PDA

View Full Version : Metropolitan Police view of Tumblety today


Cap'n Jack
03-04-2008, 10:07 PM
With so much hype and tripe around about Tumblety, the Littlechild Letter, the Macnaghten Memo and so on, I was pleasantly agreed to find that the Metropolitan Police Force of London share my suspicions in this regard.
From their official web-site:

'Suspects
Suffice to say genuine suspects are far fewer than the prolific authors of the genre would have us believe. In fact, to reduce them to only those with a genuine claim having been nominated by contemporary police officers, we are left with a mere four. They are:



Kosminski, a poor Polish Jew resident in Whitechapel;
Montague John Druitt, a 31 year old barrister and school teacher who committed suicide in December 1888;
Michael Ostrog, a Russian-born multi-pseudonymous thief and confidence trickster, believed to be 55 years old in 1888, and detained in asylums on several occasions;
Dr Francis J. Tumblety, 56 Years old, an American 'quack' doctor, who was arrested in November 1888 for offences of gross indecency, and fled the country later the same month, having obtained bail at a very high price.
The first three of these suspects were nominated by Sir Melville Macnaghten, who joined the Metropolitan Police as Assistant Chief Constable, second in command of the Criminal Investigation Deptment (C.I.D.) at Scotland Yard in June 1889. They were named in a report dated 23 February 1894, although there is no evidence of contemporary police suspicion against the three at the time of the murders. Indeed, Macnaghten's report contains several odd factual errors.

Kosminski was certainly favoured by the head of the C.I.D. Dr. Robert Anderson, and the officer in charge of the case, Chief Inspector Donald Swanson. Druitt appears to have been Macnaghten's preferred candidate, whilst the fact that Ostrog was arrested and incarcerated before the report was compiled leaves the historian puzzling why he was included as a viable suspect in the first place.

The fourth suspect, Tumblety, was stated to have been "amongst the suspects" at the time of the murders and "to my mind a very likely one," by the ex-head of the Special Branch at Scotland Yard in 1888, ex-Detective Chief lspector John George Littlechild. He confided his thoughts in a letter dated 23 September, 1913, to the criminological journalist and author George R Sims.

For a list of viable suspects they have not inspired any uniform confidence in the minds of those well-versed in the case.

Indeed, arguments can be made against all of them being the culprit, and no hard evidence exists against any of them.'

Sam Flynn
03-04-2008, 10:30 PM
I can't say that the Met frowns on Littlechild's suspect any more than Macnaghten's, CJ. All they say is that Littlechild said that Tumblety was amongst the suspects, and to his mind "a very likely one" - well, we know that already, don't we?

They certainly don't tar the Littlechild letter with the "odd errors" they mention in respect of the Macnaghten memorandum. Equally, whilst they specifically state that no evidence of contemporary police suspicion exists against the "Macnaghten Three", they make no such refutation in the case of Tumblety.

They don't so much as allude to any "suspicions" in respect of Tumblety, or Littlechild for that matter, over and above a generic statement that covers all four suspects, saying that no hard evidence exists of any of them being the Ripper.

Dan Norder
03-04-2008, 10:38 PM
Between the snarky tone of the original post and the subject line I was expecting a much more devastating attempted argument against Tumblety than just that there is no "uniform confidence" in him or anyone else. Oooh, harsh.

Chris George
03-04-2008, 11:25 PM
Hi Cap'n Jack

I think you are going to far holding this up as the official "Metropolitan Police view of Tumblety today" -- rather whomever wrote this was just reflecting the research on different suspects rather than what the Met officially thinks about anything.

Chris

Cap'n Jack
03-05-2008, 12:49 AM
Well chaps, it is the official web-site of the Metropolitan Police Force of London who investigated the murders in 1888, and they appear to feel that their own senior officers of the time were blowing hot air out of their asp to even imagine that these characters could be serious candidates for the Whitechapel Murders... but I know, retired police officers like Trevor know better. I humbly bow to your superior views.
Yeah... like I would put water in my brandy.

Dan Norder
03-05-2008, 01:00 AM
they appear to feel that their own senior officers of the time were blowing hot air out of their asp to even imagine that these characters could be serious candidates for the Whitechapel Murders...

Wow, AP, there's yet another example of how you manage to completely misread things to suit your own mindset. Absolutely nothing that you quoted off the website is at all similar to how you just now tried to portray it.

Hell, frankly, the way I read it is that the person who wrote that page thinks those four people are the only possible candidates with any merit ("genuine suspects" are the words he/she uses), even though evidence to prove anything is lacking.

It's odd how an author who wrote a book naming Cutbush as the Ripper, a person explicitly denied as a real suspect by the police, can try to portray a modern police web page naming four suspects who aren't Cutbush as if it supported his views somehow.

Sam Flynn
03-05-2008, 01:00 AM
Well chaps, it is the official web-site of the Metropolitan Police Force of London who investigated the murders in 1888, and they appear to feel that their own senior officers of the time were blowing hot air out of their asp to even imagine that these characters could be serious candidates for the Whitechapel MurdersNot at all, CJ. They're just saying that no hard evidence to their being the culprit has ever been found. That's not the same as denigrating their predecessors' judgment, except inasmuch as Macnaghten's judgment in respect of Ostrog clearly comes into question, albeit as something of a non-sequitur. In this article, at least, Littlechild escapes such criticism entirely.

Graham
03-05-2008, 01:08 AM
Hang on, folks.

Correct me if I'm wrong (form an orderly queue...), but isn't the Littlechild Letter the ONLY known, extant reference to Dr T made by anyone associated with the police? And as Littlechild was the head of the Secret Department (Special Branch) at the time of the Ripper killings, I'd have thought that Dr T's identity would have come to him via his official interest in the Fenians rather than the Whitechapel Murders. I've often wondered if, in his famous letter to G R Sims, Littlechild might just have been extrapolating his knowledge of, and interest in, Dr T. Who, let's face it, was a real weird-o.

Just my speculation.

Cheers,

Graham

Cap'n Jack
03-05-2008, 01:24 AM
Blimey, maybe I should put water in me brandy, for you squabs see a splendid galleon whilst I see a sinking ship.
Bring me my tub of burning broth, then top it of
with loads of scotch, bring me my arrows tipped with gin
and let me wallow in your sin, and did I cringe, from even more gin when England's spleen and pleasant gland were so bland, and did I fear from more beer, no, I took it all on the chin, had more gin and when in trouble took a double in England's spleen and pleasant gland.

Graham
03-05-2008, 01:28 AM
Blimey, maybe I should put water in me brandy, for you squabs see a splendid galleon whilst I see a sinking ship.
Bring me my tub of burning broth, then top it of
with loads of scotch, bring me my arrows tipped with gin
and let me wallow in your sin, and did I cringe, from even more gin when England's spleen and pleasant gland were so bland, and did I fear from more beer, no, I took it all on the chin, had more gin and when in trouble took a double in England's spleen and pleasant gland.

Avast!

Listen, shipmate, I'm the better for a bottle of Blossom Hill (rum's all gone) as I write this, but at least I can till salk stence.

Haul away!

Graham

Sam Flynn
03-05-2008, 01:34 AM
Bring me my tub of burning broth, then top it of
with loads of scotch, bring me my arrows tipped with gin and let me wallow in your sin, and did I cringe, from even more gin when England's spleen and pleasant gland were so bland, and did I fear from more beer, no, I took it all on the chin, had more gin and when in trouble took a double in England's spleen and pleasant gland.
Cap'n Jack - twinned with Rain Man ;)

You seem uncommon merry, sir!

Cap'n Jack
03-05-2008, 01:45 AM
Thanks Graham and Sam
just for a jolly wouldn't you?
I'll strike me colours and fall into me pit. For now.

Wolf Vanderlinden
03-05-2008, 09:50 PM
Hi Graham.

Correct me if I'm wrong (form an orderly queue...), but isn't the Littlechild Letter the ONLY known, extant reference to Dr T made by anyone associated with the police?

Well, yes and no. The Littlechild letter is the only example from a police source which specifically states that Tumblety was a “likely” Ripper suspect (likely in Littlechild’s mind). This is an important point to keep in mind, but there are other clear indications that the London police were interested in Tumblety which disprove your speculation below:

I've often wondered if, in his famous letter to G R Sims, Littlechild might just have been extrapolating his knowledge of, and interest in, Dr T. Who, let's face it, was a real weird-o.

First of all, Scotland Yard contacted Chief Inspector Byrnes of the New York Police Department and asked him to keep an eye on Tumblety after Tumblety had jumped bail and sailed to New York. We don’t know specifically what they told Byrnes but it is clear that he at least knew about the sexual assaults Tumblety had been charged with. As these were considered “nominal” offences which didn’t warrant extradition it seems extremely odd that Scotland Yard would go to the trouble of contacting the NYPD because of them.

Secondly, Scotland Yard had someone waiting at the pier when Tumblety’s ship docked in New York. There are news reports which prove this so London obviously felt it important to have their own pair of eyes on the “doctor.” This doesn’t mean, however, that Scotland Yard specifically sent someone rushing after Tumblety, or that they had someone follow him on board his ship. The Whitechapel murder investigation didn’t have funds for this type of extravagance. The likely answer is that they used someone who was already there in New York. I have speculated that this was ex-Scotland Yard Inspector James Thomson who was in New York at the time of Tumblety’s arrival doing secret work for the Times against Parnell. Only months earlier Thomson had done some secret work for Sir Robert Anderson, the head of the Ripper investigation.

Thirdly, when San Francisco Police Chief Crowley contacted Scotland Yard, after reading about Tumblety, and offered to send examples of Tumblety’s hand writing to London Sir Robert Anderson’s response wasn’t “WHO?” but “Thanks. Send writing and all details you can in relation to him. ANDERSON.” Again, this would seem to indicate a greater interest in Tumblety than a homosexual bail jumper would warrant.

Wolf.

Cap'n Jack
03-05-2008, 11:34 PM
I don't go along with this idea of Tumblety's criminal offences being of a 'nominal' nature, in fact I swerve to the other side of the road when I hear such things. Homosexual offences against young men in 1888 were considered to be very serious offences indeed, and I have taken the trouble to highlight two cases - tried at the Old Bailey in the same year - where the result was life imprisonment for one offender, and 10 years for the other.
Such serious criminal offences may well not have been subject to the law of extradition in America, but that does not diminish the seriousness of the offence in the country it was committed. Tumblety was due at the Old Bailey, which does mean his offences were not considered of a 'nominal' nature at all, for a magistrates court would have dealt with such 'nominal' cases, and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that if Tumblety had appeared at the Old Bailey then he would have received a minimum sentence of 8 years, when not much more if the young men had been younger than has previously been thought.
I don't believe the actual senior police officers of the time would have been fully aware of the extradition laws between the UK and USA, which is why when such extradition process was organised by Scotland Yard it was done by lawyers acting on behalf of the Yard, rather than the senior officers themselves.
I'm interested in the idea that it was Scotland Yard who were waiting for Tumblety when he arrived in New York - besides the New York Police I mean of course - as I've always thought it was a private detective agency that met him and then dogged his movements?

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 12:28 AM
Unlikely as Tumblety may seem as Jack the Ripper there is no doubt that he was arrested as a suspect. It seems he was arrested twice which may give the answer to the apparent bail contradictions. In his own interview that was recently found I noticed that Tumblety said that he had been locked up only 'two or three days' and he did state that he had been arrested as a Whitechapel suspect. The court calendar shows that a warrant was issued for him on 14th November 1888 then he was bailed on 16th November when he appeared at the magistrate court. To me this seems to show that he was first arrested on 7th November and released after a couple of days then re-arrested on the 14th November warrant for the indecency offences. This would explain a lot. This report in the New York Daily Tribune seems to clearly show that his arrest on suspicion came first but he was released (through lack of evidence). Then he was later 'rearrested on another charge and held for trial', which would tie in with the warrant issued on 14th November. This could explain a lot. The date of 7th November given as received into custody probably indicates the date of his first arrest and as it is only a calendar entry the release and re-arrest details would not be given.

571

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 12:39 AM
Here is the calendar entry showing that a warrant was issued for Tumblety on 14th November. What has to be understood about these calendar entries is that they are retrospective and were printed in late December so that the date of trial/result is also shown. It's all a bit complex and it's a pity all the court records haven't survived then we'd know for sure. But at least this shows a warrant was issued on 14th November.

572

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 12:46 AM
Here's a close-up of Tumblety's entry clearly showing the issue of warrant date as 14th November.

573

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 01:01 AM
With all due respect to Mr Evans this would also show that his bail postulations are meaningless as the only bail involved was that of 16th November when Tumblety was released and scarpered. Looks like another police c*ck up to me.

