|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Burns
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:20 am: | 
|
Hi,
I havent been into the case for long, but Tumblety is so far my favourite suspect as at least one of the murderers.(there may have been more than one). There are a couple of questions I have though, if anyone can assist me.
* His long waxed mustache conflicts with eyewitness accounts. But this is the stereotypical image only of Tumblety. Is it possible that he simply trimmed his mo and put a little effort into coverting himself - as any serial killer plainly would.
* I read that at the time of Annie Chapman's murder, an American doctor was enquiring at the hospital about wombs. The police were alerted about the enquiring doctor. Was this doctor Tumblety?
Have a good weekend, Jeff. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Jeff,
My understanding is that that doctor was tracked down and that he turned out to be legitimate and above suspicion.
Since Tumblety is your favorite suspect, I would be interested in getting your response to my post and the telegram that was sent by Scotland Yard to the New York police officials.
Have a good weekend as well.
c.d. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
I have read that Tumblety was apparently a rather handsome man. If he were homosexual, and that appears to be the case, I have always suspected that his rants against the female sex were an attempt to explain why he was usually seen in the company of men. Tumblety basked in the attention of a crowd. I can see him in a pub having had a few pints too many and starting to disparage women in a loud voice. An undercover policeman is present and reports it to his superiors. Add in the story of his uterus collection and he gets arrested.
By the way, I have always felt that the uterus collection story was true. I have no doubt that Tumblety purchased it from some medical college or legitimate physician. Being the consumate con man, he must have realized that no one would doubt the credibility of a "doctor" who actually possessed a uterus collection. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Howard,
Are you implying that Richard Simmons might be gay? Ohhhh noooooooo!!!!.... Say it ain't so, Joe. |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 119
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Hi C.D.
There is a point that can be favorably said about your belief in the uteri jars story. Dunham's account revealed that Tumblety had escorted a few military officers into his medical quarters and displayed these jars. This supposedly occurred in Washington DC sometime between the autumn of 1861 and the spring of 1863. Tumblety was a man who was oddly dedicated to his repetitive behavior. Finding a different incident where Tumblety lured a military officer into his medical quarters for an anatomical discussion would enhance Dunham's account.
The Nov 20, 1888 Washington DC Evening Star does tell of such a story. A naval officer was plucked off the streets of Washington DC by Tumblety in 1861. The quack brought this officer to his medical quarters where Tumblety displayed an arrangement for his guest to view the "circulation of blood" in a human body. Knowing Tumblety's penchant for repetitiveness, the Dunham account becomes more plausible in this respect.
Despite Dunham having been a shady character, and despite some of the particulars of his story being inaccurate, I don't feel this uteri jars account was based on fiction. I also don't think these 1860's jars are all that significant in terms of the 1888 Whitechapel murders.
I know you and others may think that Scotland Yard didn't consider Tumblety to be a serious suspect because of how easily he escaped from their clutches. I'd try not to ignore the human error factor when studying this. James Monro was reported to have said to his family, ""The Ripper was never caught, but he should have been." Monro was the Commissioner of the Met Police during Tumblety's escape. He didn't sound pleased at all about the way this was handled. It was good to read your opinions.
Joe |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 833
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Hi Joe,
I really don't think it counts as much of a verification at all. In fact, I think it works against you.
Isn't it also possible (I'd go so far as to say likely) that the story you mention was seen by "Colonel Dunham" and adapted to not so coincidentally try to connect him to the very organs that were missing in the Ripper murders?
And, heck, as far as that goes, how do you know that one was real? The press was full of bogus stories, so any single one should be looked at skeptically unless it can be verified. This goes triple for articles printed after the claims that he was a Ripper suspect came out, because the media was out to get anything it could on the guy. Anything that supposedly happened in 1861 that wasn't reported until November of 1888 or later is automatically quite suspicious.
Considering how many aliases Sandford Conover used and the number of papers he wrote for, it's also entirely possible that the article you mention was one of his first drafts of the story that he'd later expand into the uterus tale.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 3:06 pm: |
|
I also have to ask why Tumblety was let out of prison in the first place. Yes I know he was being held on minor charges relating to homosexual behavior (sorry I couldn't think of the exact name of the crime) but surely if the police had strong suspicions that he was the Ripper they could have held him for some other unrelated charge (even if trumped up) while they investigated him further. Yet, they let him go on bail. Again, to me, this shows that he was never a serious suspect. Any reponses? |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Joe,
Thanks for the information on the uteri jars story.
