don't know any such cattle, and if I did I would, as your friend, sooner give you a dose of quick poison than take you into such danger.' He then broke into a homily on the sin and folly of dissipation, fiercely denounced all women and especially fallen women..."
Ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild: "...but his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record." [My emphasis]
Obviously Chris has some information that I, and the contemporary sources, don't as he says, "I still maintain Tumblety didn't have a full blown hate of women." The above comments about Tumblety amount to rather more than just 'making derogatory statements about women'. Indeed, the contemporary record indicates that his main venom was directed against prostitutes.
9) These comments are very odd and really amount to nothing more than Chris's own opinion. Tumblety certainly did elude those chasing him, a fact on record.
10) This is a silly 'tit-for-tat' argument that merely substantiates what I said originally, such comments, either way, really don't mean too much at all. The statement in our book that, 'Several acquaintances of his in America believed it likely that he was the Ripper when interviewed in 1888' was a statement of fact. It is up to the individual to accord whatever importance he feels fit to that. We merely stated the case. Indeed, if you have read the book, you will see that we list the instance where the opposite comment was made also, so we weren't even being selective. As I have stated in the past, total objectivity is simply not possible in a book presenting a specific suspect, and the writer will always list the facts or statements supporting his case as any publisher worth his salt requires it. But it must be noted that we also included the points that militated against his candidacy also.
11) The sole point to be made here is the fact that Tumblety did flee London in late November 1888 to escape justice (for whatever reason) and he was pursued to New York by Scotland Yard. This is rather more than may be said of the other suspects listed. It is a nonsense for anyone to claim that this fact proves anything, and we didn't, we merely stated that it was one of many cumulative circumstances that combined to make the case against him more plausible.
All that said, we find that in fact we both come to the same conclusion, Tumblety was a very good suspect for Jack the Ripper. I hope the above has, in some small measure, addressed the 'few problems you see in the theory'. Please remember it is a theory, as any such case against a named person must be at this remove in time.
I will address Jon's points in a further post.
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 07:44 pm | | Jon,
The point that "it is during the critical time period of 1888 when we absolutely need to know of his actions and whereabouts", is a statement which is true of any and every Ripper suspect. The fact that we don't is why we really never will positively identify the killer.
The fact that "Tumblety was in London is a requirement and in no way can be used in support of Tumblety being made a suspect. He has to be in London to be included on the suspect list" is a specious argument. After all, Dr Thomas Neill Cream has been proposed as a suspect but was in the USA at the time of the murders. Therefore the fact that Tumblety was not in the USA (but was in London) at the time of the murders makes him, instantly, a better suspect than Cream, this theory not needing the invention of elaborate scenarios to put him in London at the requisite time. We also know that he arrived in England in July 1888, and left at the end of November 1888.
The descriptions of Tumblety as being 'once seen never forgotten', relate to when he was in the habit of dressing garishly and in outlandish costume, many years in the past. All the witness sightings are poor at best, even if any of them saw the killer, so, again, this argument is specious. I will again say, if he was wearing a long dark coat and a derby hat there would be nothing memorable about his appearance.
We know very little or nothing of any suspects (Druitt, Kosminski, Bury, et al) and their dealings in London at the time of the murders. It would be a fine thing if we could 'close the loop and trace the actions in London' of all the suspects. We can't, that's why it is still a mystery, is still debated, and will continue to be so debated.
Jon, I'm afraid that you are lost in the realms of wishful thinking with your requirements for what senior police officers should have told us and why they felt what they did. They didn't, we have only the known records that we have, we have to make the best of a bad job. That's the name of the game.
It's not a question of "where in his daily duties would John Littelchild deal with a serial killer?" If that serial killer was also a Fenian or had Fenian links, then Littlechild would be dealing directly with him. But again the argument posed is specious. Littlechild was a career police officer, and in his time dealt with crime in all its forms. Here we had a series of crimes that was of the greatest interest to all police officers, certainly all those in charge at Scotland Yard. And Littlechild was one of those in charge at Scotland Yard. But, again, these points are hardly relevant, for Littlechild would have known more about these murders and the investigation than you or I will ever know. We have to accept that in this high-ranking and trusted officer's opinion Tumblety was a very likely suspect. He doesn't tell us fully why, but we have to note what he does say as most relevant.