Cap'n Jack
03-06-2008, 01:04 AM
And that Tumblety was in police custody on the 7th November for the offences he was charged with, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Whitechapel Murders.
That is the smelly crutch piece of the argument.

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 01:15 AM
I don't think that there can be any doubt that Tumblety was initially arrested on suspicion of being concerned with the Whitechapel murders as many press reports state this (like the New York Daily Tribune one above) and Tumblety himself stated it. However I don't think the police had a scrap of hard evidence against him (they probably hoped that he would admit something) and they had to release him. I think it was then that they gathered to evidence for the gross indecency charges in order to re-arrest him and try to hold him and the arrest warrant, as per the court calendar, was issued on the 14th of November, he was held for court but he managed to get bail. In view of the lack of detailed information and drawing on what is available it's all I can read into it.

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 02:55 PM
I don't go along with this idea of Tumblety's criminal offences being of a 'nominal' nature, in fact I swerve to the other side of the road when I hear such things. Homosexual offences against young men in 1888 were considered to be very serious offences indeed, and I have taken the trouble to highlight two cases - tried at the Old Bailey in the same year - where the result was life imprisonment for one offender, and 10 years for the other.
Such serious criminal offences may well not have been subject to the law of extradition in America, but that does not diminish the seriousness of the offence in the country it was committed. Tumblety was due at the Old Bailey, which does mean his offences were not considered of a 'nominal' nature at all, for a magistrates court would have dealt with such 'nominal' cases, and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that if Tumblety had appeared at the Old Bailey then he would have received a minimum sentence of 8 years, when not much more if the young men had been younger than has previously been thought.

If the Burleigh (a clerk in holy orders) and the Rev. Widdows case of January-March 1888 is being cited here then the above post is totally misleading. This case was a very serious case of committing and conspiring to commit acts of gross indecency and a felony with two young boys at Christ's Hospital school. Also Burleigh had a previous conviction for acts of indecency back in 1886 when he had received 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Moreover Burleigh was found guilty at this time of a felony (a much more serious offence probably involving penetration), not a mere gross indecency (a misdemeanour) under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 which is what Tumblety was charged with. In passing a life sentence on Burleigh Mr. Justice A. L. Smith described the case as being one of extreme gravity. He sentenced Widdows to 10 years.

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 03:04 PM
To give an example of a similar offence as those committed by Tumblety there was the case of Moffatt (said to be a clergyman) and Fillingham (an Oxford undergraduate who was accused of aiding Moffatt) who were indicted for committing acts of gross indecency with two boys, in August 1886. Both offenders had been granted bail and this shows that bail was often granted for this offence. Moffatt was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

590

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 03:07 PM
Here is another conviction for gross indecency in November 1887 where the offender also received 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

592

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 03:11 PM
And another one charged with 11 counts of gross indecency with boys in his school in July 1890 and the total imprisonment he received, despite there being eleven charges, was only four years.

594

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 03:17 PM
Yet another case of acts of gross indecency, in April 1891, where the offender De Tatham appeared at Marlborough Street Police Court before Mr. Hannay in answer to his bail and this was the same court and same magistrate that Tumblety had appeared before. He was even granted further bail when committed for trial.

596

timothy
03-06-2008, 06:14 PM
Tumblety was arrested on Nov. 7, 1888 on the charges of gross indecency. Chris Scott posted on April 13, 2003, copies of a document showing the original charges. It can be viewed here: http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/6656.html

The concept of Police Bail was an old tradition and was formalized by the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839. Stephen Ryder posted information on that some time ago but it may have disappeared. The attached image is from the “Encyclopedia of the Laws of England with Forms and Precedents” published in 1906.


Best,

Tim

Dan Norder
03-06-2008, 07:29 PM
Hi Tim,

Thanks for that information. Looking at how Tumblety could be out on police bail, then brought in on a warrant for the same charge and be bailed again, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that Tumblety was ever actually charged in relation to the Whitechapel murders, as was argued by Gideon Fell earlier in this thread.

Gideon Fell
03-06-2008, 08:52 PM
Hi Tim,

Thanks for that information. Looking at how Tumblety could be out on police bail, then brought in on a warrant for the same charge and be bailed again, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that Tumblety was ever actually charged in relation to the Whitechapel murders, as was argued by Gideon Fell earlier in this thread.

You have completely misread the posts. I haven't argued that Tumblety was 'out on police bail and then brought in on a warrant for the same charge.' What I said was that there is information as shown that he was arrested twice. He was first arrested on suspicion of being concerned with the murders and then released without charge as they had no evidence to charge or hold him. They then gathered evidence for the gross indecency charges in the form of statements and applied for a warrrant for these offences as is clearly shown in the 'Date of Warrant' column as 14th November. He would have then been arrested on warrant for gross indecency and held to appear before the court on the 16th November when he got his bail. The date of 7th November is shown in the Received into Custody column as it was the date he was first arrested, albeit on suspicion of the murders and not for the gross indecency. It is one explanation that answers most of the questions and doesn't require the Evans/Gainey explanation of police bail. It cannot be denied that a warrant is shown as being issued on 14th November and they wouldn't have needed that if he was already in custody.

Cap'n Jack
03-06-2008, 09:42 PM
And it also shows that Tumblety was in custody on the 7th November, and despite your best efforts - and many others - there is no evidence at all to suggest that Tumblety was ever granted police bail.
That is an exercise in imagination.
And as I think you very well know, that as a criminal case moved from the magistrates court to the Old Bailey, the very nature of the charge changed from a 'nominal' offence to a felony.
Anyway what would you rather do?
18 months hard labour in Brixton Prison, or take a trip cabin class across the Atlantic?
Tumblety's entire arrest and warrant record make no mention of the Whitechapel Murders, and this is the open wound you boys have to stick little plasters on... but it will bleed.

Simon Wood
03-06-2008, 10:31 PM
Hi All,

I'm throughly confused.

If the cops had no evidence with which to charge or hold Tumblety in connection with the WM, why arrest him on suspicion in the first place? Mind you, having said that, the cops did prove themselves dab hands at pulling in 1000-1 outsiders.

Further—if, having let Tumblety go on the 7th November for lack of evidence, the cops still had real suspicions about him being the WM, surely they would have kept him under 24-hour surveillance.

The Millers Court murder took place between Tumblety's (alleged) release without charge on 7th November and his appearance in court on 16th November.

That's nine days.

Où étaient les policiers pendant ce temps?

Regards,

Simon

Dan Norder
03-06-2008, 11:36 PM
You have completely misread the posts. I haven't argued that Tumblety was 'out on police bail and then brought in on a warrant for the same charge.'

Sorry, but apparently you misread my posts, because I never claimed you had argued that. You don't have to argue that for it to be true.

Based upon the information provided by Tim (including links to older information provided by a variety of people), we know that people did, in fact, get police bail for an initial charge and then get brought in on a warrant later for the exact same charge. So your argument that it had to be for two separate charges is not supported by the evidence.

Gideon Fell
03-07-2008, 01:42 AM
Sorry, but apparently you misread my posts, because I never claimed you had argued that. You don't have to argue that for it to be true.

Based upon the information provided by Tim (including links to older information provided by a variety of people), we know that people did, in fact, get police bail for an initial charge and then get brought in on a warrant later for the exact same charge. So your argument that it had to be for two separate charges is not supported by the evidence.

The argument that I was offering was based on the evidence of the report in the New York Daily Tribune (see post #15 above) where it was stated that Tumblety was arrested as a suspect for the Whitechapel crimes but released for lack of evidence. My contention being that this initial arrest and release occurred on 7th and 8th November. The Tribune report goes on to say that he was rearrested on another charge. My contention here is that a warrent was obtained on 14th November (as shown on the court calendar) and he was then arrested and taken before the court on 16th November. So the evidence supporting this argument is the Tribune report (which admittedly could be argued to be inaccurate) and the issue of the warrant on 14th November as shown on the court calendar. The court calendar (as I pointed out) was a retrospective document printed at the end of December (after Tumblety got back to the USA) and therefore the column entries give final results. So although the gross indecency offences are shown in the next column to the 'When received into Custody' column they do not necessarily show the reason for the initial arrest as the offences column is headed 'Offence as charged in the Indictment' which are the offences the offender was finally charged with for court. Below is the whole double-page entry of the court calendar book.

601

This is an interpretation (as good as any other) of what may have happened. The calendar shows that an arrest warrant was issued for Tumblety on 14th November 1888 and that would not have been done if he was already being held. I'm not trying to argue that he's Jack the Ripper but he certainly was a suspect and there were dozens of suspects arrested at the time of the murders who were subsequently released without charge through lack of evidence. You need only suspicion to arrest but you need evidence to charge for court.

Wolf Vanderlinden
03-07-2008, 02:42 AM
Cap’n Jack.

You’ll notice that I put the word “nominal” in quotation marks because I was quoting. The word nominal appeared in a couple of American news reports regarding Chief Inspector Byrnes’ opinion of Tumblety’s offense and the possibility of extradition. For example the Brooklyn Eagle of 4 December, 1888, wrote “The inspector replied that, although Tumblety was a fugitive from justice, under $1,500 bail, for a nominal offence in England, he could not be arrested here” (my italics). This, then, was the New York police view of the matter.

The identity of the man who shadowed Tumblety is unknown. News reports out of New York indicated that he was “an English detective.” For example:
“He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety, and I sez I didn't know nothink at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it.” (The World, 4 December, 1888.) It has been assumed that this man was sent by Scotland Yard but, as I pointed out, this expense was unnecessary.

GF (shouldn’t that be Dr.?)

The date of 7th November is shown in the Received into Custody column as it was the date he was first arrested, albeit on suspicion of the murders and not for the gross indecency.

I think that you have misunderstood what the court record is telling us. The entry is not a litany of all of Tumblety’s police problems but, instead, the history of one charge: gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms against four men. Any earlier arrest connected with the Whitechapel murder investigation would not appear in this record.

Tumblety was arrested on the 7th of November for the gross indecency charges but, as you admit, he must have been freed at some point in order for the warrant for his arrest to have been sworn out on the 14th. The theory of Police Bail supports the facts perfectly if Tumblety failed to show up at the appointed time to answer his bail requirements.

He’s arrested on the 7th and, if he was granted Police Bail, would be told to reappear in one weeks time, i.e. the 14th, while the police gather evidence. If he failed to reappear at the appointed time a warrant for his arrest would be sworn and, in fact, this is the exact time that the warrant was sworn. He then is rearrested, or he appears late and is arrested (either way there’s the second arrest on his gross indecency charge), then bailed on the 16th. He next appeared at the Old Bailey on the 20th before fleeing to France sometime after this date.

Wolf.

Gideon Fell
03-07-2008, 09:26 AM
Cap’n Jack.
GF (shouldn’t that be Dr.?)

I think that you have misunderstood what the court record is telling us. The entry is not a litany of all of Tumblety’s police problems but, instead, the history of one charge: gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms against four men. Any earlier arrest connected with the Whitechapel murder investigation would not appear in this record.

Tumblety was arrested on the 7th of November for the gross indecency charges but, as you admit, he must have been freed at some point in order for the warrant for his arrest to have been sworn out on the 14th. The theory of Police Bail supports the facts perfectly if Tumblety failed to show up at the appointed time to answer his bail requirements.

He’s arrested on the 7th and, if he was granted Police Bail, would be told to reappear in one weeks time, i.e. the 14th, while the police gather evidence. If he failed to reappear at the appointed time a warrant for his arrest would be sworn and, in fact, this is the exact time that the warrant was sworn. He then is rearrested, or he appears late and is arrested (either way there’s the second arrest on his gross indecency charge), then bailed on the 16th. He next appeared at the Old Bailey on the 20th before fleeing to France sometime after this date.

Wolf.

Hello Wolf and thank you for that. No, I wasn't misunderstanding the court calendar (it is not a court record as such, merely a touchstone guide for court dates and therefore lacking in much specific information). When the information was restrospectively gathered for it the date of the first arrest (7th November) might have been given in an ongoing record of a Tumblety investigation. But it's just a theory and an alternative to the bail argument and is based on the Tribune's report of two arrests; one for suspicion of the murders and a second for gross indecency. His arrest on suspicion of the murders also appeared in several other US press reports.

Gideon Fell
03-07-2008, 10:41 AM
GF (shouldn’t that be Dr.?)
He’s arrested on the 7th and, if he was granted Police Bail, would be told to reappear in one weeks time, i.e. the 14th, while the police gather evidence. If he failed to reappear at the appointed time a warrant for his arrest would be sworn and, in fact, this is the exact time that the warrant was sworn. He then is rearrested, or he appears late and is arrested (either way there’s the second arrest on his gross indecency charge), then bailed on the 16th. He next appeared at the Old Bailey on the 20th before fleeing to France sometime after this date.
Wolf.

