|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Watching Dr. T- Why?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Watching Dr. T- Why?
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 04 June 2002 - 05:12 pm |        | Hi Stewart.
"There is a lot we need to know about Tumblety, his doings and dealings, his purpose and where he stayed, etc. etc. But the same is true of just about every other suspect too."
Absolutely Stewart, I was not singling Tumblety out in any special way. I was suggesting his candidacy would be stronger if we could trace his whereabouts in the U.K.
I hope someone will look into the Northern Ireland records in the future. Unless he was just a tourist, he may have left some sort of trail.
Yes,....and I was hinting that you might take it a step further, ah well, never mind.
Your contribution has been overwhelming as it is.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 04 June 2002 - 06:20 pm | | Hi Stewart and Jon:
I agree that we need to know more about Tumblety's movements and dealings and that there probably is a lot of information on him that awaits to be found. This is why I have been trying to find out more about his sojourn in Baltimore as well as his associates while he was here.
I may be wrong about this, and perhaps you can set me right, Stewart, but my impression of Tumblety vis a vis Canada is that he did not operate there much after the early 1860s and from then on he was mainly active in the United States, beginning with his attempts to portray himself as a surgeon in the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865). His decamping to the United States may have been partly because of his scrapes with Canadian authorities over the illegal abortion he attempted on prostitute Philomene Dumas in Montreal in September 1857 and the mysterious death of James Portmore in St. John's, New Brunswick, in September 1860. He had reasons to steer clear of the Canadian provinces and to peddle his wares south of the international frontier.
In regard to looking for information on Dr. Tumblety in Ireland, Jon, why look for information on him in Northern Ireland? Ireland at this period was of course not divided and was still part of the United Kingdom, for better or worse. Tumblety, being, as we now think, Dublin-born, and Catholic, was more likely to have relatives and associates in the south than in the north. I would think the Dublin papers and records in the south of Ireland may be more productive than those in Ulster if anything is to be found on him in the Emerald Isle. A downside though is that I do believe certain records were destroyed in the Irish civil war so some information on him may be lost, and of course any Special Branch information on him in London in regard to his presumed Fenian activities, will be sequestered and not available to researchers.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 04 June 2002 - 08:03 pm | | Thankyou Chris.
Yes, of course, Eire not Northern Ireland.
If Dr. 'T' was assisting the opposition in any way there may be something in print that may pour more light on his movements.
regards, Jon |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 04 June 2002 - 09:05 pm | | Although little to do with the current discussion, as Inspector Byrnes has been mentioned, I thought the following from the Star, 4 October 1888, might be of interest.
An American Detective’s Opinion.
The Whitechapel murders are attracting widespread attention throughout America. Inspector Byrnes, of New York, was asked how he would proceed to solve the London mystery. He said: - “I should have gone right to work in a commonsense way, and not believed in mere theories. With the great power of the London police I should have manufactured victims for the murderer. I would have taken 50 female habitués of Whitechapel and covered the ground with them. Even if one fell a victim, I should get the murderer. Men un-uniformed should be scattered over the district so nothing could escape them. The crimes are all of the same class, and I would have determined the class to which the murderer belonged. But – pshaw! What’s the good of talking? The murderer would have been caught long ago.”
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 11:44 am | | In addition to what RJ has said about Byrnes, he did not in fact retire, at least not of his own free will. Byrnes was forced from office because of a corruption scandal which engulfed the entire department. The election of Mayor William L. Strong, in 1894 led to a reform of the NYPD by such men as New York Tribune reporter Jacob Riis, (who was to be instrumental in gaining a pardon for Ameer Ben Ali, or "Frenchy", of the Carrie Brown murder), and Theodore Roosevelt, then president of the Board of Police Commissioners and future President of the United States, (it has been commented that Roosevelt had a much easier job as President than he did as Police Commissioner). Roosevelt cleaned up the Police force and in 1895 forced Byrnes, then Chief of Police, to retire. Byrnes died in 1910.
Speaking of police corruption, a contemporary of Byrnes, Alexander "clubber" Williams, a Canadian, had also amassed a small fortune during his time on the Force. When asked how he could explain his extravagant life style on his policeman's salary Williams stated that it was from his real estate dealings in Japan – a statement that was almost impossible to either prove or disprove.