Littlechild stated "...there being a large dossier on him at Scotland Yard". One would assume that Littlechild was drawing he remarks about Tumblety from his memory and what he was able to remember from this large dossier (presumably a Special Branch dossier). Also do not forget the comments by Douglas G. Browne in his 1956 book, The Rise of Scotland Yard. On page 208 we find:-
"A third head of the C.I.D., Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office."
As we know from the content of this book, regarding the Whitechapel murders, the author had access to the Scotland Yard files in the early 1950's before many of the reports went missing. It seems he saw something else Macnaghten had written about a Fenian plotter suspected of being the Ripper. Indeed, we know for a fact that this plot to kill Balfour had been hatched by the Fenians in New York, and was discovered by the British Government just three weeks before the Nichols murder. This is one possible (even the probable) answer to your question as to why Littlechild knew so much.
However, your concerns are understandable for anyone who keeps an open mind and has no suspect preference. These concerns are true of all police officers' recollections and theories. But, I repeat, Littlechild's claim was modest and was not sensational. It was made in a private letter and he was not proclaiming to the world at large, "I know the identity of Jack the Ripper". This is what makes Littlechild's remarks all the more valid.
In your fourth paragraph, first post, you stated, "The fact that he was a suspect is beyond dispute."
In your seventh paragraph, same post, you bewilderingly state, "...I am inclined to think that we do not know enough about the activities of Dr Tumblety to make him a suspect." [!!!]
Which is it Jon? That he was a suspect is beyond doubt. What your second remark above should say is, "...I am inclined to think that we do not know enough about the activities of Dr Tumblety to make him Jack the Ripper." Then, I would agree with you.
In your second post, regarding the Batty Street lodger, the suspect later arrested in Bermondsey 'on suspicion of being the missing Batty Street lodger' was an American, but was later released. I do not for one moment think that this was Tumblety. Nor do I think it was the missing Batty Street lodger. I do think that his general description, especially being an American, fitted, but he was released when they realised he was not the man they were seeking and he proved this.
The story you quote from the Manchester Evening News was fully explained in our book. This was a story released by the police through the Central News Agency, intended to stop the press speculation about the fleeing lodger. This story did not agree with the story told by the landlady and her neighbours in Batty Street to the press about the lodger. In the police released story it was not a lodger but a man leaving clothing at the address for laundering. We explained this as a police attempt to stem the story in our book. In no way do we suggest that Tumblety was arrested at this time at all. Indeed the opposite is indicated by the Liverpool police at that time putting a watch on suspects leaving the port for New York.
The report in The Globe of October 10, 1888, referred to a C.I.D. man travelling to Liverpool with regard to a suspect who had "suddenly left Liverpool for London, and for some time occupied apartments in a well-known first-class hotel in the West End. It is stated that for some reason or another this person was in the habit of 'slumming'. He would visit the lowest parts of London, and scour the slums of the East-end." All this is typical of Tumblety, but the final sentence of this piece fits him to a 'T' (if you will forgive the pun). It says, "It has been suggested that the mysterious personage referred to landed in Liverpool from America [which Tumblety did], but this so far is no more than a suggestion."
However the clincher that the Batty Street lodger was indeed an American doctor comes from an independent source some 23 years later. That source is George R Sims writng in the Yarmouth Independent of February 25, 1911:-
"Three years ago [i.e. 1907/8], when the discussion as to Jack's identity cropped up again in the Press, I wrote on the subject [vide 'My Criminal Museum' in Lloyd's Weekly News, September 22, 1907]. Soon afterwards a lady called upon me late one night. She came to tell me that the Whitechapel fiend had lodged in her house. On the night of the double murder he came in at two in the morning. The next day her husband, going into the lodger's room after he had left it, saw a black bag, and on opening it discovered a long, sharp knife, and two bloodstained cuffs. The lodger was a medical man, an American. The next day he paid his rent, took his luggage and left. Then the police were communicated with but nothing more was heard of the American doctor with the suspcious black bag..."
