Announcement

**Robert** · 02-18-2008, 10:46 PM

6th October 2007, 10:19 PM
Jamie D -

I'm hard pressed to accept Tumblety as a valid Ripper suspect.

Chief Inspector Littlechild, Special Branch, at Scotland Yard, 1883-1893 -

8920

It's amazing how these modern day theorists know better than someone who was there at the time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jamie D6th October 2007, 10:22 PM
Jamie D -

Chief Inspector Littlechild, Special Branch, at Scotland Yard, 1883-1893 -

8920

It's amazing how these modern day theorists know better than someone who was there at the time.
Those who were there at the time differed as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grey Hunter6th October 2007, 10:26 PM
Those who were there at the time differed as well.

With all due respect I think Littlechild knew a little more than you do. However, the fact is that Tumblety was a police suspect at the time of the murders, as witness Littlechild's statement.

**Robert** · 02-18-2008, 10:46 PM

6th October 2007, 10:58 PM
However, the fact is that Tumblety was a police suspect at the time of the murders, as witness Littlechild's statement.
I'll concede that he was a suspect, albeit a weak and invalid one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PerryMason6th October 2007, 11:02 PM
Hi all,

Im sure Grey Hunter already knows everything about this suspect that there is to know Jamie,

but heres an excerpt from our site here that illuminates this issue a bit;

On Tumblety; "He was arrested on November 7th, 1888 on charges of gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms against four men between July 27th and November 2. These eight charges were euphemisms for homosexual activities. Tumblety was then charged on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders on the 12th (suggested he was free to kill Kelly between the 7th and 12th). Tumblety was bailed on November 16th. A hearing was held on November 20th at the Old Bailey, and the trial postponed until December 10th. Tumblety then fled to France under the alias �Frank Townsend� on the 24th, and from there took the steamer La Bretagne to New York City."

Tumblety was a controversy long before his time in London, as Grey could attest to, and they had every right to keep tabs on him for his alledged Fenian ties alone, but it does seem that he was a serious consideration at that time regardless.

My best regards all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graham6th October 2007, 11:07 PM
GH,

I was never able to come to terms with Littlechild's fingering of Tumblety, and the apparent fact that he, Dr T, was arrested on 7 November for various naughtinesses to do with gross indecency, and bailed on 16 November. This seems to suggest that he was remanded in custody when Kelly was murdered on 9 November. However, it does seem that he was pursued to the USA (by Inspector Andrews) so there must have been some good reason for the Met to suspect him of the Whitechapel crimes before going to such expense.

And yet...a very tall man with a handlebar moustache going un-noticed in the East End???

I'd say that the Met were after him for other misdemeanours, including Fenian activities.

Cheers,

Graham

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PerryMason6th October 2007, 11:40 PM
GH,

I'd say that the Met were after him for other misdemeanours, including Fenian activities.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

Thats been my take on the interest as well. Its unreasonable to think that investigations of all sorts werent going on at the same time as the Whitechapel Murders investigation, and Tumblety was a highly visible, more than a little crazy fellow with alledged Irish Self Rule sympathies. Since we know an investigation by Police foiled an assassination plot on Lord Balofour that Fall, based in Europe, its reasonable to think any high profile sympathizer in London would have been looked at.

But as Grey said, its clear they decided he was also perhaps the killer at large.

Scotland Yard going to New York that Fall was Im sure a rare thing, whether to follow "Mr Townsend", or investigate Irish links, sieze Fenian caches, who knows....but the case for suspicion of Tumblety I think is there based on the solitary fact that the officers doing the investigating considered him as "likely". And thats the only reason to study Druitt, isnt it?

My best regards Graham.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JMenges7th October 2007, 12:39 AM
Tumblety is also the only contemporary suspect who has admitted to being in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, admitted to being detained for the Whitechapel murders, and the only contemporary suspect to publicly deny he was the Ripper. Just another thing amongst many that makes him a very unique and highly interesting suspect IMO.

JM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grey Hunter7th October 2007, 08:54 AM
And yet...a very tall man with a handlebar moustache going un-noticed in the East End???

We now know from the new interview with Tumblety in early 1889, discovered by R. J. Palmer, that he was dressing down in Whitechapel at the time of the murders and did not have a 'handlebar' moustache (that illustration dates back to the 1870s despite being published later). His moustache when he was arrested was a droopy one, going down either side of a clean shaven chin. His height from a look a the best sources would appear to have been 5' 10", at the most 6' 00" in his boots.

This nonsense about being 'noticed' in the East End seems to go on forever. The East End was so cosmopolitan with all races, types and descriptions, including a huge transient population of strangers from the nearby docks that very little would have seemed unusual. I recommend a reading of the interview with Tumblety, which is quite an eye-opener. He even says that he was detained for only "Two or three days...", his initial detention being on suspicion of the murders. My guess is that he was re-arrested on the 7 November on the gross indecency charges but had to be released within 24 hours as it was only a misdemeanour. Obviously they had no hard evidence against him for the murders, otherwise they would have held him on that. There was no hard evdience against any suspect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limehouse7th October 2007, 10:06 AM
If Tumblety was arrested for gross indecency with men, could it be that the police were interested in him concerning the Ripper murders because they were looking for someone who may have been 'sexually insane?'