I'm sorry but I can't agree that letting Tumblety escape was mere human error. If he was simply "a person of interest" as the police say or if there was some slight suspicion surrounding him, then I might be willing to concede that his escape was the result of human error. But given the fact that this is just days after MJK's brutal murder and that the police had to be desperate for some lead and were probably in panic mode, then letting ANYONE escape who was at all a serious suspect is nothing short of a complete screw-up especially given Tumblety's appearance. What I am trying to say is that either he was a legitmate suspect or he was not. If he was, then I can't imagine that the police didn't have a number of their best men following him. Obviously we don't know what took place but in my opinion the fact that he got away indicates that he was never a serious suspect. As I indicated in a previous post, I think the New York police officials' response to Scotland Yard's telegram tends to confirms this. |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 120
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Hello Dan,
Hey, it's been awhile. I hope things are going well for you.
I have to give you credit. You look at things in an original way, and you do get people thinking. Conover got a look at that Nov 20th Evening Star article and formulated his early Dec quotes from it...mulling it over, I can't really fault anybody for taking a suspicious approach with a guy like Connover.
I don't see anything in the Nov 20th Evening Star article which earns it a label of being a falsehood, though the fact that they didn't name this "naval officer" is a bit questionable. I too wouldn't go so far as to say this story is a verification of the "jars scene" but taken at face value the two stories do have similiarities with regards to Tumblety's behavior towards military officers. I'll leave the decision to which story is truthful to people wiser than me!
Take it easy, Dan. Have a good week.
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 121
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 8:15 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.
I hear what you're saying. I'll take this up another level, and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from with this. The Central Criminal Court set a whopping sum of $1,500 for Tumblety's misdemeanor charge. They did take him seriously. The British Police had Tumblety right where they wanted him: Confined in a London cell where they can maybe drill a confession out of him. If any people show up to bail him, then the police could go after those guys and follow a possible Irish political money trail. But looked what happened! Tumblety's lackeys forked over the money for his release on Nov 16th, and it was reported that these two guys knew absolutely nothing about anything.
This had to be an angering surprise for the police. For $1,500 Tumblety obtained his freedom and retained his privacy. This is an exchange the British authorities could not have wanted. Tumblety would never spend another night inside an English jail again. Their plan backfired. Call it human error, poor judgement, whatever. Tumblety was a serious suspect and he was on the loose.
Did you notice how the English authorities began blitzing the transatlantic cable wires with Tumblety news as soon as he got released on bail? To me this sounded like the reaction of a bunch of ticked off people. I think a stronger tailing order upon Tumblety would have been implemented right at this point. I don't dismiss the possibility that he was thoroughly tailed and immediately arrested again the very next day at the Euston Station. Detective White arrested that doctor on suspicion of the Kelly murder, but a lack of evidence caused his quick release.
I had a great time talking to everyone today, but I've got to pack my things and head out tonight. I'll be in the valley for a week with no internet access. I'm dog-sitting of all things! No internet, no Casebook...just 100 degree temperatures, my brother's cheap beer in his fridge, and his sick dog. I'll really miss you guys!
Joe
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Joe,
Great post. I was not aware of the things that you stated. Can I ask what your source is for the $1500 bail? From what you said, it certainly seems like they took him seriously. I still have problems with the response of the New York City police officials. They were there at the dock when Tumblety landed in America. Apparently all they did was watch Tumblety and tail him (and not very well at that). I know that New York officials were not on the best of terms with Scotland Yard. However it seems to me that this was a golden opportunity for the head of the New York City Police force especially if he had any aspirations for political office. All he had to do was arrest Tumblety for spitting on the sidewalk and call a press conference to announce that they had arrested Jack the Ripper. "Yeah, Jack might have been able to get away with that stuff in London and elude Scotland Yard but here in America he has to deal with the New York police." I mean it falls right into their lap. Yet, in acuality, there response seems to be to treat Tumbelty like he ripped the tag off a mattress. This certainly doesn't jive with what you say was going on in London, i.e., an all out effort to keep him in jail. Can anyone else cast light on this?