Now this story almost exactly corresponds with the 1888 Batty Street landlady's story and cannot be a separate case. Indeed, the 1888 landlady was a German, Mrs Kuer, who did not speak good English which may account for some slight variations. However, after 23 years in this country, when she told Sims the story, she would have been speaking very good English and the Sims' story is probably the more accurate. This, if accurate, could almost be conclusive evidence that her lodger was the killer. That he was Tumblety may be open to more argument. For the Sims piece, frustratingly, ends with a piece that militates against it.
The story ended, "'But,' said my lady visitor, 'I have seen him again this week. he is now in practice in the north-west of London.' She gave his name and address and the names of two people who were prepared to come forward and identify him as the lodger with the black bag, the knife, and the incriminating cuffs. The next day I took the information, for what it was worth, to the proper quarters. But the doctor was not disturbed in his practice. There was ample proof that the real author of the horrors had committed suicide in the last stage of his manical [sic] frenzy."
It could be argued that the landlady would not have recognised a lodger she had 23 years previously who would have changed very much as he aged, and was not her 1888 lodger. It would seem that this north London doctor was not bothered by the police as they probably knew that he was respectable. Sims himself stuck with his preference for the suspect described to him by his friend Macnaghten, Druitt.
We are not led to believe that Tumblety was arrested 'three times in four weeks'. His initial arrest was on November 7, 1888, for a misdemeanour, gross indecency. The normal procedure for the police at this stage was to release on police bail whilst further evidence was gathered before charging. Even if they believed he was involved in the Whitechapel murders at this time, with only suspicion they could not hold him on that.
So, the probable course was to bail him on the 7th to reappear at the police station seven days later, the normal period. They could not hold him in custody without charging him which they did not do at this time. They had to release him within 24 hours on police bail as there was no charge made at this stage. This hypothesis is borne out by the fact that we know a warrant was issued for him on November 14. He was obviously re-arrested and charged with the four gross indecency offences and appeared at Marlborough Street court on November 16 when he was granted bail against a huge surety which he was able to meet. Once bailed he fled. At most he was arrested twice, and that was normal, the initial arrest followed by re-arrest when the police bail expired. The procedures were exactly the same (although under different legislation) when I was a serving police officer.
To quote an American newspaper article as proving that Tumblety was 'arrested and imprisoned' is reading rather too much into it. He would certainly be imprisoned (in the police cell) after his initial arrest, but imprisonment in an actual gaol would require a court appearance which there is no evidence of. As I have shown the contrary is indicated by the issue of the warrant on November 14.
How many times do I have to say it? Tumblety was not arrested 'in connection with these crimes' although that is what some US papers indicated. He was clearly arrested for the only offences that they had hard evidence for, the gross indecency offences. All the indications are that the police suspected him of involvement in the Whitechapel crimes, but had no hard evidence for them to act on this suspicion. And Tumblety would certainly admit nothing. The mere fact that Anderson did communicate with the San Francisco police to obtain samples of Tumblety's handwriting indicates that Scotland Yard did entertain these suspicions. I think the relevant point is that the London Police were keeping quiet in regard to the press about their suspicions regarding Tumblety, whereas in the USA the police leaked it to the press.
A further point of interest is the fact that the generally accepted Ripper killings were committed on the following dates:-
Friday 31 August 1888 - Nichols
Saturday 8 September 1888 - Chapman
Sunday 30 September 1888 - Stride/Eddowes
Friday 9 November 1888 - Kelly
Two Fridays, a Saturday and a Sunday.
Tumblety's offences were committed on the following dates:-
Friday 27 July 1888
Friday 31 August 1888
Sunday 14 October 1888
Friday 2 November 1888
A coincidence.