Wolf, where did you get the idea that Tumblety appeared at the Old Bailey on 20th November?

johnnyerwin
03-07-2008, 06:31 PM
I'm a bit confused here. Gideon Fell put this line of the Court Calendar on here earlier:
http://pHosted.com/0803/tumbletywarrantz.jpg

However the link to the older thread located at http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/6656.html has this screen capture (re-ordered for clarity):
http://pHosted.com/0803/courtcalendar2.jpg

These don't appear to be from the same page of the Court Calendar. For instance you will see that the name entry of "Francis Tumblety" is not the same between the two documents, as indicated by the location of the "(Bailed 16th..)" below the name. In addition, the next part of the screen capture shows two columns, one saying "Ditto" and the other with the 7th Nov Date. What is the Ditto reffering to? The last part of the capture seems to be the same as the whole court calendar image just displayed by Gideon.

I'm not trying to make a big mystery out of this, but this is somewhat perplexing. Is there another entry in the Court Calender Gideon? The screen captures are obviously composites and it would be nice to see the whole "page" of that document being displayed to see what the entire line of that entry says.

Comments?

Gideon Fell
03-07-2008, 07:28 PM
I'm a bit confused here. Gideon Fell put this line of the Court Calendar on here earlier:
http://pHosted.com/0803/tumbletywarrantz.jpg

However the link to the older thread located at http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/6656.html has this screen capture (re-ordered for clarity):
http://pHosted.com/0803/courtcalendar2.jpg

These don't appear to be from the same page of the Court Calendar. For instance you will see that the name entry of "Francis Tumblety" is not the same between the two documents, as indicated by the location of the "(Bailed 16th..)" below the name. In addition, the next part of the screen capture shows two columns, one saying "Ditto" and the other with the 7th Nov Date. What is the Ditto reffering to? The last part of the capture seems to be the same as the whole court calendar image just displayed by Gideon.

I'm not trying to make a big mystery out of this, but this is somewhat perplexing. Is there another entry in the Court Calender Gideon? The screen captures are obviously composites and it would be nice to see the whole "page" of that document being displayed to see what the entire line of that entry says.

Comments?

There are two separate lists. In the one you have queried the 'Ditto' stands for 14th November, the same date as for the entry above which relates to a George Bartlett.

655

What is interesting is the fact that on the night of Monday 12 November Bartlett was initially detained by Inspector Reid in Spitalfields on suspicion of being the murderer, Reid having had his attention drawn to Bartlett as he was carrying a black shiny bag and his appearance 'somewhat answered the description circulated of a man who had been seen in the neighbourhood of the recent murders' (possibly the Hutchinson supplied description which had just been taken). Bartlett objected to his bag being opened and it was secured with a padlock. At Commercial Street Police Station the bag was opened and found to contain a sceptre and in his pocket he had a silver mounted shell. On Tuesday 13 November a break in was discovered at the Church of Old St. Pancras. Bartlett was taken before the Worship Street magistrate that day and given back into Reid's custody to be charged at Clerkenwell with sacrilege.

Gideon Fell
03-07-2008, 07:51 PM
What is really odd about all this is the total absence of Tumblety's name from all the English press reports, while in the USA at the same time it is being freely reported. The English press weren't too shy to report gross indecency offences as can be seen in the reports posted on this thread. Yet Tumblety was arrested, twice according to a US press report, and appeared at Marlborough Street Police Court on 16 November before the magistrate, J. L. Hannay, and was remanded on bail to appear at the Central Criminal Court. Yet nothing in the press, very odd. Was his case heard in camera? Were the police having it kept quiet for some reason?

Cap'n Jack
03-07-2008, 08:00 PM
Thanks Wolf
going on the report you quote from - New York World of December - it appears extremely unlikely that the bumbling 'caricature' detective mentioned had anything to do with Scotland Yard, or any other police authority.
Sounds more like Norman Wisdom to me.
Or even Le Grand of the Strand.

timothy
03-07-2008, 08:17 PM
Hi all,

The lack of mention of Tumblety's case is not unusual. Between 1885 and 1894, there were approximately 400 cases of gross indecency charged in London with a conviction rate of about a third. Of those, fewer than twenty were listed in the newspapers.

Best,

Tim

Dan Norder
03-07-2008, 08:35 PM
So although the gross indecency offences are shown in the next column to the 'When received into Custody' column they do not necessarily show the reason for the initial arrest

I would find that very difficult to believe. If you could document an actual example of this having happened in another case this would seem a more reasonable argument. This is an actual court document, which should definitely trump news reports from another country on the reliability scale.

The calendar shows that an arrest warrant was issued for Tumblety on 14th November 1888 and that would not have been done if he was already being held.

This seems to be the crux of the disagreement, so let's focus on this again:

If he had been released on police bail -- which is the default understanding as presented by authors on the topic and fully supported by the evidence then the warrant most definitely would have had to have been used to bring him back on that same charge. The police bail would have been completely separate from the bail on November 16th.

If Tumblety was out on police bail -- and he couldn't have been held that full length of time without a warrant on that charge -- then your statement "if he was already being held" should already be out of consideration, and thus any conclusions you base upon that premise are meaningless. He would not have been in custody, so if the police wanted to pursue the homosexual acts violations, which they clearly did, then they would have had to have used a warrant, which undeniably happened.

This is why there's no reason to think that this court document in any way supports the idea that the earlier arrest was for the Jack the Ripper case instead of the homosexual acts investigation.

johnnyerwin
03-07-2008, 08:39 PM
There are two separate lists. In the one you have queried the 'Ditto' stands for 14th November, the same date as for the entry above which relates to a George Bartlett.

Thanks Gideon, that clears up that aspect; although I'm a bit curious why there are two different lists, especially since some of the other names on these lists are different. Different categories?

I have to say though that there doesn't appear to be any solid footing here for saying that Tumblety was arrested as a suspect on the 7th. Here's how I see things here:

7th Sep - Tumblety taken into custody for something. Court calendar entry(s) made later state this is for "gross indecency".

14th Sep - Warrant Issued. Again entry in in Court Calendar entry(s) state this is in regard to "gross indecency".

16th Sep - Tumblety bailed.

So as far as "official" documentation is concerned, there is no connection with the Whitechapel Murders. The only documentation that supports that is:

- The Littlechild letter
- Some newspaper articles outside of the UK
- Tumblety's own statements

The Littlechild letter is clearly the opinion of the author, and he even clearly mentions several items that would argue against the opinion.

Although interesting, the newspaper articles cannot be counted on to be entirely acurate, especially since the UK ones don't mention this aspect. I cannot fathom a UK blackout on this topic at a time I am sure they would have been rabid for information of this sort.

Tumblety himself cannot be relied upon to tell the truth about anything, based upon the information about his entire life. He may have found it quite amusing to tell this aspect of the tale, and certainly more palatable than to explain the real charges laid against him in London. He wasn't claiming to be the ripper from what I see.

As far as the period from the 7th to the 14th is concerned there doesn't appear to be a lot of information available, unless there's some items I'm not aware. Was he in custody that whole time? Was he out on Police Bail? Was there charges on the 12th? Those all appear to be theories, and certainly plausible, but without proof they cannot be confirmed. Again, if there's some other proof available it would help clear that up for a few people here including myself.

Cheers

Cap'n Jack
03-07-2008, 09:13 PM
Thanks Dan & John for both summing up the very serious doubts that do plainly exist in regard to the unsubstantiated claims that Tumblety was ever arrested, or even questioned in regard to the Whitechapel Murders.
Tumblety was a very clever man indeed, and he knew, damn well, that if he made up a fine old tale of how he had been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel Murders - by the pie munching and beer swilling detectives of Scotland Yard for wearing a slouch hat - then the true story of his serious offences against young men would be swamped out of the American Press by the overwhelming media interest in the Whitechapel Murders.
Just try a little experiment... see how many American newspapers ran with the story of Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders after he fled England; and then see how many American newspapers ran with the story of Tumblety's arrest for homosexual offences against young men.
The result is really very crucial to our understanding of exactly what was going on here.
As I said a long time ago, smoke and mirrors, but some are still fooled by Tumblety, even now.

timothy
03-07-2008, 09:31 PM
I have spent a long time looking at legal textbooks of the period to see what laws would apply to Tumblety’s situation (Thank heaven for Google Books!). Not being a lawyer, my eyes are beginning to cross. Based on what was recorded in the court record, and the legal background to that record, the following is an explanation of what Tumblety was charged with and his travel through the system.

Tumblety was arrested on November 7th on charges of gross indecency. Whether this was for one incident or four, there is no way of knowing. We can assume that he was taken to the Marlborough St. Police Station as this was the court which would later hear the case. He was arrested without a warrant. If there had been a prior warrant, it would have been listed in the Court Calendar.

Having arrested Tumblety without a warrant, the Police had three legal choices. The first was, within 24 hours of his arrest, to bring him before a court of summary jurisdiction. If that were not possible or desirable, it was up to the inspector of police whether to keep the person in custody or release the person on bail. This was not an arbitrary decision but had to be based on whether the alleged crime was “enormous,” and whether the person was a danger to others. If neither of those could be alleged, the person was entitled to bail. This could be as simple as the inspector determining the name of the person and their address. In most cases it was not necessary to put up any money. The person was told when to go to court for the hearing to determine if he should be charged. Based on the charges which are recorded, the police would have had no legal justification for holding Tumblety. Had he been held for over a week on these charges, his lawyer could have sued the police for false imprisonment.

As Stewart Evans contended, the procedure was to have a warrant issued and to have the person rearrested on the same charges prior to the hearing. The police magistrate’s court issued the warrant for Tumblety on November 14th. Tumblety was to return to the police station on that day and surrender his police bail. He would have then been held until the hearing on November 16th. At the hearing, the magistrate found that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute and set a trial date at the Queen’s Bench. At the same time, Tumblety was granted bail on the warrant by which he was arrested.


A modern, easy to read, reference for these procedures is : “Criminal Litigation” by Peter Hungerford Welch, 2004

A more contemporary reference is : “Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England with Forms and Precedents by the Most Eminent Legal Authorities, Second Edition”, 1906

Cap'n Jack
03-07-2008, 09:56 PM
Timothy, nicely done, and it is good to see someone prepared to take the time to research their subject in the manner you have done so here.
But I feel we stand on very shaky ground here, firstly because as you say, if the detaining inspector honestly felt that Tumblety was the Whitechapel Murderer, who was obviously a 'danger to the public' - I think we can safely classify the slaughter of five women as of an 'enormous' nature - then he would not have released him, would he?
But he did, didn't he?
I think what many ask us to believe here, is that Tumblety was arrested for offences of indecency, and that the police of the day said 'excuse me old chap, you didn't happen to murder five girls down old Whitechapel way in the last six months did you?'
What's the chances of that?

Wolf Vanderlinden
03-08-2008, 01:36 AM
Hi GF.

Wolf, where did you get the idea that Tumblety appeared at the Old Bailey on 20th November?

I can’t say who originally uncovered this bit of information but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear in either the first or the paperback edition of The Lodger (or Jack the Ripper, First American Serial Killer, depending on where you live). However, it was discovered that Tumblety made a court appearance at the Old Bailey on the 20th of November at which his trail for the gross indecency charges was set for the 10th of December. The information is included in the 1996 paperback A –Z if you want to check.

This little bit of information is important in that Scotland Yard officially contacted the Toronto authorities, to ask if they would be amenable to paying for Inspector Andrews to return Roland Gideon Israel Barnett to Canada, on the 19th of November. The wheels to send Andrews to North America, therefore, were already set in motion at a time when Tumblety was still in London proving that Andrews’ trip to southern Ontario had nothing to do with Tumblety or the Whitechapel investigation.

Wolf.

Cap'n Jack
03-08-2008, 01:59 AM
Thank you, Wolf, that is what I call progress.

Gideon Fell
03-08-2008, 02:23 AM
I've had a look at the court calendars and I think I have solved what went on at the time Tumblety was bailed on the gross indecency charges. It must first be remembered that the Police Courts sat daily so there would have been no reason to hold him pending a magistrates court sitting, he could have been taken straight before the court. The Court Calendar is an assize session document not a police document. Therefore the 'Date of Warrant' column must refer to a committal warrant and not an arrest warrant. Putting this interpretation on it would mean that Tumblety actually appeared before the Police Court on Wednesday 14th November when the magistrate issued the committal warrant to trial at the Central Criminal Court in December. That would mean that Tumblety was then held in custody for two days until he could sort out his recognizances (sureties) for bail and when he gained them he returned before the court on Friday 16th November and was granted bail against his recognizances. All this seems to indicate is that he had been out of police custody since his first detention, possibly on a police bail, and returned after the usual 7 days which ties in with the issue of the warrant on 14th November.