Keep a good eye on that dog. Maybe share a couple of cold ones with him. That would sure slow him down and keep him out of trouble. |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
c.d. & all
What surprises me a great deal about Tumblety is the fact that his name was not mentioned anywhere on any list of possible suspects and yet he was followed to America. Littlechild's letter was found only recently naming Dr. D who may or may not be Tumblety. Where was his name prior in all the writings of Jack the Ripper. I know there was talk of an American doctor trying to purchase uteri, however I have yet to see him as a suspect listed by any of the top officials, who had their own lists of suspects. If he were considered as a serious suspect,why wasn't he on one of these lists? Why was he followed to America if he wasn't a serious suspect? I have stated before that in my opinion he was too colorful,too flambuoyant, too egotistical and flaunted himself far too much to be the elusive Jack.Reading material on Tumblety certainly puts forth the character of a person that would be the opposite of Jack (in my humble opinion only)
Tumblety brought far too much attention to himself, something that Jack obviously avoided.
regards
Restless Spirit
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Restless Spirit,
Hi. You make a good point when you list all the inconsistencies surrounding Tumblety. I am beginning to think that his arrest had more to do with his alleged Fenian connections (I think I read somewhere that he was suspected of transporting money for the Fenians) than with him actually being a Ripper suspect. I also recall reading that Tumblety was supposed to be something of a physical coward. I wonder if someone high up in Scotland Yard (Littlechild perhaps?) said "Hey, why don't we lean on this Fenian bastard. If we scare the hell out of him by making him think we suspect he is the Ripper, he might give us the names of some of his Fenian connections." When Tumblety escaped to America, Scotland Yard had to be terrified that if it ever turned out that Tumblety actually was the Ripper and they had let him slip through their fingers that there would be hell to pay. So they sent a cable to New York just to cover their posteriors. "Keep an eye on this guy for us." Had they mentioned in the cable that he was a serious Ripper suspect, I think we would have seen a much greater response from the New York Police.
After MJK was killed, the police had to be grasping for straws. Since Tumblety had a record and was known to publicly denounce women, I am not surprised that he was brought in ostensibly as a Ripper suspect. Especially when you throw in the uteri collection story and his colorful personality. At some point, when the police were convinced that he was not a good Ripper suspect, they might have decided to go the Fenian connection route. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Hi Restless Spirit
I wanted to point out that your statement "Littlechild's letter was found only recently naming Dr. D who may or may not be Tumblety" is in error... Littlechild clearly names Tumblety as a very likely suspect in the murders. The Dr D that he mentions to George R. Simms in this letter which is evidently an answer to an enquiry from Sims about a Dr. D is probably Druitt who is sometimes said, mistakenly to have been a doctor -- he was not although he came from a family of physicians. Tumblety was the suspect Littlechild chose to reveal in the letter after saying he didn't know about a Dr. D.
For the full text of the Littlechild letter go to
http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/lcletter.html
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 840
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.,
It's worth repeating that the London police could not have arrested Tumblety based upon the uterus story because that story did not appear until more than a month later. And there's no solid evidence that when he was arrested that they thought he had anything to do with the murders.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Christopher T. George
I guess I stand corrected. I must have misread the letter, in that I had assumed that Littlechild was not aware of a Dr. D. I don't remember Littlechild naming Tumblety, however the Dr. D that Sims mentioned may very well be a different Dr. D. and have nothing whatsoever to do with Tumblety. It may well be Druit, Davis or Dutton? Would you not agree?
thanks
Restless Spirit
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Dan,
Hi. Thanks for the clarification on the uteri story.
You stated that there is no solid evidence that when he was arrested that Scotland Yard thought he had anything to do with the murders. So, I guess the obvious question is just what in the hell was he arrested for? Are you saying that he became a suspect after he was arrested for his homosexual activities or was he arrested for his suspected Fenian connection? Rather than put together a lengthy post, I will try to sum up my confusion as follows:
1. Arrested by Scotland Yard and named as a suspect by Littlechild = Strong Suspect
2. Had a high bail set = Strong Suspect
3. Eludes police and skips bail = Either a Weak Suspect who the police didn't feel the need to keep tabs on or a Strong Suspect and a major screw up by police.
4. Scotland Yard's cable to the New York Police Department = Strong Suspect
5. Scotland Yard's cable indicates that they are sending detectives to America = Strong Suspect
6. New York Police see Tumblety on the pier but don't arrest him = Weak Suspect
7. Apparently indifferent and half-ass job by the New York police of tailing Tumblety allows him to flee again to parts unknown = Weak Suspect
8. No other mention of Tumblety as a suspect until the Littlechild letter = Weak Suspect.
I mean this guy is harder to decipher than the Shroud of Turin.
Dan, any light you can shed on this would be appreciated. I would especially like to hear your take on the the New York Police Department's apparent indifference to all this. Thanks.
c.d. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 846
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 12:22 am: |
|
Hi c.d.,
Well, the short answer is that he was arrested for homosexual activities. That much we know. The Fenian involvement is speculation, and so is the alleged Ripper suspicion by London police at the time. Something might have been going on with one or both of those, but we just don't know. We do know that a police official with no known connection to the Ripper investigation thought years later that Tumblety was a likely suspect. How or when he came up with that idea and whether anyone else agreed with him is unknown.