Also, the only material items known to have been taken from any Ripper victim, and not recovered, were the two cheap brass rings from Annie Chapman's hand. When Tumblety died, amongst his valuable possessions, $432.70 cash, a $1,000 West Shore railway bond, seventeen-diamond cluster ring value $75.00, a five-diamond ring value $60.00, and a gold pocket watch value $10.00, were two imitation rings worth $3.00.
Another coincidence.
As I said, none of this proves Tumblety to be the Ripper. However, it is all food for thought.
Stewart |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 11:46 pm | | Hello everyone. I would agree that I don't see much relevance in the fact that Tumblety was known to dress in the most outlandish attire back in his New York and Washington, D.C. days. Certainly if Dr. T was involved in the Whitechapel crimes, he would have had the brains to 'tone it down' and blend in with his surroundings. We wouldn't expect to find him stalking Kate Eddowes with a plumed hat, a set of jangling medals, a couple of greyhounds, and a page boy bringing up the rear.
Stewart--Hello. I'd like to pose one question, if you don't mind. Do you have any thoughts about the likeliness of Tumblety being the physician arrested at Euston station on November 17th? I've found this a bit confusing. The letter found in St. John by 'H. Smith' positively identifies Tumblety as living in Birmingham, traveling to London on the week-ends, and being this man. Is this a mistake on the part of Smith? The U.S. papers widely reported the Euston Station affair, and the story of Tumblety's arrest & flight appeared in the papers over the next few days. Perhaps Smith was jumping to a false conclusion? I find it a bit of a muddle, but maybe I'm not looking at it correctly. If Tumblety was arrested on the 14th, and remanded on bail on the 16th and fled immediately to Europe, then certainly he's not the Birmingham physician, is he?
Finally, I think it is possible that when Chris mentioned Tumblety "backing down" at trial, it might be a reference to the civil case involving Mrs. Lyons? [Chris can correct me if I'm wrong] If my memory serves me right, Dr. T was being harrassed on the stand by the lawyer. But this was hardly a case of Tumblety 'backing down'--- indeed the lawyer mentioned the fact that Tumblety acted as though he was about 'strike' him. Cheers, RP |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 11 March 2002 - 01:50 am | | Hi RJ,
Yes, the Birmingham doctor incident, if the dates are reported correctly, could not be Tumblety. However, he was known to stay in Birmingham. There are insufficient published details of this incident to tell exactly what was going on, and it may be just another suspect story or, if the dates are incorrectly reported, could be part of the Tumblety story. It is easy to assume that newspaper reports are correct, but, as we know, they often get their facts wrong. Unfortunately, very often such reports are all we have left to go on.
The action involving the Lyons family was an action brought by Tumblety himself, against Mrs Lyons for taking some bonds, and was not a criminal trial against Tumblety.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Stepan Poberowski
Sunday, 17 March 2002 - 08:55 am | | G'day
Tumblety was re-arrested and charged with the four gross indecency offences and appeared at Marlborough Street court on November 16 (magistrate J.L.Hannay) (The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, L., 2000, p.621)
However in Dickens’s Dictionary of London 1888 (p.198-199) it is specified that in Marlborough Street court R.M.Newyon, Esq. and J.S.Mansfield, Esq. were magistrates, and J.L.Hannay, Esq. was among magistrates in Worship Street Police Court, Finsbury.
Finsbury was included into G Division.
Is it a mistake in Dickens’s dictionary? Is it mean that Dr.Tumblety was arrested on the 7th in G Division and Finsbury was his last den?
All best,
S.P. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 17 March 2002 - 09:36 am | | Hi, Stepan:
Stewart Evans can address this point, but I should think it possible that the Dickens reference work, Dickens’s Dictionary of London 1888, was compiled in 1887 and published in 1888 and that by late 1888 Mr. Hannay had been reassigned to Marlborough Street court, possibly filling the seat vacated by R. M. Newyon or J. S. Mansfield. This is strictly a guess on my part, but would explain this seeming variance in the name of magistrate who presided in the Tumblety case and the listing in Dickens showing the London courts at which the magistrates presided.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 17 March 2002 - 03:01 pm | | Hi All,
So we know for certainty that Tumblety went before the court on the 16th? I know the bail was on the 16th but not sure when he actually stood before the court.