Looking at the next offender on the court calendar, one Henry George Ginger arrested (for obtaining money by false pretences, falsifying a book and forging a receipt with intent to defraud), seems to confirm this scenario. In the 'When received into Custody' column the date of 14th September is given. In the 'Date of Warrant' column the date of 15th November is given. Obviously Ginger wasn't held in custody without a court appearance for two months and on checking The Times report on his case it can be seen that he had been released on bail against recognizances. This bail he surrendered to on 15th November and was bailed to the Central Criminal Court on 16th November by Sir A. Lusk at the Mansion House Court.

664

665

Gideon Fell
03-08-2008, 02:44 AM
Hi GF.
I can’t say who originally uncovered this bit of information but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear in either the first or the paperback edition of The Lodger (or Jack the Ripper, First American Serial Killer, depending on where you live). However, it was discovered that Tumblety made a court appearance at the Old Bailey on the 20th of November at which his trail for the gross indecency charges was set for the 10th of December. The information is included in the 1996 paperback A –Z if you want to check.


The November Sessions for the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court opened at the Old Bailey on Monday 19th November 1888. The Central Criminal Court heard cases for trial not for bail and the date for Tumblety's appearance should have been set with his committal from the Police Court on 16th November. If Tumblety had appeared on 20th November he should have been tried and not bailed again. I think the idea arose here as Tumblety's name appears on a handwritten list of trial dates against 19 Nov 1888. It is may be significant that the date below it (10 Dec) has 'nil' written next to it. But without having other records or knowing the method of date allocation it's impossible to be sure.

666

Gideon Fell
03-08-2008, 08:24 AM
Hi GF.
This little bit of information is important in that Scotland Yard officially contacted the Toronto authorities, to ask if they would be amenable to paying for Inspector Andrews to return Roland Gideon Israel Barnett to Canada, on the 19th of November. The wheels to send Andrews to North America, therefore, were already set in motion at a time when Tumblety was still in London proving that Andrews’ trip to southern Ontario had nothing to do with Tumblety or the Whitechapel investigation.
Wolf.

The above claim is based I suppose on the following letter referenced HO 134/10 folios 116-117 from Godfrey Lushington at the Home Office to Robert Anderson at Scotland Yard.

November 23rd 1888
Sir
I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you that a copy of your letter of the 19th instant relative to R.I.G. Barnett was on the 20th instant forwarded to the Colonial Office, and that their attention has today been called to the 7th Section of the Fugitive Offenders Act which provides that if not conveyed out of the United Kingdom within one month after his committal, a fugitive may apply to a Superior Court for his discharge; and to the consequent necessity of a speedy decision being arrived at as to the disposal of Barnett.
The Secretary of State has received an imtimation from the Colonial Office that the Canadian Government will at once be asked by telegraph whether they are prepared to guarantee the expenses which would be involved in the conveyance of the fugitive to Canada and which you estimate would amount to £120, and what arrangements they propose to make.
I am at the same time to call your attention to the last paragraph of the instructions issued in February 1882 which provide that steps should not be taken for the issue or execution of a warrant for the apprehension of a Fugitive Offender unless an indemnity has been obtained from the prosecutor, without instructions from the Secretary of State.
I am,
Sir
Your obedient Servant
Godfrey Lushington
R Anderson Esq
CID

This letter of the 23rd of November doesn't seem to me to show that Scotland Yard had contacted the Toronto authorities on the 19th but rather that Anderson had written to the Home Office on the 19th concerned about the fact that Barnett was still languishing in custody and asking what was to happen. This reply then shows that the Home Secretary had just received (on the 23rd) 'an intimation' from the Colonial Office that the Canadian Government would 'at once be asked by telegraph' if they would cover the cost of the conveyance of Barnett to Canada. I guess that you have translated this differently. In view of the fact that Scotland Yard had no hard evidence against Tumblety I am sure that they would never have contemplated an expensive trip to North America to locate him. But given the chance of this 'free trip' they would see the opportunity of making inquiries whilst there.

Gideon Fell
03-08-2008, 08:34 AM
As a matter of interest the idea of Andrews being sent to America to search for the fugitive Ripper isn't new. It was first described in a book eighty years ago in 1928.

667

But I understand what is being said here, Tumblety was never a Ripper suspect, the American press and Tumblety made it all up, Anderson never telegraphed the US authorities for a sample of Tumblety's handwriting, and Littlechild got it all wrong - or worse still the Littlechild letter is a fake. I see the making of another conspiracy here though I'm not sure what. It's all too deep for me and I think I'll go look into the next suspect as there is nothing more to say about this one.

Gideon Fell
03-08-2008, 08:55 AM
Tumblety was a very clever man indeed, and he knew, damn well, that if he made up a fine old tale of how he had been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel Murders - by the pie munching and beer swilling detectives of Scotland Yard for wearing a slouch hat - then the true story of his serious offences against young men would be swamped out of the American Press by the overwhelming media interest in the Whitechapel Murders.
Just try a little experiment... see how many American newspapers ran with the story of Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders after he fled England; and then see how many American newspapers ran with the story of Tumblety's arrest for homosexual offences against young men.
The result is really very crucial to our understanding of exactly what was going on here.
As I said a long time ago, smoke and mirrors, but some are still fooled by Tumblety, even now.

One last point. There was a report in the American press of 18th November received from London on 17th November 1888 that Tumblety had been arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes but that the London police could not hold him for that and had 'succeeded in getting him held for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures. the police say Kumblety [sic] is the man's right name...' So this sort of puts the lie to 'Cap'n Jack's' theory above. Or was Tumblety bailed on the 16th and the next day cabled the American press and 'made up the fine old tale' that he had been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel murders but forgetting himself for a moment added that he was being held for homosexual offences under the 'Modern Babylon' legislation? He was already known in the US for homosexual activity anyway. Methinks that 'Cap'n Jack's' theorising is a trifle flawed here.

Cap'n Jack
03-08-2008, 07:17 PM
Just a few points, Gideon.
Surely there were press reports in 1888 that speculated that Andrews had crossed the Big Pond in pursuit of a 'fugitive Ripper'?

Anderson certainly did not contact the American authorities for specimens of Tumblety's handwriting. It was Chief of Police of the SFPD who contacted Anderson offering to wire specimens of Tumblety's handwriting.
Anderson said 'yes, please' in response.
What do you think Anderson was going to say?

Forgive me if I err, but surely the 'Modern Babylon Legislation' applied equally to both sexes so the American press would not have known to which sex specifically the charges against Tumblety applied.
My point anyway was the density of the American press coverage concerning Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders; and then the paucity of the American press coverage of his real offences.
Therein are the smoke and mirrors.

Cap'n Jack
03-08-2008, 07:53 PM
And just so folks don't think I'm talking out of my oversized pirating hat; of the 23 news reports I was able to find in the American press detailing Tumblety's involvement in the Whitechapel Murders, only four make mention of his arrest in another connection; two of those actually mentioning 'Babylon laws'; one describing the offence as 'special', and another as 'nominal'.
Not one press report mentions that the offences in England were committed against young men.
All in all I would say that Tumblety did very well out of the Whitechapel Murders.

Dan Norder
03-08-2008, 07:54 PM
Let's break this down... Here are the alleged claims you are ridiculing:

Tumblety was never a Ripper suspect,

We know he was suspected at some point. The main questions are when this suspicion first arose (before or after the newspaper reports in the U.S. claiming he was a Ripper suspect is a crucial determination -- it could very easily have been the tail wagging the dog), how widespread it was (did anyone in the police other than Littlechild put any stock into it), and what exactly this suspicion was based upon (it seems like Littlechild focuses on his homosexuality and his having left the country after the Kelly murder).

the American press and Tumblety made it all up,

If you consider that at all unlikely then you apparently don't know much about the reliability of the press in general or the ways Tumblety was used to making publicity for himself. It is remarkably that we don't find the supporting details in England that we should expect if the original claims in the press were accurate.

Anderson never telegraphed the US authorities for a sample of Tumblety's handwriting,

The San Francisco Police Chief unambiguously said he volunteered it (his idea, not Anderson's) and that he thought of this after the press had already been calling him a Ripper suspect, not before. The idea that Anderson made this request comes from a New York report that came out after the San Francisco reports and got the information on the date it happened and who had contacted the other mixed up.

and Littlechild got it all wrong

Well, certainly not all of it, but he did say that Tumblety "shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide" -- which seems to be a rather amazing statement to make if we were supposed to believe he was a serious suspect investigated by police.

- or worse still the Littlechild letter is a fake.

Well, yes, that accusation -- whether made directly or indirectly -- is bizarre and inexcusable. The idea that anyone would include statements which so severely cripple any serious case to be made against Tumblety while ostensibly trying to forge a document to make him a suspect in the first place is a complete nonstarter, and there has never been anything at all about the document's writing or provenance that would give anyone a reason to distrust it as something genuinely written by Littlechild. The only accusations made have come from people with extremely questionable credibility themselves and who appear to want simply to smear the good reputations of others by baseless insinuations of wrongdoing instead of any actual reasons to question it.

Cap'n Jack
03-08-2008, 09:36 PM
And to answer the allegations that I am concerned in some kind of personal vendetta to ensure that Tumblety is no longer taken as a serious suspect for the Whitechapel Murders, I should just like to point out that recent research I have undertaken in the Liverpool press has revealed a previously unpublished case where Tumblety actually faces a charge of manslaughter, when not murder... of course he got away with it.
I have published this new case on How's forums without let or hindrance, and without negative comment.
I would be interested to hear how my successful efforts to put Tumblety into an English court on a charge of manslaughter or even murder has negated his role in the Whitechapel Murders?

Gideon Fell
03-09-2008, 02:43 AM
No gents, you have convinced me that Tumblety not only wasn't the Ripper - he wasn't even a suspect. Time to move on to my next suspect in my never ending quest to solve this case.


And just so folks don't think I'm talking out of my oversized pirating hat; of the 23 news reports I was able to find in the American press detailing Tumblety's involvement in the Whitechapel Murders, only four make mention of his arrest in another connection; two of those actually mentioning 'Babylon laws'; one describing the offence as 'special', and another as 'nominal'.
Not one press report mentions that the offences in England were committed against young men.
All in all I would say that Tumblety did very well out of the Whitechapel Murders.

Well my piratical friend, shiver me timbers, the American press report of 18th November is worded:

'The police have succeeded in getting held for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures."

The 'special law' part of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 was Section 11 of the Act relating to offences between males (that were not previously a statutory offence) and known as 'the Labouchere amendment.' So the American papers obviously knew exactly what offences were involved and were reporting his previous homosexual activites before Tumblety set foot on the dock at New York. The wording of the initial report also makes it clear that they thought that he was still being held on the 17th. I must assume that you are stating that all the American press reports from 18th November until Tumblety's return on 2nd December were 'fed' to them by Tumblety himself. He really must have been busy in the telegraph office.

Anyway, as my cannon raked bows dip towards the choppy waves of derision and contempt I raise a white flag and shout "Quarter! I am done for, enough, throw me a line."

rjpalmer
03-09-2008, 04:47 AM
"I must assume that you are stating that all the American press reports from 18th November until Tumblety's return on 2nd December were 'fed' to them by Tumblety himself. He really must have been busy in the telegraph office."

And a telegraph office located aboard a steamship no less, complete with radar and radio communication circa 1888. And all accomplished while Tumblety was hiding in his cabin feigning sea sickness.

One of the many problems with Dan Norder's never ending 'post modern' interpretations is that the boys of the Special Branch (of which Littlechild was operational head) had a deep contempt for the press. Dolly Williamson once said 'a reporter will hardly get courtesy, let alone information at Scotland Yard.'

The strange idea that the man atop Section D would wait at the docks in Southampton for the latest mail boat arrivals, so he could find out from the New York Times who were the suspects in Scotland Yard's own investigation could only be the misguided theory from one of our modern 'Ripperologists.' If this the direction post-modernism is going, give me Forbes Winslow!

From Wolf Vanderlinden, Ripper Notes #24

"Chief Crowley himself stated in the S.F. papers that he decided to investigate Tumblety when he first heard from US press reports that he was a Ripper suspect on the 18th of November."

Uh, the US press report that appeared in the S.F. Chronicle on 18 November was a U.S. paper, but it was not instigated in the U.S. It was from a LONDON correspondent to the NY World (ie., stationed in London) who wrote a long piece on Sir George Arthur, and then mentioned "Kumblety's" case in passing.

I dont' know how many times I need to point this out to Dan Norder before it sinks in. The original flow of information did NOT come from NYC as he keeps trying to insinuate; it came from a reporter stationed in London. The NY press then picked up on the story because, quite obviously, Tumblety was at one time a well-known figure in that city. The post-modern chronology does not work, nor is it the least bit credible.