The second part of Wolf Vanderlinden's "On the Trail of Tumblety?" article will cover some of the things you are asking about, specifically the reactions of New York police and the detective that was said to be following him.
One thing I do know, though, even without having seen the rest of Wolf's piece is that Thomas Byrnes, the Chief Inspector of the New York police, was a man who loved publicity and didn't concern himself with little things like evidence and constitutional rights when they got in his way. He also made it clear in public statements that he thought the London Police had botched the Ripper case and that he would have caught the Ripper easily if he had shown up in New York.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 690
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
How right Mr. Radka was to notice the strain of post-modernism seeping into 'Ripperology.' First the murders were a press invention; now it's not only the suspects, but even the factual statements by the Chief Inspectors. I wonder. Is it possible that this new style of theorist has merely created another mythology of its own? RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on August 23, 2005) |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 849
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
What alleged "factual statements" are you referring to? Before you can complain about people questioning them you would have to show that they are actually factual instead of just assuming that they are.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 691
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Dan--Chief Inspector Littlechild stated in plain English, in a private letter, that Tumblety was 'among the suspects.' Twenty years ago neither Rumbelow, Farson, nor any other credible historian would have thought to accept this as anything other than a factual statement of someone who was at Scotland Yard at the time. The argument is now being hoisted that Tumblety is, in fact, some sort of press invention. I call this post-modernism. Fine if you want to go that route, but let's call it what it is. It seems to me if you're going to attempt to dissemble Littlechild's very clear statement (and this goes for Macnaghten, Swanson, Anderson, etc. Hell,I'll even throw in Packer!) you have to come up with something better than you currently have. The argument isn't credible for the following reason. On onehand, one has to accept that the New York newspapers are full of lies and distortions, and then, on the otherhand, one has to accept the curious notion that a man whose sole occupation is sifting through misinformation and state secrets (Littlechild) wouldn't be fully aware of that fact...
It's a contradiction, and I don't see that Mr. V has proven his point.
Although I have different ideas about the case than your friend Mr. Radka, I do think he has a valuable point or three. I agree that extreme skepticism and a tendency to dissemble is probably not a good thing, and is just as likely to disort the truth as extreme credulity. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on August 23, 2005) |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 850
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Well, yes, he says Tumblety was "among the suspects" but not whether all these suspects were people he knew were being investigated by police officials or if in this case it was a suspect named by journalists. The only way the meaning is "very clear" is if you jump to conclusions without solid evidence. You have a preferred way you interpret all the statements by the individuals you name, but it's very far from proven and, in many cases, outright foolhardy in my not so humble opinion. You basically have made up your mind and are unwilling to consider alternatives that are equally valid for what little evidence we have.
I don't think my level of skepticism is extreme in the slightest, I believe it is just prudent and necessary in situations with such little evidence at our disposal, and especially ones when a large amount of evidence exists that calls the reliability of those statements into question.
Littlechild may have been in charge of sifting through misinformation, but then how would he know that a Colonel Dunham in the United States was the alias of a conman journalist who was a pathological liar? Lots of people were taken in by him, and we have more evidence at our disposal now than he was likely to have had on this topic. You always seem to assume that the police officials had superhuman levels of competency in being able to sort through information and come to factual conclusions (per your previous discussions on Anderson, Macnaghten and so forth). I just don't see your stance being at all credible, but then you are welcome to your opinions.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 692
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
O,k., Dan. I can see it now. Chief Inspector Littlechild, who's job would require substantial American contacts, gets hold of his copy of the New York World, sees that a guy that he knows was arrested for tumblety-tumbling with rent boys is now being described as having been a 'Whitechapel suspect', and still doesn't have the smarts to smell a rat(!) You could be right, and you're welcome to your opinions as well. It does make it rather surprising, though, that the Special Branch could have stopped the Jubilee Plot with that sort of bumbling incompetence at the helm of the ship. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 154
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Littlechild's letter speak of only one arrest of Tumblety,and that not in connection with the Ripper murders.However it is stated elsewhere that he was arrested twice,and one of those times because he was a suspect in the murders.
Anyone know of what evidence he was arrested and charged over the murders?. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2052
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Well, Littlechild did say 'to my mind' a very likely suspect, and then went into a view of Dr. T's character, including the fact that it was believed he committed suicide after the last murder - but no actual evidence at all.