Secondly, I know the warrant for his arrest was on November 14th. Was he arrested on this day? Or not till the 16th?
Thirdly, if the warrant on November 14th was for the arrest for Gross Indecency, then what was he arrested for on the 7th? I mean it seems odd to me that he was arrested on the same charge the 7th, released, then a warrant for the same charge was given on the 14th.(I'd understand if he was released on the 7th, and because he didn't show up for a court appearance, a warrant was put out on the 14th. However, the problem with this is two fold. One, if he didn't appear for court, wouldn't they have also tried to charge him with failure to appear, which I haven't seen any indications of, only one indictment on record for him is the Gross Indecency charge. Second, if he failed to appear once, why would they allow bail for him a second time?)
I have a few other problems with Tumblety that I'm researching right now, and don't want to put them forward till I have more evidence(or lack of) in favor of the theory.
Regards,
Chris H.
P.S. Yes, R.J. your right, it was the Lyons trial I was referring to. And yes the Lawyer in the case did state that at one point in the trial he thought Tumblety would actually spring up at him and strike.' However, later in the same article the same gentleman, Mr. William P. Burr states about Tumblety, 'He was a coward physically, though he looked like a giant, and he struck me as one who would be vindictive to the last degree.' I simply got confused about whether it was on stand that he seemed like a coward, or otherwise. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 17 March 2002 - 08:19 pm | | Tumblety was granted bail at the Marlborough Street Magistrates Court on 16 November by the Magistrate James L. Hannay. This was against a surety of $1,500.
Tumblety was arrested on 7 November for the offence(s) of gross indecency, a misdemeanour. It would follow that he would receive police bail, whilst evidence was gathered for the offences to be charged. Police bail is usually granted for 7 days and the offender then returns to the police station where he is re-arrested for the initial offence when he surrenders to the bail, or if he is re-arrested, on a warrant, for not answering that bail. We do not know exactly what happened as none of the police or court records appear to have survived.
Despite the fact that the bail may not have been answered, the offence was still a minor one, he probably had no previous convictions, and the bail sum set was very high (which would indicate a wish for him to either be unable to meet the sum or to ensure that he would forfeit a large amount if bail was not answered).
The Lyons case was not a criminal trial where Tumblety was being tried and Burr's comments are merely his own opinion. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 12:23 am | | Stewart--Hi. You're right, of course, in correcting me about the Lyon's case. Some of us here in the U.S. sometimes rather sloppily call civil cases 'trials' when it really was a 'suit' brought by Tumblety himself.
And thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion.
I think it is sometimes easy to make the mistake of turning a complex human being into one-dimensional figure. Especially in dealing with obscure history. If the Whitechapel murderer was a 'sociopath' along the lines of a Ted Bundy, then there is no doubt that we would get descriptions of a personality running the whole range from a generous and charming man to someone depraved and vindictive. The interesting thing to me in reading the various contemporary opinions about Tumblety [and we have quite a number of them] is how extreme and contradictory they all are. He's one heck of a complex and strange character and regardless of whether he turns out to be connected to the crimes or not, he seems to me a fascinating study. I'm more or less just a connoisseur of crackpots and weirdos, and its people like Tumblety, Ostrog, Lees, Forbes Winslow, D'Onston, etc. that make the Whitechapel history interesting to me.
Strictly my opinion, but I get a strong sense that there is more to Tumblety's arrest than meets the eye. How exactly did the police become aware of Tumblety's 'gross indecency' offenses dating clear back to July and August? And how did they know enough about his background to contact the San Francisco Police Department? [The SF Chief himself wasn't aware of Tumblety having been in the city since his somewhat brief stay in 1870--a full eighteen years in the past]. And exactly what did the 'large dossier' at Scotland Yard contain? The Irish connection is a strong possibility, but there were so many Fenians at the time wouldn't Dr. T's involvement had to have been rather extensive to warrent such attention? Anyway, it seems clear to me that Dr. T's arrest was not a matter of someone carrying a black bag and being picked up by an over-zealous citizen and dragged into the nearest station. The police clearly did some extensive background checks on Dr. T, and I tend to suspect that they had been tracking him since at least early October. Cheers, RP |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 02:22 am | | Hi R.J.,
Yes, Tumblety is an intriguing character whatever his status with regard to the Whitechapel murders. However, the most important factor of all is we know that he was a genuine contemporary suspect for the murders.