In short, not only does Dan have the tail wagging the dog, he has the dog standing on a horse with the cart behind it.

Further, Vanderlinden is not being precise. 'Chief Crowley himself' did not say this in the SF papers. He is not quoted; he is not even paraphrased unless by implication. The S.F. Chronicle certainly implied that this is the way it went 'down,' but other papers were more circumspect. The official documentation between San Francisco and Scotland Yard has not survived. Nor has the official documentation between Scotland Yard and San Francisco survived. This has all the appearance of a 'how our local Chief Crowley solved the Whitechapel Murders' story, rather than any accurate account of the communications between London and San Francisco. Communication between London and the U.S. West coast was no easy task in 1888. The same telegraph lines would have been used by both the press and the poilce, and it is easy to imagine that the local reporters got 'wind' of Crowley's investigation at the same time that the initial press reports were coming over the wire. Without the official documentation at our disposal, extreme caution should be used before insisting that these reports are accuate. Both Norder and Vanderlinden seem to have become 'fixated' on the difference between the way it was reported in New York and the way it was reported in San Francisco, but have not seemed to consider the likelihood that neither report was particularly accurate.

As any student of the case knows, or should know, there is often a serious contradiction between what is initially reported in the press, and what actually went on 'behind the scenes.' Study the MET files side-by-side with initial reports for a good lesson in how this works. Vanderlinden is entitled to his interpretation, but it is no kosher to give official sanction to what is only a press report.

Futher, it is obvious from reading those reports that Chief Crowley didn't even have a clear idea who the hell Tumblety was. He vaguely remembered someone named 'Stanley' and thought he was from Australia. It beggars belief that he would see 'Kumblety' in one paragraph in the paper on Nov 18th and then unilaterally launch an extensive investigation, including finding an abandoned bank account that he couldn't have known existed. It almost never works that way. Anderson, in all likelihood, telegraphed Crowley and the press jumped to conclusions once the press reports hit. The intial reports from London said they had confirmed 'Kumblety's' identity from papers found on him. Tumblety's sister lived in Vallejo, California, which is on San Francisco Bay. This could easily explain why Crowley was contacted for more information.

Gideon Fell
03-09-2008, 10:39 AM
THank-ee for that Mr. Palmer Sir, you have restored my faith a bit in my own ideas but I am not so well read as yourself on the American reports which must have originated in London before the 18th November. Surely you must be tempting the wrath of the horde of piratical posters above who wait in the wings to pounce on my every word. I am ill-equipped to cope with it and fain would shelter from the mocking fire of Cap'n Jack. I am already sailing for waters new.

Cap'n Jack
03-09-2008, 06:23 PM
RJP
Obviously the reports of Tumblety's arrest in London emanated from London.
Where else... the moon?
However you are being quite shifty and deceptive here in leading us to believe that there is no record of the cable exchange between Chief Crowly of the SFPD and Anderson of Scotland Yard, for there is, the report in the 'Daily Evening Bulletin' - a San Francisco newpaper that actually interviewed Chief Crowly - of 23rd November 1888 which clearly reports that Crowly cabled Anderson on the 19th November 1888, after he had read the report on the 18th November 1888; and then he heard back from Anderson on the 22nd November 1888.
I reproduce the report below for your education and hopeful elucidation.

Cap'n Jack
03-09-2008, 06:29 PM
Gideon
my point remains.
Not one single American news report of 1888 mentioned Tumblety in connection with his homosexual acts against young men in England.
It is all well and good to mention the 'special' amendment to the 'Modern Babylon' legislation, for an English law maker, or giver, would have fully understood the implications, however I would suggest to you that the average American in the streets - or at his newsdesk - wouldn't have had a clue what that meant.
This seems obvious to me as the American press make absolutely no mention of Tumblety's offences against young men.
Ain't that a tad strange?

Dan Norder
03-09-2008, 07:55 PM
The strange idea that the man atop Section D would wait at the docks in Southampton for the latest mail boat arrivals, so he could find out from the New York Times who were the suspects in Scotland Yard's own investigation could only be the misguided theory from one of our modern 'Ripperologists.'

Yeah, this is a strange idea. but then you know nobody has actually suggested it. You can't attack what was really said so you choose to invent up something else entirely and attack that instead.

Your argument here assumes Section D had anything to do with the Ripper case to begin with, and that the only way they would have heard anything being talked about in America or the papers was to wait for a mail boat. Littlechild's letter wasn't written until years later, so we have no idea when he heard of the idea of Tumblety as a suspect... and in fact it's clear that he didn't hear very much because, again, he claimed that Tumblety was thought to have committed suicide after leaving France and was never heard from again. Even someone reading a few news reports would know this to be false. Littlechild was obviously way, way out of the loop.

And this following part shows either an inability to read for understanding or a crass attempt to be deceptive:

From Wolf Vanderlinden, Ripper Notes #24

"Chief Crowley himself stated in the S.F. papers that he decided to investigate Tumblety when he first heard from US press reports that he was a Ripper suspect on the 18th of November."

Uh, the US press report that appeared in the S.F. Chronicle on 18 November was a U.S. paper, but it was not instigated in the U.S.

The San Francisco Chronicle report was never offered as the first US report claiming that Tumblety was a Ripper suspect. It was only used to show when Chief Crowley had heard of the Tumblety being mentioned of as possibly connected to the Ripper crimes and proves that Anderson did not contact him first. This has nothing to do with Wolf's statement above, so putting them together with an "Uh," as if it contradicts him is ridiculous.

'Chief Crowley himself' did not say this in the SF papers. He is not quoted; he is not even paraphrased unless by implication. The S.F. Chronicle certainly implied that this is the way it went 'down,' but other papers were more circumspect.

He was directly interviewed and the reporters provided the information. Furthermore the exact same scenario with the explicit steps involved -- Chief Crowley hearing of Tumblety in US press reports and taking it upon himself to contact Anderson -- was also reported in the San Francisco Daily Morning Call. Other area papers give fewer details but also offer up a sequence of events that simply do not fit the idea that Anderson had contacted Crowley first. The only reports that claimed Anderson first contacted Crowley were not from San Francisco but showed up later in New York in abbreviated form reporting on the earlier San Francisco reports but bungling the details. As they did not have direct contact with Crowley or Anderson, it's naive (or perhaps intentionally ignorant to try to keep a suspect theory alive) to expect them to have had better information.

Both Norder and Vanderlinden seem to have become 'fixated' on the difference between the way it was reported in New York and the way it was reported in San Francisco, but have not seemed to consider the likelihood that neither report was particularly accurate.

Or, rather, several people have examined the problems and noted the entirely logical conclusion that small mentions in the press in New York that ran after the other reports are far less likely to be accurate than multiple news reports from journalists who had direct access to the person being quoted. In fact it looks like you, RJ, are the one fixated on trying to prop up any report you can that might look Tumblety look like a more solid suspect despite multiple other more reliable sources giving explicit evidence that you are wrong.

Futher, it is obvious from reading those reports that Chief Crowley didn't even have a clear idea who the hell Tumblety was. He vaguely remembered someone named 'Stanley' and thought he was from Australia. It beggars belief that he would see 'Kumblety' in one paragraph in the paper on Nov 18th and then unilaterally launch an extensive investigation, including finding an abandoned bank account that he couldn't have known existed. It almost never works that way.

And if you had bothered to read the reports from San Francisco you would know that it did NOT work that way (but then you probably did read them and do know but choose to invent up yet another straw man to attack instead of what anybody actually claimed). Earlier reports in San Francisco reporting New York speculation that "Tumblety" (not "Kumblety") had been arrested on suspicion of the Ripper murders (likely confusion with the homosexual charges we know he had been arrested on) showed that people recalled that Tumblety had lived in the area, some others remembered rumors that he was "Stanley", and so forth. It was Crowley who said Tumblety was not the same person as Stanley, so trying to claim Crowley was the one confused is highly deceptive. The bank, having also heard of Tumblety in the news, volunteered the fact that they still had an account of his. So, no, Crowley didn't just investigate for no reason, he heard people talking in town that Tumblety had lived there and, quite professionally, got to the bottom of it and volunteered the information he uncovered to his professional colleagues in London. There's no evidence that London had been looking for anything of the sort, but, hey, if someone volunteers something, no matter how tenuous, that might possibly be useful, Anderson would have been a fool to turn it down, even if he didn't put any stock in it.

Frankly, RJ, it seems impossible to me that someone could have actually read these reports and then seriously offer up the scenarios you tried to present to everyone here. Did you just not read them and then fantasized up your own preferred version of events to fit your preconceived ideas, or did you read them and knowingly ignore what they said for your post here to try to confuse other people into thinking your summary was accurate?

Anyone who wants to check these reports can go look at the old thread that links to them (http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/7489.html) or just look through the San Francisco papers in the Press Reports section (http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/). They can go see just how inaccurate your version of events is. And I encourage everyone to do so, because the easiest way to refute your claims is to, as always, just look at the facts instead of your very warped description of them. I know when people looked into your claims that Tumblety was arrested in France on suspicion of the Ripper charges but had to be released showed them to be the nonsense that they are, and when Tim and Wolf looked into your claims that Colonel Dunham's (not a even a real colonel) crazy uteri in jars story was accurate because it accurately listed where Tumblety lived at the time they found proof he wasn't living where Dunham and you claimed he had.

Time and time again your claims are shown to be false, and yet you keep repeating them even knowing so. That's either remarkable stubbornness or a clumsy attempt at deceiving others at work.

Gideon Fell
03-09-2008, 08:07 PM
Gideon
my point remains.
Not one single American news report of 1888 mentioned Tumblety in connection with his homosexual acts against young men in England.
It is all well and good to mention the 'special' amendment to the 'Modern Babylon' legislation, for an English law maker, or giver, would have fully understood the implications, however I would suggest to you that the average American in the streets - or at his newsdesk - wouldn't have had a clue what that meant.
This seems obvious to me as the American press make absolutely no mention of Tumblety's offences against young men.
Ain't that a tad strange?

Arrr Cap'n Jack I quiver under the gaping barrels of yur hot cannon. I cringe at the flash of the cold steel of yur cutlass. I cower at the glare from the parrot on yur shoulder. Ah Jim lad he's a fearsome one. Look at the wisps of smoke curlin' from the smoulderin' fuses under his hat. A vision of hell ter be sure. I hardly dare address him at all; but I will.

Cap'n Jack Sur, yur honor, yur majesty, Yur and yur shipmates wur sayin as how that there Tumblety did alert the Yankee press to the fact that he wuz arrested as a Ripper suspect himself (by that there new-fangled cablegram I durst say. Be that the case well why then, good sur, would he even have to mention to them that he wuz also dealt with fur the Modern Babylon stuff (even mentionin' the special amendment and that), compromisin' to him as yur say it wuz. It's all too much fur me poor head to comprehend sur. Please be gentle with me good Cap'n; fearsome as yur are and all that like, a standin' thur on the poop of the good ship Queen Anne's Revenge.

Cap'n Jack
03-09-2008, 09:55 PM
Well, Gideon, if I think I understood your post correctly, you are claiming that I claimed Tumblety might have cabled the American press himself?
If that is the case then I'm sorry to tell you that it was you who came up with that little gem, all I said was that this entire tale could have been invented by Tumblety to detract from his real offences.
This is what you said:

' Or was Tumblety bailed on the 16th and the next day cabled the American press and 'made up the fine old tale' that he had been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel murders...'

The only part belonging to my good self is 'made up the fine old tale'.
So shiver your own timbers, me ol' ship mate.

As I think you know, the term 'Modern Babylon' was employed by the American press - and people - to describe the East End of London in 1888, and all its social ills; and thus it would have been read by almost any American in 1888.

Studying the copyrighted telegraphic traffic that was coming into the San Francisco press offices from London during November of 1888 there is really nothing to report, apart from a minor blip on the 10th November 1888 when it was reported that:
'One arrest on account of the latest Whitechapel Murders has been made'.

This made me sit up, on account of why, I mean why should the San Francisco Press pick out one single arrest on that date, when there had been dozens of arrests previously, which they never had mentioned?
Because it was perhaps an American?
With previous connections to San Francisco?

As you walk your plank, Gideon, contemplate what I said concerning my success in putting Tumblety into an English court of law where he could have faced charges of manslaughter, or even murder, and then contemplate your own failure to do so.
I would say the barque had once again brought a man 'o war into troubled water.
I await your silver.

rjpalmer
03-09-2008, 10:40 PM
When I read Dan Norder's inane and incompetent posts, I realize why Sir Walter Raleigh eventually threw his hands in the air, gave up writing history, and took up women and smoking.


Norder is not even aware of the arguments published in his own magazine.