It seems to me that this was just a personal opinion, based on another personal opinion of the sort of man Jack must have been - ie someone engaging in perversions with rent boys and then taking himself to a (watery?) grave of shame (which wasn't of course true anyway); in which case, might his 'very likely' suspicion (apparently unique among his peers) not have been built on little more than the mention of the quack doc's name in dispatches concerning the events of Autumn 1888 plus a good dollop of personal prejudice?
That's the problem IMHO with all the contemporary suspects - we just don't know what the hard evidence was, if any; why this evidence seems to have been kept under the hats of the individuals doing the major suspecting; or if shared around generously, why it wasn't snapped up by all.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on August 24, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 693
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Caz--You're really going beyond what I'm saying. Littlechild's remark that Tumblety is a 'likely' suspect is clearly his own opinion. It's subjective and (quite rightly) you can throw up any and all the objections you see fit: homosexuality, height, age, what have you. I'm only talking about Littlechild's objective statement: "he was among the suspects," and wondering how willing we are to denounce this primary source. As I see it, the issue is pretty simple. At the end of November, several papers in New York claim that Tumblety was arrested "some time ago" for connection with the Whitechapel murders, but he was quickly released for lack of evidence. He was not charged. They then state that he was arrested (and charged) with offences that fell under the Crimes Against the Person's Act. They further state that he jumped bail and fled to Havre. The question is, are these reports credible? We can independently prove that Tumblety was charged with gross indecency and indecent assault (8 counts total) ...the court calendar still exists. Score one point for New York City journalism. We can independently show that he jumped bail. Point two. We can prove he fled Havre, and travelled under the name 'Frank Townsend" back to NYC. Point three. So far, these unreliable New York papers are batting 1000% Lo and behold, Littlechild's letter surfaces years later and he indeed states that Tumblety was "among the suspects" in the Whitechapel murders. Mr. Russo hadn't yet written his book. Littlechild is not writing about all the suspects ever named, he's writing as a policeman. Tumblety was "among the suspects."
Now let's take a look at Robert Anderson. He was in contact with the San Francisco Police Department. Let's leave aside for the moment the question of who contacted who. I'll even say that Crowley contacted Anderson. Fine. But if this was merely a misunderstanding about a man who was in a Turkish bath with Mr. Doughty and friends, why didn't Anderson say so? Why, in fact, did Anderson want Crowley to forward him the sample of Tumblety's handwriting? What possible use would this handwriting sample have been in the investigation of a gross indecency charge, especially, in one where the Crown already had enough evidence to charge Tumblety? Why did he want Crowley to forward 'all the information he could find'? This is the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolotian Police writing, the man who is leading the Ripper investigation. I do think I was somewhat out-of-line in my statements to Mr. Norder yesterday. I have a bad habit of barging in out of the blue, and it must have appeared that my 'post-modernism' jive-talk was an affront to him. I apologize for that; on the otherhand, I'm still not seeing any viable reason not to believe the initial newspaper reports of Tumblety's arrest.
The answer to Harry's question is fairly simple: We don't have arrest records; unless the suspect was charged (and, in the case of Tumblety, the Newspapers state clearly that he wasn't charged--the police didn't have enough or any evidence) there would be no existing paper trail. The suspect files are gone missing. We know of the gross indecency charge because it exists in a surviving court calendar.
We also know from the Met files (Swanson's report) that by mid-October, eighty different men were arrrested on suspicion and another 300+ names given up as 'tips' from concerned citizens. We know almost nothing about these suspects. And this doesn't count the City of London's suspects. So we have a conservative 500+ suspects brought to police attention by the end of October.
The question of whether Tumblety is a 'likely' suspect is another matter altogether. Even if you accept my argument, it merely places him in a not-so exclusive group of 500+ characters. He is a needle in a haystack, and if you dont' believe the police were ever in contact with the murderer, then he is a needle in the wrong haystack. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on August 24, 2005) |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
RJ PALMER
Just a small point re the Littlechild letter that I have to address. Littlechild did not specify in plain English or otherwise that Tumblety was a suspect, unless there is a letter that I have not read. If my recollection is correct the reference was to a Dr. D, that could have been one of many doctors or for that matter even Druitt, who was mistakeing referred to by McNaughton as a doctor, etc.
No disrespect to you and certainly not to Stewart Evans who found this valuable piece of history,
regards
Restless Spirit
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
"I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety."