The gross indecency case may well have been brought to the attention of the police as a complaint. Another possibility is that the police were keeping observations on a boy (or boys) involved in male prostitution, and one was questioned and Tumblety's name came up as one of his 'clients'. As the records appear not to have survived we simply do not know. Usually in these circumstances they would become aware of the latest offence, then, by questioning and investigation, discover the others. This was normally the main reason for the police bail that I have described. In other words, the bail period would give the police the time to gather evidence (statements etc.) for all the offences before they actually charged the offender and bailed him to appear before a court.
It is important that no historian or researcher allows a 'blind belief' in any one suspect to detract from his overall view of the case and the facts. It is for this very reason that, as the murderer is unknown, we should not ally ourselves to one line of reasoning to the exclusion of all others. It is true that there are a few viable suspects and an open mind should be kept about all of them.
We now know that Ostrog is 'out of the loop', which begs the question as to why he was there in the first place on Macnaghten's list. But others remain to be researched and debated as genuine contenders. In addition to Tumblety we have Druitt, Kosminski, Stephenson and one or two others. This is the appeal of the great mystery.
The best that results from much of the research is merely circumstantial, but it all helps to give a clearer picture of these characters, and enhances the overall history of the case and the attendant circumstances of the murders. As is often pointed out, the killer may never have been any of the known suspects anyway. But, in my humble opinion, if the killer never came under suspicion at all, then we are never going to identify him at this remove in time. Many contenders have been named, for various reasons, but not one scrap of solid evidence has been produced against any one of them. I think that you have shown the right approach to the case when you describe your interest in the fascinating named suspects.
One of the great benefits of a forum like this is to learn more of aspects of the case that we are interested in and to consider new ideas.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 07:52 am | | Hi Stewart,
Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like Tumblety was involved in any criminal proceedings. As R.J. said, here in the States, we pretty much call anything held in a courtroom before a judge a trial.
Now I do have a problem with Tumblety's arrest on November 7th for 'Gross Indecency'. The four offenses he is charged with at the court doesn't state any offence on the 7th of November. The last one is dated 2nd of November. So why is it, he's not arrested until the 7th?(If it is from a complaint from a male prostitute, then how is it there are 3 more in the indictment? Maybe I'm wrong in thinking, but wouldn't a Gross Indecency offence need to be something that required evidence of 'being caught in the act'? Or is it that someone can just say that someone else was responsible for it without any proof of the fact?) Is it possible that maybe he's arrested for some other offence on the 7th?(Maybe a drunk and disorderly charge like Catherine Eddowes? Or as the U.S. papers said, a suspicion of being Jack?)
I agree with both you and R.J. You should always keep ALL of the suspects in frame until you have CONCRETE evidence against them being a suspect.(I.E. Not even in London during the crime.) That's why Tumblety is one of my top suspects, there isn't anything I've found to be completely concrete against him being the Whitechapel Murderer.
Cheers,
Chris H. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 11:45 am | | Chris,
Many thanks for the eminently sensible and well thought out response.
I think that we all have a problem with Tumblety's arrest on 7 November, presumably for an offence of gross indecency. That problem arises because both the police and court records apparently no longer exist. And the bare bones of what we have on the arrest of Tumblety are to be found only in the tabular Central Criminal Court calendar.
It is for this reason that we do not know positively the reason for Tumblety's initial arrest. All the calendar states is "Received Into Custody" at the head of the column. The actual reason for arrest is not given, but the "Offence as charged in the Indictment." column shows "Committing an act of gross indecency". This could mean that a complaint of gross indecency was received by the police and they then arrested Tumblety when he was traced, thus resulting in the date later than 2 November, or that he may have been initially arrested for some other suspected offence and then charged with the lesser offences as that was all they had evidence for. It does not mean that he had to be committing an offence on the date of his arrest.