Sigh.

Here we go again:

From Wolf Vanderlinden, Ripper Notes #24

"Chief Crowley himself stated in the S.F. papers that he decided to investigate Tumblety when he first heard from US press reports that he was a Ripper suspect on the 18th of November."

All of you can read that once; I recommend Norder reading it twenty times and then trying to understand what it says and why Vanderlinden wrote it.

The chronology is simple.

On November 18th, Crowley read the US press report.

Why does Vanderlinden state November 18th??

Two reasons.

Reason one: that was the date the first article appeared. (reprinted below)

Reason two: Crowley's telegram about the obtaining Tumblety's handwriting was sent on November 19th (as reported in every account). You have the chronology wrong and are bringing in later reports published after November 19th. Amazingly, you stupidly invited the public to check out the press archives when the archives prove you have it backwards.

Here is the exact article alluded to by Vanderlinden, that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18th.

Judge for yourselves, folks. Am I lying or is Norder acting like an idiot again?


San Francisco Chronicle
18 November 1888
Pg. 1

GOSSIP OF LONDON.
_____
A Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel.
_____

A Score of Prisoners, but No Clew.
_____

Rothschild Offers a Reward for the Murderer

[THE NEW YORK WORLD CABLE SERVICE; COPYRIGHTED, 1888 - SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE]

LONDON, November 17.--Just to think of one of the Prince of Wales' own exclusive set, a member of the household cavalry, and one of the best known of the many swells about town, who glory in the glamour of the Guelph going into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of clubdom tonight. Just now it is a fashionable fad to "slum it" in Whitechapel. Every night scores of young men, who never have beeni n the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders, talking with frightened women and pushing their way into overcrowded lodging-houses. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves the police do not interfere with them, but if a man goes alone and tries to lure a woman of the street into a secluded street to talk to her, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.

That was the case with Sir George Arthur of the Price of Wales set. He put on an old shooting coat and a slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the popular description of Jack the Ripper. They watched him, and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested, expostulated and threatened them with the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End club to prove his identity, and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspapers, but the jolly young Barnets at Brookes Club consider the joke too good to keep quiet.

Sir George is quite a figure in London. He is a son of the late Sir Frederick N. Arthur, who was an influential man in his day. Sir George was conspicuous on the turf a few years ago and intimately associated with the Duchess of Montrose. Then he turned his attention to the theaters, and when Bancroft produced "Theodora" he let Sir George appear as the corpse. The report is to-night that he is going to Monte Carlo for a few weeks.

Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.

A score of other men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion of being the murderer, but the right man still roams at large. Everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim. The large sums offered as private rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail. Leon Rothschild has offered an income of £2 a week for life to the man who gives information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.


Note that, just as I said:

1. The article is from a London Correspondent. To see this, you'll have to get off your backside and chase down the New York World for the same date. The San Francisco Chronicle had an agreement with Pulitzer's paper. The World forwarded them this article, but it has a London by-line. Since Norder hasn't done any research beyond what is on his computer screen, he didn't know this.

2. The article refers to 'Kumblety.' Based on this article, Vanderlinden argues that Crowley telegraphed London the next day (November 19th).

As for the famed uteri collection, once again Norder is lying. Please show me any post EVER where I stated this collection existed, Dan.

You won't because I didn't, and that was never my argument. In the coming days, I will accept your inability to link to a specific post where I said this as an admission that you are lying. RP

rjpalmer
03-09-2008, 10:50 PM
San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin
California, U.S.A.
23 November 1888

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER.
Seeking Information in This City Concerning a Man Suspected of the Crimes.

Chief of Police Crowley has lately been in correspondence with the officials of Scotland Yard, London, regarding Dr. Tumblety, who is at present under arrest on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders. On the 19th inst. Chief Crowley sent a dispatch to the London detectives informing them that he could furnish specimens of Tumblety's hand-writing, and yesterday received the following answer from the Scotland Yard detectives:


Thanks. Send writing and all details you can in relation to him. ANDERSON.

Chief Crowley in pursuing his investigations discovered that the Hibernia Bank, which he left there when he disappeared from the city, and which has never been drawn upon since. Mr. Smyth of that institution says that he first met Tumblety in Toronto, where he was practicing medicine in July, 1858. He next met him in this city at the Occidental Hotel in March or April, 1870. Tumblety rented an office at 20 Montgomery street where he remained until September, 1870, and then disappeared as suddenly as he came, and in 1871 the Doctor turned up in New York.


****Please note that Crowley sent the telegram on November 19th, the day after the Chronicle piece naming 'Kumblety' appeared. The response from Anderson was received on November 22nd. The delay was due to the fact that it was a multi-staged transmission, a seperate cablegram having to be sent across the Atlantic at Halifax.

Norder probably doesn't have access to it, but an article appeared in The World correcting the name "Kumblety." There is no doubt whatsoever the original dispatch came from London and Norder has repeated this error for several years now

Simon Wood
03-09-2008, 11:59 PM
Hi All,

It's all very confusing.

According to this account—NYT 23rd November 1888—Crowley sent his telegram to "the London detectives" on October 29th and received his reply on November 22nd.

Regards,

Simon

739

Natalie Severn
03-10-2008, 12:01 AM
While not wanting to join in with any of the disputation here,I am nevertheless very intrigued to read about the flurry of interest in Dr Tumblety at this particular moment in time-November 1888.So if you can please forgive my intrusion and a quick reminder of the anti fenian "back drop " to it all..........
Robert Anderson, it will be remembered, had re-employed Inspector James Thompson "on some inquiry" .Thompson ,as a result went with his wife Martha to Boulogne to meet the "anti fenian " British secret agent Millen in 1887 and later worked for Anderson on anti fenian work in New York as well as negotiating with The Times to testify at The Special Commission on Parnell 1888/89 .
Interesting too that Millen, as well as his British Secret Service work,worked as a correspondent for The New York Herald.Yet another newspaper man.
It was under Anderson"s orders that Melville was sent to Boulogne to "spy on spies" ie the meeting between the British spy Millen and the Anderson appointed British spy Thompson .
Melville ,in 1888 was keeping" Port watch" in Bologne-its so very likely he knew about all Tumblety"s November movements since Tumblety was not only a known sympathiser of "fenianism" but had also managed to jump bail.So the question could be -might Tumblety have "jumped bail" with the help of the CID?
Clearly Anderson had grave doubts about Millen suspecting him no doubt of being a "double agent".He may have been right too since Millen when he died a few months later was given an "Irish" patriots funeral.We will never know.His body was secretly disinterred and re-intered with Masonic ritual "in a better plot.One wonders whether Tumblety himself might have been a double agent of some kind!
Natalie

Cap'n Jack
03-10-2008, 12:20 AM
RJP, I can't believe it!
You agree with everything I say, but hey, no need to repost stuff that I posted three years ago.
Tumblety, or even Kumblety, was arrested in November of 1888 for offences unrelated to the Whitechapel Murders.
Chief Crowly made the first exchange in the telegraphic exchange between San Francisco and London.
(I have the actual cable somewhere).
After the cable exchange it was obvious that neither the chief of police of San Francisco or New York thought that Tumblety was involved in the Whitechapel Murders.
I won't even put the plank out for you, just throw you off the port side.

rjpalmer
03-10-2008, 05:00 AM
AP -- When you got twenty minutes I’ll tell you a story. Two stories.

A couple of nights ago there was an Irish poet and essayist on the Radio by the name of David Whyte. One of the stories he told was about the Tuatha Dé Dannan of Ireland who were once confronted by a warrior tribe from Iberia. Just as the two tribes were about to clash, the Tuatha Dé Dannan turned sideways and vanished. They disappeared utterly. The moral of the tale, according to Whyte, was “not to engage in confrontations that make you too small for yourself.”

Whenever I respond to a certain strange and aggressive contributor at this site (a figure to remain unnamed) I always feel afterwards that I’ve ignored that moral. I’ve made myself smaller by responding in kind. I have done him no good, and I do myself even less. So, in the spirit of repentence, I’m going to turn sideways and vanish. That's story number one. What follows is number two; it is my last gasp, so enjoy it.

When I first posted on ths site, sometime around 1999, one of my first contributions concerned how improbable Francis Tumblety was as a suspect. I wrote something along the lines that he was a horseback riding quack and the furthest thing in the world from Jack the Ripper. Classic deep thought. I then turned my attentions back to M.J. Druitt, a bloke I first plumped for after taking a walk around East London with a man named Rumbelow in the mid-90s.

A year or so later I became interested in Tumblety and read ‘The Lodger.’ I became so intrigued by this strange man that I went to the library (I live on the west coast, USA) and started looking through the San Francisco newspapers, of which there was a small collection at my university. This didn’t satisfy my curiousity and I ended up driving a very long drive to Sacramento where the California State Library is located. Lovely place surrounded by palm trees and one hell of a collection of exotic plants. I read every paper I could find, and despite Norder admonishing me to “read the San Francisco papers," the fact is is that I had these press reports before they ever made their way to the internet. Not a boast, but only to explain what happened next. I’ll post one you haven’t seen in a moment. The man you need to thank for these reports you are quoting is Joe Chetcuti who sent them to Stephen Ryder three or four years ago.

It may have come across as a 'low blow' when I stated above that Vanderlinden was not being precise about his statement in Ripper Notes. This is evidently what got Mr. N spitting blood and me responding in an equally idiotic manner. But my point is that as historians, we must be very careful about stating only what we really know. Such as the fact that, despite your statements, we don’t really know that Tumbley was charged with anything on Nov. 7, as the document only states that he was ‘received into custody.” Nothing about being charged until later. In short, in determining what went in that Autumn of Terror, it IS inaccurate to write or imply that “Crowley himself’ said anything about how it went down, because we have no direct quote and we do not have access to the official documentation. All we have is a paraphrase in the San Francsico Chronicle from an unknown reporter. (more in a moment)

Getting back to my little voyage. As I spent time in the State Library, I became very intrigued with San Francisco history--particularly the 1850s 60s and 70s. Frisco in this era was a bizarre place, full of opium dens, gunslingers, Irish ‘muldoons’ and the shanghai racket. (One historian suggested Chief Crowley may have once played a role in the latter). When I returned home, I started reading quite a bit about San Fran history and trolled through the papers when I had the time, and, eventually, I believe I got a pretty good ‘feel’ for the different papers and their respective reliability.

One thing that is worth noting. The story of Cheif Crowley’s connection to the Whtiechapel Murder investigation was first reported on November 23rd. Please note that it appeared in all the San Francisco newspapers on that same date. The Chronicle, the Morning Call, the Bulletin, etc. all reported basically this same story on November 23rd.

What does this tell us?

It tells us that the story “broke” on November 22nd.

Why did it ‘break’ on November 22nd?

Because that was the date of Dr. Robert Anderson’s telegram to San Francisco. That cablegram you are looking for and can’t find.

This is interesting and important. Note that we know for certain that Chief Crowley sent Anderson a telegram on November 19th. But also note that that communication was not reported in the local press on November 19, 20, 21, or 22nd. Crowley wasn’t spreading the love, as it were. What does that tell you?

It tells you that the local press did not know about Crowley’s investigation until the telegram arrived from Scotland Yard “hit the fan” on November 22nd. Bear that in mind. Crowley had kept them in the dark.

Here’s what I think happened.

In the 1870s and 80s one of the chief hang-outs for journalists in San Francisco was the saloon of the Russ House Hotel. I think that sometime on November 22nd, a journalist's ‘snout’ (probably a telegram boy) told a reporter about the arrival of a weird telegram from London. It was certainly a mysterious one. It was addressed to Crowley and said something to the effect of ‘find out all you can about him. thanks.” The San Fran version of Fleet Street smelled blood.

In the 19th Century, the police often communicated by what was called the ‘police telegraph.’ In other words, they had to send their telegrams over the same wires like everyone else, but they sent them in a cypher that had to be decrypted; the idea being that journalists couldn't pick up on them. Anderson’s telegram WASN”T sent in cypher. We know this because three different papers gave its contents verbatum the next day and no way in hell an Ameircan police chief is going to willingly hand over private correspondence to the press.

Once the journalists had this telegram they started on the hunt. They chased down Crowley and asked him about it. And since the Kumblety/Twomblety/Tumblety story was already in the news, and some vaguely recalled the old quack, it didn’t take too many brains to guess what it was all about.;

I imagine the conversation went something like this:

Journalists: Chief. Are you investigating something for Scotland Yard?

Crowley; Who told you that?

J: The return date on the telegram states you sent something to Scotland Yard on the 19th. This is about that Tumblety business that ‘s been in the papers, isn’t it? Have you started your own investigation?

C: Gawd almighty, boys, don’t you have something better to do? I’m just poking around a bit.