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 851
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 7:53 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
The problem with assuming that the US papers were right that Tumblety was arrested in connection with the Ripper crimes is that the police (on either side of the pond) certainly didn't act at all like that were the case, and there are alternative explanations that are just as plausible.
Sometimes people forget that Tumblety was famous in the US already by the time. The press loved to cover him, and were already well used to trying to link him to great scandals of the day. If they find out that he skipped bail in London and is headed back to America, considering what was in all the papers at the time of course they are going to suggest he was linked to the Ripper crimes.
And of course another thing to consider there is that many of the things Tumblety got into the papers for were lies Tumblety himself cooked up so he could get the attention and free publicity.
As far as why the London police would agree to receive an unsolicited set of handwriting from San Francisco, hey, after he's been in the paper as possibly being the Ripper, even if they had never considered that possibility before, why not accept the handwriting just in case?
Yes, it's possible that they thought of him as a potential suspect beforehand, but that's just one possibility. And considering what we know about press coverage of his life, the story first and suspicion second idea has to be another very real possibility. Add that in with the reluctance of the New York police to take him seriously, I think the just a story option makes a lot more sense.
And, incidentally, I speak only for myself here. Wolf's conclusions are entirely his own and don't necessarily match up with my main arguments here. He's mainly pointing out that a lot of the evidence that had been previously used as if it were strong evidence in favor of Tumblety's status as a suspect simply is not true at all. I think he expects that there were indeterminate other reasons for his candidacy as a suspect that we just don't know about and thus can't really way one way or another.
But then I always try to entertain multiple plausible explanations for any ambiguous evidence because it pays to be skeptical of assumptions and look at things from multiple angles. certainly there are enough people out there arguing for the idea that the London police suspected Tumblety while he was still there and somehow let him slip away (and somehow didn't bother to get him back either). From the lack of people arguing the other side, I end up stepping up to the plate to explain the possibilities there. Of course it helps that I tend to lean that way anyway, but if I didn't I'd still be offering up the possibility.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 156
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
RJ,
I believe the case is,and was even in 1888,that if a person is/was arrested,they are/were taken to a police station and placed in holding cells.Documentation of that arrest was carried out,and even if no charge was proceeded with,the police station records would still retain that information of arrest.
What eventually happened to the documentation is debateable,but it should go to archives. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 157
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
In addition to what I wrote above,the case can be that after arrest,and before appearing before a magistrate,a suspect can be released from arrest and set free.This would happen if at some time between arrest and appearance in court,evidence is forthcoming that the arrested person is not guilty of the charge on which he/she was arrested.
So if Tumblety was arrested on evidence connecting him to the Ripper crimes,evidence must later have come into the possession of the police that proved his innocence.So he was released without charge.
Again,documentation of release would have had to be signed.
Even in those days,police couldn't arrest,or release from arrest,just on a whim.
So if Swanson is correct,80 persons were arrested and then released from arrest without facing charges connected to the Ripper crimes.
Might appear as though the police panicked a little. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2058
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Why did he want Crowley to forward 'all the information he could find'? This is the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolotian Police writing, the man who is leading the Ripper investigation.
Well you may have answered your own question:
We also know...that by mid-October, eighty different men were arrrested on suspicion and another 300+ names given up as 'tips' from concerned citizens...And this doesn't count the City of London's suspects. So we have a conservative 500+ suspects brought to police attention by the end of October.
If they were clutching at so many straws, one more straw wouldn't hurt - especially a bad egg who was in the right place at the right time being grossly indecent, and a foreigner to boot.
But Littlechild seems the only one to have retained any firm suspicions against Dr T, perhaps partly because no one ever corrected his assumption that he had taken his own life after the murders ceased.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
perhaps partly because no one ever corrected his assumption that he had taken his own life after the murders ceased.
This is the third or fourth time you've made this claim recently, but the evidence doesn't justify it.
What Littlechild actually wrote was this:
Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.
Clearly Littlechild was doubtful whether Tumblety had taken his own life or not.
And there is nothing in the letter to indicate that he attached any importance to the possibility he had done so.
Chris Phillips
|
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
R J Palmer
My apologies, I should have gone back and reread the letter before commenting.I stand corrected with egg dripping from my face.I obviously spoke before I thought. Your quote is 100% correct.
Tks
Restless Spirit
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 695
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Ripperology is a fascinating field, and I'm going to miss it when its gone.