The three other charges relate to offences committed with three other different males, on different dates. These three earlier offences were probably identified by police investigation and questioning of the initial complainant, which then led on to contact being made with the other three complainants and statements being taken from them. Gross indecency did not mean buggery (or sodomy) which was a very serious offence, but related to such acts as mutual masturbation or fellatio.
This does, however, probably reveal the weakness of the police case against Tumblety for these offences. For the four complainants, Albert Fisher (Friday 27 July 1888), Arthur Brice (Friday 31 August 1888), James Crowley (Sunday 14 October 1888) and John Doughty (Friday 2 November 1888) were probably all guilty of an offence themselves (i.e. as male prostitutes). This may be why all four of the charges against Tumblety contain the wording "...with Force and Arms...unlawfully did commit an act of gross indecency with..."
The words seem to indicate that the police were alleging that all four offences were committed by Tumblety by using force against his victims. This seems very highly unlikely as if they were male prostitutes (which almost certainly they were, such as telegraph boys as in the Cleveland Street scandal of the following year) they would have been paid by Tumblety and therefore no force would have been needed. In fact they should have been co-defendants rather than witnesses against Tumblety. Do we see shades here of the 1857 attempt by the Canadian Police to 'fit Tumblety up' on the charge of attempting to procure an abortion?
This offence was created under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, and was very new and untried. Indeed, for the reason above stated the police were very reluctant to try and enforce it, except under extreme circumstances. The problem for the London Police was that this was not a felony, but was a much less serious offence with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment with or without hard labour. They would be obliged to grant bail.
Other points of interest here are the fact that the Act allowed for "The person who procures the commission of an offence against this section may be the person with whom it is committed." In other words if the four persons Tumblety had been with had acted to solicit Tumblety as male prostitutes, then they would be as guilty as he was and virtually useless as witnesses.
However, all we have are the records that have survived and they are sparse. Interestingly the officer dealing with Tumblety was Detective Sergeant Frank Froest, whose name was linked with the Whitechapel investigation.
I hope that the foregoing casts light rather than muddies the waters. All aspects of this fascinating case are exceedingly complex when so few of the original records have survived.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 03:05 pm | | Dear Mr Evans,
A quick question which I think you may have an answer. Since we know that Dr T was received
amongst the rich and famous...and powerful...why did Dr T spend so much time and money on a visit
to Great Britain at this particular time?We know what a certain group of people would have us believe...I am interested in your take on this
bizarre business.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 05:44 pm | | | Tumblety was a regular visitor to Britain, sometimes twice a year, and often stayed for months at a time. He is stated to have had an office in London. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 07:06 pm | | Dear Mr Evans,
Thank you for your reply. It raises more questions than answers. Agent of British Special Branch? Exporter of wombs? Occultist? Or... one can only wonder WHAT he was up to.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Tuesday, 19 March 2002 - 08:12 am | | Hi Rosey,
Maybe Tumblety was just playing his part in helping London to get a better municipal street lighting system. The Queen was told the murders were impossible to prevent due to the poor lighting in the alleys and streets in that part of the city. When, as a result, a lighting system was constructed, it utilized coal gas. And Tumblety was, after all, a shrewd investor.:-)
Rob |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 19 March 2002 - 06:11 pm | | Dear Robert,
You are speaking of the Electrification Act of 1888?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 08:21 am | | Hi Rosey,
Why yes, the Electrification Act of 1888! One of my favorites. Although I'm really more at home discussing the Arverne Rusty Pipe Act of 1932.
:-))
Rob |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 12:41 pm | | | Stewart--Hello. Your suggestion that Andrews' trip to Toronto/Montreal was connected to the investigation of Dr. Tumblety seems to me to be a near certainty. I've recently found indications that Dr. Tumblety was up in Canada just prior to his depature for England, in May 1888. It only makes sense that the police would be interested in his recent movements. Cheers, RP |
|
|
|
|