J: Mr. Smythe at the bank said you photographed some documents. This Tumblety, he was the chp who was here in 1870--the bloke with the grey hounds and military outfits, wasn’t he?

C: No, No, Boys, Nothing like that. Tumblety was someone else entirely. I think you have him confused with ‘Stanley,’ the Australian who used to lounge around the Snug Saloon. He had the dogs and the loud suits. You are mistaken, boys. Now if you’ll exuse me...

That was the extent of it.

The following day, November 23, all the local papers printed generally the same story with slight variations.

1. San Francisco Daily Morning Call


"Since the dispatch from London, announcing that Dr. Tumblety had been arrested on suspicion of being connected with the Whitechapel murders, appeared in the local papers, Chief Crowley has been investigating Tumblety's antecedents.

He has ascertained that Dr. Tumblety arrived here in April, 1870, and stopped at the Occidental Hotel. He then opened an office at 20 Montgomery street and remained here until the following September,
when he disappeared." (truncated)


2. San Francisco Chronicle

"... When the news of Tumblety's arrest reached this city, Chief of Police Crowley recollected that the suspected man formerly lived here, and he took the necessary steps to learn all about his career in this city. He found that Tumblety arrived here in the early part of 1870 and took rooms at the Occidental Hotel. He opened an office at 20 Montgomery Street, but remained in the city only a few months, leaving in September of the same year. While here he opened an account with the Hibernia Bank and left a considerable amount to his credit in that institution when he went away." (truncated)


3. San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin

"Chief of Police Crowley has lately been in correspondence with the officials of Scotland Yard, London, regarding Dr. Tumblety, who is at present under arrest on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders. On the 19th inst. Chief Crowley sent a dispatch to the London detectives informing them that he could furnish specimens of Tumblety's hand-writing, and yesterday received the following answer from the Scotland Yard detectives:

Thanks. Send writing and all details you can in relation to him. ANDERSON."

(truncated)


Comments:

1. only #2, ( the San Francisco Chronicle) insistst that Crowley initiated the investigation. Once again, it doesn’t quote him. It's not in Crowley's words, it is merely what the reporter believed. Nor do we have any ‘official’ documentation confirming this. The Morning Call states that Crowley’s investigation dates to the time of the initial dispatch but is more vague about whether or not this means he intitated it. #3 states nothing whatsoever about who initiated the investigatin, but merely states that Crolwely has ‘been in correspondence.’


Now recall that the argument is based on the apparent fact that Crowley read the ‘Kumblety’ report on Nov. 18th and unilaterally launched his investigation, thus quickly telegraphing results to Anderson on the following day, Nov. 19th.

Is there really any room for me to doubt how it ‘went down?'

I say yes:

1. I don’t have the official documentation, and am squemish about the press reports, particulalry as they dont’ all agree, and dont’ directly quote the Chief.

2. Then there is the NY Times piece giving a different date. I would agree with Vanderlinden that this is almost certainly an error, but all telegrams to San Francisco from London apparently came by way of New York, which could mean the NYT piece corrected an error that it noted in the reports from SF. Unlikely, but possible.

3. The only statement allegedly coming from Crowley that describes Tumbety is exceedingly odd. Here is Crowley, the Police Chief in a rollicking city of over 150,000 but we are supposed to believe that he dropped everything to unilaterally launch an extenisve investigation for a gross indecency case on the other side of the Atlantic? (And why handwriting samples in a gross indecency case? Did Dr. T write graffit ion the rent boy’s backside?) This doesn't have the ring of truth.

Here is the passage attibuted to Crowley (Morning Call, Nov. 23rd):

"In one of the dispatches received concerning Tumblety, it was stated that he was in the habit of walking about the streets clad in odd attire. A prominent feature of his dress was his high-top boots. A few yards behind him, it was usual for him to have a colored boy, in livery, conducting two huge greyhounds.

Chief Crowley says that this is a mistake. The person who was in the habit of performing such freaks was a Dr. Stanley, who had an office at 634 Washington street. Stanley was a ponderous Englishman, 6 feet 2 inches in height, who conducted himself on the street in the manner attributed to Tumblety. Stanley finally left here and went to Honolulu."


Whoa. Slow down, AP. Read that again, slowly.

We know bloody well that Tumblety DID walk around in the streets in ‘odd attire,’ that he was rough 6’ -6’ 2”, that he did have a thing for greyhounds and livery boys. What the hell is going on? Are you telling me this is the guy you are setting up for Sherlock Holmes of the Bay City?

Either A) Crowley doesn’t have a clear recollection of who Tumblety was. or B) This is the residual of Crowley deliberately playing ‘dumb’ ’ when being quizzed by the reporters because he didn’t want to duscuss his investigation.

In the first instance, it raises great doubt as to whether Crowley’s memory was good enouogh to pick ‘Kumblety' out of a brief paragraph in the paper on Nov. 18th and start this massive investgition. If the latter, it suggests deliberate reticence on the chief’s part, and perhaps he was even throwing the reporters off the track as to how he first came to investigate Tumblety . Loose lips sink ships, and the 19th Century police took a dim view of reporters.

4. Finally, the last argument. Here is a report you won’t find on this website. My parting gift to you in lieu of a case of turtle wax. It comes from my faviorite of the San Francisco papers the Daily Alta-california. It’s a non-nonsense paper--more along the lines of the Morning Adveriser than the Star or the Pall Mall Gazette. Same date as the others. November 23.

DOCTOR TUMBLETY

Chief Crowley’s Account of His Career in San Francisco

Chief Crowley has exchanged considerable correspondence with Scotland Yard officials in refernce to “Dr. Tumblety,” who is under arrest on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechaapel Murders. Chief Crowley sent a telegram on the 19th inst. to the London ddetectives, informing them that he could furnish specimens of Tumblety’s handwriting, and yesterday received teh following answer from the Chief of Scotlandy Yard detectives: “Thanks. send hand-writing and all details you can in relation to him.--Anderson.”

My money is on this being the most accurate report and the most accurate version of the telegram.

It sounds, AP, like a guy pretty fricking interested in finding out who Tumblety was. And the head of the C.I.D. no less.

But the most interesting line is the first one. “Crowley has exchanged considerable correspondence with Scotland Yard officials in reference to “Dr. Tumblety.” This is published on November 23rd in regards to informatin obtained on November 22.


Chew that over slowly, old bean, because someday it will bite you back. The only telegram we know of took three days to go full circle. I already explained to you why that was: it required an independent and relatively expensive cablegram to be sent by way of Halifax. Crowley on the 19th. Anderson response makes it back on the 22. = 3 days.

So as a parting shot--all in good fun. Let you, Norder, and Vanderlinden put your heads together and tell me how this ‘considerable correspondence’ was exchanged by November 22, if Crowley didn’t start his investigation until the afternoon of the 18th. If this report is accurate, that ‘considerable correspondence’ would have been technologically impossible in 1888. Something doesn't jive.

That my friend, is why there is considerable doubt about how it ‘went down’ and I don’t think that it should be flippantly insisted that ‘Chief Crowley himself' said this ‘unambigously’ I think there is considerable ambiguity and doubt, and I’d prefer to see the telegrams before I made that insistance.

Good-bye, AP. See you on the other side. And to Dan N--worry no more, mate, I'm putting you on permanent ignore until the Second Coming. We have no future. Farewell.

P.S. To Natalie: there is an obscure reason Scotland Yard might have been interested in an Irishman with San Francisco connections in 1888. The London Bridge bombing in 1884. The dynamite came from the 'City by the Bay' and some of it turned up again later. Littlechild called the former case the most spectacular investigation of his career.

Cap'n Jack
03-10-2008, 12:24 PM
Nice post, RJP, thanks for taking the time to craft it, and I do take on board everything you say.
But as ever I do not see the same things as you do; and I think you'll agree that I'm as well read as you are in regard to press reports from SF & NY in November of 1888, perhaps even better as I don't restrict myself to purely material about the Whitechapel Murders and Tumblety.
What this reveals is that Chief Crowly did not drop everything in his pursuit of Tumblety, in fact he carried on with his normal policing duties in that period 18th November through to the 23rd November 1888; but in addition to that took the trouble to get hold of samples of Tumblety's handwriting, and other material to send by wire to Scotland Yard which he began to do on the 19th November, unbidden by Scotland Yard or anyone else for that matter.
He was purely using his initiative, a not unusual ploy often employed by senior police officers.
Obviously the documents he was transmitting would have been of a cumbersome nature and this would have taken some time to transmit... let's say ten or twenty minutes, not five days eh, RJP?
And as regards your contention that such documents would have been normally sent in a police cypher code, I'd like to hear your explanation of just how Crowly was going to do this with samples of Tumblety's handwriting?
The local San Francisco press did not fly into some kind of frenzy when they learnt of the cable exchange between the SFPD and SY, in fact their response was reasonable and measured, and it is obvious that they were running the story on first hand information from Crowly, rather than having tapped it from the cable. You over excite your imagination, RJP.
You know the reporting in the SF press of cable exchanges between different police departments was the norm, not the unusual at all; just look at the exchange between Crowly and the Chicago police on the 17th November 1888as reported in the DEB of the same date.
No great shakes there, and there were no great shakes with the Tumblety exchange either, with Crowly rapidly losing interest when he realised he had a dead duck on his hands.
So nothing has changed in Tumbleville, RJP, but a good post nontheless.

Natalie Severn
03-10-2008, 12:39 PM
Yes, RJ, it certainly appears the case that the various news reporters and their editors were having difficulty reading between the lines of the Anderson/Chief Crowley telegraph correspondence-two heads of CID no less.It beggars belief that either of these men would have been be loose tongued to reporters over a man suspected of being either the Whitechapel murderer or ,even worse in their eyes, a Fenian sympathiser possibly involved in the smuggling a cache of dynamite used in the London Bridge bombing fiasco.
And yes RJ, it was found to have been produced by the Safety Nitro Company of San Francisco.The cache was found in the vacated Harrow Road lodging house of William Mackey Lomasney, a member of Clan na Gael,and the leader of the dynamite plot, who atomised himself, his brother and John Flemming in the explosion under London Bridge in 1884.
Interestingly Jenkinson-dubbed "spy master general" -had had "prior warning" from Philadelphia of this little ol" London Bridge plot which was why he had ordered the gratings to be installed the previous March [1884].
Now Jenkinson depended for his information on an "illegal network of spies" ------so I cant help wondering in the light of your information, who precisely that "spy " was in this specific case,-this person with inside information on Clan na Gael activities, reporting to him from "Philadelphia", in March 1884? It could be well worth us trying to find out his name---or his alias!
I have always been a bit bewildered as to why Jenkinson"s "network" of "extra legal" spies,drawn often from pubs and the like, caused such outrage on behalf of Monro and Anderson and led to him being sacked.Was it just a sense of outraged "punctiliousness" on Anderson and Monro"s part or was it partly that they knew that underneath, Jenkinson was quite a dark horse -a supporter of Home Rule no less ,which they both regarded as a complete anathema they needed to prevent at all costs?
Anyway-----who was Jenkinson"s clan "informer" in Philadelphia in March 1884?
Best
Natalie

Natalie Severn
03-10-2008, 09:16 PM
It looks as though a certain John P Hayes was actually Jenkinson"s man in Philadelphia and probably gave warning of the London Bridge attack in 1884.
However, if any one man really got about in those days it was certainly Tumblety.He went to and fro across the Atlantic in 1883/4 more times than I"ve had hot dinners.He had gone to Paris in the 1870"s.He lived in and and presumably got to know San Francisco where the dynamite for the London Bridge attack came from.He also had one of his "Herbal remedy" shops almost opposite the Clan"s Philadelphia headquarters .Its believed by some he even had such a Herbal shop in the East End at one point,on the Whitechapel Road near the Polly Nichol"s murder .You get dizzy tracing his movements and trouble with the law---he did business deals in New Orleans,Washington,Canada ,Birmingham,Liverpool----.And to what purpose were they--especially those crossings from Europe to America and back again in the mid 1880"s?
Natalie

Cap'n Jack
03-10-2008, 09:44 PM
And Natalie, some reports I have read appear to indicate that Tumblety was related to Hayes.

Cap'n Jack
03-10-2008, 10:19 PM
Like this one, Nats, and please remember that Tumblety left some of his loot to this lot:

'Vallejo Chronicle
California, U.S.A.
Tuesday, 20 November 1888

VALLEJO STILL AHEAD.
A Former Resident Held for the Whitechapel Murder.