Mr. Norder writes:
"Sometimes people forget that Tumblety was famous in the US already by the time. The press loved to cover him, and were already well used to trying to link him to great scandals of the day. "
You see, I realize why Mr. N writes this. This is the common perception, but is it really the case? Or did all that press coverage come after-the-fact?. I'm convinced historians of the case have entirely missed the boat on this. I see Tumblety as much more of a Phil Spectre sort of bloke. One morning he wakes up with a dead woman on his doorstep and everyone suddenly remembers him. Phil Spectre? Wow. I remember the strange fellow! Didn't he once pistol-whip John Lennon back in 1972? Didn't he have a cameo in Easy Rider? I think Mr. N will be very hard pressed to find Tumblety being "written up" in the New York press in the twenty odd years leading up to Whitechapel.
" hey, after he's been in the paper as possibly being the Ripper, even if they had never considered that possibility before, why not accept the handwriting just in case?"
This interpretation is immediately suspect for the simple reason that we know the police had already questioned an "Herb Doctor from New York" back in early October. A little bit beyond coincidence, methinks. The cart is being put before the horse again. The four counts of gross indecency smell to me like the bi-product of surveillance. And nothing can be more common in a criminal investigation. You tail a guy, hoping to find he's embezzling and you notice him stealing a car. Crowley contacted Anderson on Nov. 19. The claim here is that Anderson is being caught up in press hysteria. But the American press hadn't been pushing Tumblety as the Ripper at that point. There was one very cursory report that he had been picked up on suspicion, and we have no reasonable way of knowing that this isn't true, and didn't come from London. If this wasn't true, the only influence the press could have had on Anderson's thought process was in a negative capacity.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on August 25, 2005) |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Hi R.J. and Dan,
That's an interesting observation about Tumblety's press coverage, R.J. A at his profile shows a general concentration of articles from pretty much two periods--the Civil War and then 1888 and 1889. At least the transcribed ones, anyway.
If I may--Phil Spector never pistol-whipped John Lennon. He did tie him to a chair once (with neckties) when Lennon was in a drunken rage during the "Rock and Roll" sessions in 1974/75 (a banner year for Lennon; he also allegedly attacked a female photographer and was thrown out of a nightclub for heckling the Smothers Brothers during their act). Now, Spector did carry a gun into the sessions that I think he might have discharged once.
Somoene should make a documentary about the making of Lennon's "Rock and Roll" album--you've got Spector of course, then you've got Lennon living in a L.A. frat house with Ringo, Harry Nilsson, and Keith Moon. Paul even came to visit.
Cheers,
Dave O |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Dave--you're right of course about Mr. Spectre (my preferred spelling). I think it was actually Leonard Cohen who once claimed that Spector pulled a gun on him in the studio. Interesting guy, very interesting. The legend states that when Spector shot off the gun in the studio, Lennon didn't miss a beat, but later sneered something, like, "For Gawds Sake, Phil, shoot me, but don't destroy my hearing." Incidently, one theory of his recent troubles is that McCartney having un-producing Spectre's "Let it Be" drove him over the edge. The documentary sounds exquisite, Dave. You ought to do it yourself. RP |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 855
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Thanks for this bit:
"I think Mr. N will be very hard pressed to find Tumblety being "written up" in the New York press in the twenty odd years leading up to Whitechapel."
It gave me a fit of solid belly laughs for like three minutes straight.
"Crowley contacted Anderson on Nov. 19. The claim here is that Anderson is being caught up in press hysteria. But the American press hadn't been pushing Tumblety as the Ripper at that point."
Absolutely false. It was the press coverage naming Tumblety as a possible Ripper suspect that convinced Crowley to contact Anderson out of the blue in the first place. And the hysteria only built between the time when Crowley did his research, then sent the telegram, and when Anderson replied. And, heck, regardless of how much hysteria had built, if you have a police chief somewhere who wants to send information that he thinks may be related to your investigation the proper thing to do is to say yes, even if you hadn't heard of him at all. Not that I am saying he hadn't heard of his at all, just saying that there's be no reason at all for Anderson to turn down the same offer regardless of who it was.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Dan--A little advice. If you're going to be taken seriously as an editor of a magazine dedictate to the subject, you better be prepared to back-up your statements with something more than bluff. When you're done with your belly laughs, go back and do some homework. When your errors finally dawn on you, come back and apologize. I'm pretty forgiving. RP |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Dan,
Thanks for your response to my post. Your assessment of Thomas Byrnes, Chief Inspector of the New York Police Department, was quite interesting.