Wolf. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 12:48 pm | | Hi, all:
As a sidelight on the apparent perhaps justifed apathy of the New York police toward arresting Tumblety for the Whitechapel murders, in terms of what evidence there was against him, in today's news is an article on the arrest by New York City Police of a British fugitive, a man suspected in the murder and dismemberment of Tristian Lovelock whose body parts were discovered in Basingstoke, Hampshire a week ago today. See "Murder suspect in New York court". The New York City policeman who made the arrest in Central Park, Officer Francisco Alvarez, stated: "This arrest is very unusual to say the least."
While I realize the 1888 case and this present-day case are very different, I thought nevertheless the cases present something of a parallel, even if imperfect in terms of the evidence the police then and now had on the suspects in question. Maybe though it also has something to do with the improved cooperation between police forces as well as today's rapid communications that a suspect could be arrested in another country so soon after fleeing the country where the crime took place.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 02:58 pm | | Hi Chris and Stewart,
I understand that the New York police did not have jurisdiction over this case. Yet, it really does puzzle me why if Tumblety were a serious suspect that there is no known effort by the NYPD to question him.
At the time, the world was in a frenzy over the murders in Whitechapel. One would think that the NY police department would be eager to crack the case and receive all the attendant praise.
I understand why the New York police did not have to question Tumblety - what puzzles me is why they apparently did not want to question him.
Rich |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 07:48 pm | | | Dear Mr.Dewar: In the previous post,you state that the "world was in a frenzy over the murders in Whitechapel..." I have two questions: WAS the world that concerned over this case( I am not being facetious or a wise guy.)? Second: Were the majority of people aware of the gruesomeness of the crime or did they believe the JtR was simply a cutthroat? ....Did you really mean that the authorities were in a frenzy? Not being up to snuff with the majority of posters,such as you for example,thats why I ask. I remember that the New York papers( can't remember which one) of 1888,seemed to ridicule the London constabulary. Always trying to be numero uno,it is very surprising that the NYPD did NOT question the creepy Dr.T...Thanks HB |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 09:17 pm | | Hi Mr Brown,
The American papers did prominently write up the case - indeed some of the articles are posted on this website.
You are exactly correct about the comment made from an American law enforcement official. Indeed, a prominent member of the New York police department has been quoted as saying Jack the Ripper could never have gotten away with his killings in their city.
This is definite jab at the London police.
Stewart Evans has researched this case with regard to Tumblety far more than anyone else. And his experience as a police officer is valuable to the case. He cites frequently that the London and New York authorities had no extradition procedures. I have no doubt that this is true.
Cynically, if the New York and London police believed Tumblety to be the Whitechapel murderer, I would think NYPD would be delighted to hold him for questioning or at least follow him. What a feather in their cap to investigate and perhaps solve the Jack the Ripper case.
This is not to suggest that I am dismissing Tumblety as a suspect by any means. I just think its very puzzling that the New York authorities seemingly snubbed the UK police over jurisdiction while the most infamous man in the world may have been in their midst.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 09:40 pm | | | Maybe its too late to add on this thread......I recommend anyone interested go to www.ukar.org Its an anti-Zionist site that has a fascinating story of a Scottish tourist who died in an Israeli jail..seems his heart was missing when his corpse was returned to Scotland..and not only he,but a lot of Palestinian children turn up dead minus organs themselves,from the "Born to Kill" Israeli police. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Friday, 01 November 2002 - 11:20 am | | Interesting Tumblety article, including a "recently-discovered" letter from Frederick Douglass in 1887 describing his encounter with Tumblety in Liverpool.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/1031story070808_news.shtml
Quote:
Frederick Douglass ran into him in Liverpool, England, a year before the murders took place. In a letter to his friend Amy Post dated June 10, 1887 (which was recently discovered by University of Rochester librarian Melissa Mead), the great abolitionist wrote:
“I met a man in the street a day or two ago -- who introduced himself to me as Dr. Tomblety (sic). ... He told me much about himself in a very brief space, for he seemed to have more tongue than ears. I could not get a word in anywhere and you know I am too much in love with my own voice to like being suppressed and overtalked in that way, but enough of Dr. Tomblety. He seemed a good fellow after all.”
|
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 01 November 2002 - 01:10 pm | | Hi, Spry:
Fascinating! What a find! Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
You may know that these two men, Dr. Tumblety and Frederick Douglass, are buried in Rochester, New York--although in different cemeteries.
Strange bedfellows, eh?
All the best
Chris |
|
|
|
|