What I mean is, to the minds of the experts in those days, anyone whose sexual inclinations were less than straight would have been suspect and if a man preferred sex with men it would have been easy for the 'experts' to conclude he must have hated women.

Look at the terminology used in McNaughen's memoirs - they are peppered with phrases such as 'sexually insane', 'solitary vices', 'woman hater', 'religious mania' etc and it is clear that the authorities were looking for someone who stood out and whose behaviour was obviously unnatural.

I was serously convinced by Tumblety as a suspect when I read The Lodger in the mid 90s. Despite his homosexual tendencies, I felt he presented other characteristics that pointed to him being a likely contender such as his habit of collecting female organs (and I had to ask myself WHY? I don't think it was just because he fancied himself as a doctor) and his behaviour towards women in general. The only thing that made me doubt him was his age and the fact that deep down, I have always thought the murderer was a local man that knew the area.

I also totally agree with those who feel the police may have been more interested in his political activities and his possible role as a Fenian activist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grey Hunter7th October 2007, 10:34 AM
I have always thought the murderer was a local man that knew the area.

Yes, many of us probably have long-standing ideas as to the nature of the murderer that are, maybe, never dislodged from the subconscious and tend to influence our thinking always.

As for knowing the area, well take Tumblety for instance, he had been coming to London for years and "...I used to go about the city a great deal until every part of it became familiar to me...I happened to be there when these Whitechapel murders attracted the attention of the whole world, and, in company with thousands of other people, I went down to the Whitechapel district. I was not dressed in a way to attract attention..."

A local knowledge of the area in order to commit the murders is a bit of a fallacy actually. After just two visits back in the '60s I could find my way around the whole area, and the murder sites, with no difficulty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ben7th October 2007, 01:52 PM
The problem many of us have with the idea of Tumblety being "noticed" is not that he'd necessarily "stand out" in the East End in general (anybody can dress down, however conspicuous their appearence might otherwise have been), but that he's completely incompatible with all witness descriptions. Of course, it could be argued that nobody saw the killer, but given the density of the population and the fact that the killer was not the invisible phanton of popular lore, this suggestion doesn't really bear scrutiny.

Knowledge of the area is a prerequesite for many serial killers, especially those whose crimes are committed within easy reach of eachother. It isn't merely a question of finding suitable murder locations, but knowing the ideal escape routes, and actual crime scene evidence would suggest very strongly that he stuck to the more remote alleys during his retreat from Mitre Square. An "outsider" would have had to contend with possible dead ends etc. There are also indications, especially from Bucks Row and Mitre Square, that the killer may have monitered the police beats.

The trouble with Tumblety's claim that "every part of (the city) became familiar to me" is that it derives from Tumblety himself and lacks verification. It could easily have been another Tumbletonian boast.

Best regards,
Ben

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cd7th October 2007, 02:41 PM
Good posts here but still no one seems to be addressing the question I asked in my initial post -- wouldn't you expect Tumblety to be able to come up with an alibi?c.d.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PerryMason7th October 2007, 03:00 PM
Good posts here but still no one seems to be addressing the question I asked in my initial post -- wouldn't you expect Tumblety to be able to come up with an alibi?c.d.

Hi cd,

First off, could you account right now for where you were on August 8th at midnight...do you know what day of the week it was. Having a verifable alibi really is not always easy, and not everything either, for example with Pizer, his family accounted for him for a few nights, can we be so sure that wasnt just to cover for him?

You would think though, that since all the relevant crimes took place after midnight, he might be able to dodge most dates with "I was likely in my room asleep at that time".

Other than the suggestion Dr T may have been the Batty Street Lodger, Im not certain any fixed address of his in London at the time has been found or published, but I think the solidity of his alibi would depend on what his arangements were, coming and going. Did he pass through a lobby to go out at night, if he did, or did he slip down a staircase in a lodging house and have free rein as far as leaving/entering late.

I think one thing Grey said last post though is very germaine, no evidence existed to directly link any suspect to the crimes. So even if he couldnt account for the dates, what could they do? Hold him a while, book him on suspicion also to keep him in town and buy time to see if there is some dirt on him probably regarding the murders, but he thought better than to wait until they had something, or he even needed an alibi.

My best regards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cd7th October 2007, 04:17 PM
Hi Michael,Tumblety wouldn't have to recall his every evening in London. All Tumblety would have to do would be to come up for an air-tight alibi for one of the murders. That would go a long way in dispelling suspicion. Remember that the murders occurred on weekends. That would certainly help him to recall where he was. I am just trying to link this to his personality. I see him as a social whirlwind. Dinner parties, late night card games, holding court in pubs and clubs, etc. Someplace where he is the center of attention and there are a lot of people who could vouch for his presence there. I would think that he could come up with at least one, but maybe for some reason he kept a low profile while there. However, low profile and Tumblety just don't seem to go together.c.d.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jamie D8th October 2007, 08:58 PM
Tumblety was 55 at the time of the Ripper murders in Whitechapel. One would think that his age would constitute an alibi.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright �2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

**Robert** · 02-18-2008, 10:47 PM

(From http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=uk)

Announcement

An Alibi For Tumblety?

An Alibi For Tumblety?

Comment

Comment

Comment