As I understand it, Tumblety was either a suspect in the Ripper murders or was suspected of having Fenian connections. Of course, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. He might have been of interest to the police on both counts. Had he been a strong Ripper suspect I would expect him to have been arrested as he stepped on the dock in America. If, on the other hand, Scotland Yard was more concerned with his Fenian connections (and had made that clear in their cable),it would make more sense to have the New York Police tail Tumblety in the hope that he would lead them to other Fenians.
It is interesting that Tumblety was able to give both Scotland Yard and the New York police the slip. I am wondering if there was a strong Irish presence in the New York Police Department at the time. If so, and they were secretly Fenian sympathisers, they might not have been averse to letting Tumblety escape. A bit farfetched perhaps but that is what makes the boards so interesting.
c.d. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Caz,
Hi. I think you make a good point. Notice that in Littlechild's letter he states that after Tumblety jumped bail he was never heard of afterwards. He then immediately makes the contradictory statement that he was believed to have committed suicide. If he was never heard from again, where did the belief that he committed suicide come from? I have to wonder if he was mistakenly thinking of Druitt's suicide. Remember at one time that Druitt was described as a doctor.
Does anyone know what constituted an "arrest" at this point in time? Was anyone who was simply brought in for questioning considered to be under arrest?
c.d. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Restless Spirit,
Hi. I am sure that a hundred people will jump in ahead of me before this gets posted but here is the exact quote from Littlechild's September 23, 1913 letter to George Sims - "... but amongst the SUSPECTS, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety." There it is in plain English.
c.d. |
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Hello RJ,
Interesting that you touch on the Jubilee Plot. Does it perhaps have some tangential alignment with the Plot of Jack the Ripper? Any interesting ideas there, RJ.???
As Ever,
Rosey :-) |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I have read so much on this site that my head is spinning. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure will happen regardless of my permission), but the big strikes against Tumblety are: his age as compared to arguably credible witness statements, and the idea that a serial murderer can't just stop, meaning there should have been more murders of this type committed in America when he returned.
Also, what does the term 'very likely suspect' really mean in the Littlechild letter? By that I mean, is he just one of many 'very likely suspects' that Littlechild may have had, but whose name really only came up because of his belief that there was some confusion between Dr. D. and Dr. T.?
When I was a German major we had this saying when analyzing (analysing for you Brits and Canucks) literature that was: "Die Text steht allein." That means that the text you read must stand by itself. To seek hidden meaning or to make the text fit your philosophical leanings is to do it an injustice. When I read the Diary and the Cornwell book, it was horrible to observe how people bend, twist, distort and dismember things to fit their agendas. But enough of the Republican Party.
I see that happening here a lot. It is fun to speculate, but die Text steht allein. Still, it is really a joy to come out here and read all the madness that the contributors put forward.
Cheers,
Mike Ebertz |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 106
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
c.d.
I have already sent a message of apology to RJ Palmer. I spoke (wrote) before I thought.
The egg is still dripping from my face.
Thanks
Julie
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 158
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
C.D.
When making an arrest,it is enough to tell a person that you are placing them under arrest,and should tell them why.You should also inform them why they are being placed under arrest,and make sure they understand they are being placed under arrest.
In cases where they do not understand,either because of language problems or some incapacity,they can be taken to a police station or some other place of detention,and should be made aware that they have been placed under arrest as soon as practicable. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 159
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
C.D.
In addition,the arrested persion should be informed they do not have to say anything at that stage. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2067
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
We obviously read the English language very differently.
He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.
You believe this means that:
Clearly Littlechild was doubtful whether Tumblety had taken his own life or not.
And there is nothing in the letter to indicate that he attached any importance to the possibility he had done so.
But there is - the mere mention of it!
I think Littlechild was actually arguing that the suicide belief, if true, would best explain why he was never heard of again and why the murders ceased. He suggested no other reasons. He even used the certainty, that there were no more murders once Tumblety had disappeared, to support the belief that he had committed suicide.
Love,
Caz
X |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Here is something that has always puzzled me. Why would Tumblety kill Mary Kelly just a few days after being arrested for homosexual activities? He has already seen the inside of an English jail cell and the police now have a complete description of him and his recent activities and contacts. If the police had dropped any hints that he was a Ripper suspect or suspected of Fenian activities, he would have to consider the very real possibility that he was being tailed. Far from being stupid, we know that he was a clever and resourceful individual. He had a history of skipping town whenever things got hot (which is in fact exactly what he did here). Are we to believe that he decided to kill one more time before taking off for America? I for one find that very hard to believe.
c.d. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Julie,
Now I feel guilty for piling on. Don't feel badly about the whole egg thing. I have had enough egg on my face over the years to raise my cholesterol 100 points.
c.d. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