Vallejo never takes a back seat while notoriety is going around, and after nearly every character that becomes distinguished before the world could be written in truth, "formerly of Vallejo." There have been heirs to European thrones working on Mare Island, the captain of a Vallejo Military company is claiming the great Tichnorne estate in England, a former Vallejoite is the latest brigand of Southern California, and another narrowly escaped lynching for the most heinous murder of the year. The greatest men of modern history and the most consummate rascals of the time have all dwelt more or less in our city. But the latest glory that Vallejo has achieved is an applicant for the position of principal in the greatest horror of modern times, the Whitechapel murders in England.

Francis Tumblety, who, according to a cable dispatch, was arrested in London on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders lived in Vallejo about thirteen years ago and was an uncle of the late John Hayes. He made John a present of a black horse with a white face that John used to travel about with very much. Many old residents remember him well and say that he answers exactly to the description given by the London papers of him, "about fifty-five years old, tall and rather heavy, and looks as if he painted his cheeks and dyed his hair. He has a heavy mustache and side whiskers."

Cap'n Jack
03-11-2008, 12:07 AM
Full text of cable from Anderson to Chief Crowley:

'HIS HANDWRITING.

P. Crowley, Chief of Police, San Francisco, Cal.: Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety.


Anderson,
Scotland Yard.'

rjpalmer
03-11-2008, 12:34 AM
Hi AP - The thing I’ve enjoyed the most about your posts over the years is that you can find a reference to a land dispute involving Sir Godfrey Codbush in Essex in the year 1696 and weave it into a highly evocative tale showing the deep corruption of the Cutbush paternal line, but when there’s large clouds of black smoke billowing out of Tumblety’s cabin, or bloody cuff-stains on Druitt or red smears on Kosminski’s bed linen it is all ‘rubbish’ and ‘mirrors.’ I do enjoy a bloke who knows his mission in life. Carry on. I’m still vanishing sideways, but I just came by to say that I received an email this morning informing me that Mr. Chetcuti forwarded the Daily Alta California report to Stephen Ryder some four years ago or so; I was unaware of that, but the good news is that you can check it out for yourself and rethink your corrupted chronology. Ciao. RP

Natalie Severn
03-11-2008, 12:37 AM
Well Cap"n Jack,that was a fair find if ever there was one!I thankee for that mi hearty!
Seriously, we may just be getting a bit closer to the mystery of Tumblety if he really was related in any way to John P Hayes,the Philadelphia informer.
In the Autumn of 1885,above a Soho pub , a plot was hatched to destroy Parnell by a coterie of disaffected men: it comprised among others,the husband of Parnell"s mistress,Captain William O"Shea,Richard Pigott the forger of The Times letters purporting to have been scribed by Parnell , a Captain Stephens,- reputed to have hung a miscreant Ashanti with his bare hands-AND JOHN HAYES the Phioladelphia informer!
So if this John P Hayes was really related to Tumblety then it could be of some significance---
Natalie

Cap'n Jack
03-11-2008, 01:08 AM
No worries, Natalie, always my pleasure to help.

RJP, I'm still waiting to hear your comments about the case I found of Tumblety being up for manslaughter in Liverpool, you'll remember it as the one you missed.

Oh my gosh! The 'Daily Alta' report of the 23rd November 1888.
I should shiver my timbers, right?

I think not, RJP. Mere confirmation of my credit here, and you, son, must learn to bite that Yankee dollar 'afore you swallow it.
'ere is your 'orrible press report in all its naked glory:

'The Daily Alta California
San Francisco, California
23 November 1888

DOCTOR TUMBLETY
Chief Crowley's Account of
His Career in San Francisco.
Chief Crowley has exchanged considerable correspondence with the Scotland Yard officials in reference to "Dr. Tumblety" who is under arrest on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders. Chief Crowley sent a telegram on the 19th inst. to the London detectives, informing them that he could furnish specimens of Tumblety's hand-writing, and yesterday received the following answer from the Chief of the Scotland Yard detectives: "Thanks; send writing and all details you can in relation to him. - Anderson."

Chief Crowley has discovered that Tumblety still has a balance in the Hibernia Bank, which he left there when he disappeared from the city, and which never since has been drawn upon. Tumblety came here from Toronto in March 1870, and rented an office at No. 20 Montgomery street, where he remained until the following September. He then disappeared as suddenly as he came, and in 1871 turned up in New York.'

Bloody hell RJP, I needn't even load my cannon, just throw a load of soap at you.

Simon Wood
03-11-2008, 07:09 AM
Hi All,

This is a most interesting thread.

A thought occurred to me, and my apologies if it's been mentioned before.

Crowley was sending Anderson samples of Tumblety's handwriting.

What previous letters/documents etc written by Tumblety [either about cottaging or the WM] could Anderson possibly be wanting to compare the samples with?

Regards,

Simon

Cap'n Jack
03-11-2008, 07:21 PM
A good thought, Simon.
You must be very good at Mah Jong.

I suppose one answer to your question is that perhaps Scotland Yard wanted to compare Tumblety's handwriting with the few letters they had received supposedly from the Whitechapel Murderer which they imagined at the time to be genuine.
The next logical conclusion of that is that Tumblety's writing did not match any of these 'genuine' letters and he was dismissed as a suspect for writing one or more of the letters.
But then again it is always possible that Scotland Yard had obtained some of Tumblety's many love letters to his various boyfriends - I have given original examples of Tumblety's love letters elsewhere - and were seeking active confirmation from an independent source that these letters were indeed written by Tumblety.
As we know, Tumblety was fond of his pen, but it is his sword we are unsure about.

Natalie Severn
03-11-2008, 07:27 PM
And Natalie, some reports I have read appear to indicate that Tumblety was related to Hayes.

I believe this may be possible,despite it not being the case that Tumblety was the uncle of John P Hayes, the Philadelphian Irish "informer".
John P Hayes is cited in Andrew Cook"s "M" ,MI 5"s First Spymaster"as well as in Fenian Fire by Christy Campbell.He was not dead by 1888/89 .
Interestingly Hayes the "anti Fenian " informer, later befriended the serial killer Cream and set up an entrapment plot for him to fall into.He was therefore responsible, with another detective ,Patrick McIntyre,for eventually bringing him to justice.This is all to the good because not all reports of him are particularly savoury-In Paris,according to notes written by Michael Davitt [Parnell"s defence] ,Hayes was remarked upon for having "lived with whores and drinking"-all the while talking dynamite war .He used both Haynes and Hayes as surnames.In court providing evidence on Cream though he was "Hayes".
Interestingly, the Tumblety relatives in Philadelphia who were bestowed legacies in his will, also used both Haynes and Hayes as their surnames.
But John P Hayes was a very useful informer to quite a number of people,including,in the Autumn of 1888, the British Consul in New York, William Robert Hoare.I think this John P Hayes is worth looking into further.
Tumblety"s bail was £1,500-an enormous sum of money in those days.Its said he knew the men who stood bail for him only two or three days.Given there was a huge file on Tumblety and his history as a " con man" its quite astonishing he was able to either obtain or jump bail.But he did and there are no records to say anyone took the rap.Rather like the other case Abberline was involved in a year later when the Cleveland St scandal broke and the wealthy men who ran the club and faced imprisonment were also,like Tumblety,allowed to run off to France via various safe passages.However good a spymaster this "M" was he doesnt seem to have been much cop in his job keeping "Port Watch".
Anyway,not only did they "lose" Tumblety himself forever---they also lost all those files Littlechild told us about in his 1913 letter.....how inconvenient!
Natalie

timothy
03-11-2008, 08:04 PM
Hi Natalie,

Tumblety’s bail was £300 or equivalent to $1500. I have only found two other cases for gross indecency where bail was mentioned. In one the bail was £200 and the other it was £500. Given these cases, Tumblety’s bail does not seem excessive or unusual.

Best,

Tim

Natalie Severn
03-11-2008, 09:31 PM
Thanks Timothy.That sum was the one quoted in Andrew Cook"s book [page81 MI 5"s First Spymaster].The author probably read the dollar sign as a pound sterling sign.However, the sum of £300 in 1888 by my calculations it would be about £143.000 in today"s money.Thats quite big in reddies.


Simon,
I am curious about the handwriting request too.Ofcourse it might just be to see if it tallied with any Ripper letters received.
Best
Natalie

Simon Wood
03-11-2008, 10:10 PM
Hi Cap'n Jack and Natalie,

This thread gets better by the minute.

First subsequent thought—

By October 9th(?)—a month before all the Tumblety shenanigans— that sage Commissioner Warren penned in a memo his belief that the Ripper correspondence was the work of a Fleet Street hack (or words to that effect). It's a pity this thought hadn't occurred to him before going to the trouble and expense of having all those posters printed and creating a worldwide JtR scare on the feeble premise of some poor ignorant fool recognising the handwriting.

A Fleet Street hack would seem to rule out Tumblety (unless he was moonlighting)—also the Macnaghten triumvirate of Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog (the latter basking in a Parisian prison cell at the time of the WM) as authors of the Ripper correspondence. Could Kosminski chalk schoolboy English? Where did these policemen get their information? From the back of a cereal packet?

So I doubt Anderson (low class Polish Jew suspect) was hoping to match Tumblety's handwriting to the Dear Boss letter. And would he or Crowley have gone to the expense of transatlantic cables (£100 for the first twenty words) to catch a bloke for homosexual offences?

Second subsequent thought—

We appear to have a link between Tumblety and John P. Hayes. Again the Fenian connection. By extension, we also have a further link to Littlechild, into whose purview such matters appeared.

Although under CID surveillance, Piggott escaped to Spain, where he obligingly committed suicide. And despite official protestations to the contrary, Tumblety appears to have been allowed to escape to France and subsequently the US. For what nefarious reasons we shall probably never know.

So here's my final two-bob's worth.

What better high-profile cover for Tumblety to travel to the US than that of a man under the cloud of jumping bail on suspicion of possible complicity in the WM? What more could take people's eye off the ball?

Tumblety died in St Louis in 1903, fifteen years after the WM. If he had any provable involvement, why was he never extradited?

Also remember that, thanks to Walsingham in the sixteenth century, by 1888 Britain had over 300 years' experience in defining and refining the art of deception and duplicity.

Regards,

Simon

PS. Cap'n Jack—how did you know I had a black belt in Mah Jong?

Wolf Vanderlinden
03-12-2008, 12:23 AM
Hello G F (if you're still out there)

What I suppose I should have written was that “Scotland Yard, through official channels, had the Toronto authorities contacted, to ask if they would be amenable to paying for Inspector Andrews to return Roland Gideon Israel Barnett to Canada…”

This letter of the 23rd of November doesn't seem to me to show that Scotland Yard had contacted the Toronto authorities on the 19th but rather that Anderson had written to the Home Office on the 19th concerned about the fact that Barnett was still languishing in custody and asking what was to happen. This reply then shows that the Home Secretary had just received (on the 23rd) 'an intimation' from the Colonial Office that the Canadian Government would 'at once be asked by telegraph' if they would cover the cost of the conveyance of Barnett to Canada. I guess that you have translated this differently.

Yes, my observation was based on PRO [HO 134/10]. Barnett was in custody in London under a Canadian warrant which asked that he be extradited back to Toronto to face fraud charges. As the request was Canadian and Barnett was English the extradition was covered under the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881 (44 and 45 Vict, cap 69) under which the Canadian authorities had to prove that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the extradition. Toronto had sent their evidence to London on the 4th of October and awaited a response. As of the 19th of November, the same date that Anderson wrote to the Home Office, Toronto had received no reply from London and was still waiting the results of the extradition procedure. This would seem to indicate that the procedure had ended on or about the 19th . Whatever the case, the Canadian request was granted and Barnett was to be extradited back to Toronto.

Scotland Yard didn’t have to wonder “what was to happen” to Barnett since it wasn’t their responsibility to ship him to Toronto. It was Toronto’s responsibility to come and pick him up; something Toronto was waiting to do. Instead, however, Anderson calculated the costs of sending a Scotland Yard Inspector to Canada to deliver Barnett and then contacted the Secretary of State at the Home Office asking if the costs could be picked up by the Canadians. This was not the normal procedure and indicates a desire on the part of Anderson to have Andrews travel to Canada (actually southern Ontario) for some reason.

In view of the fact that Scotland Yard had no hard evidence against Tumblety I am sure that they would never have contemplated an expensive trip to North America to locate him. But given the chance of this 'free trip' they would see the opportunity of making inquiries whilst there.

Andrews was free to go wherever he wanted in North America as soon as he docked in Halifax because Inspector Stark of the Toronto Police was there to take Barnett off his hands. As Tumblety had recently been in New York it would seem an obvious place to start “making inquiries.” Instead Andrews got on the train with Stark and Barnett and travelled to Toronto where he was booked into the best hotel in the city. Andrews is reported to have had talks with various shadowy figures and to have travelled to various locations in Southern Ontario and then, after a week of this, to have left to go back home. He didn’t get within 500 miles of Tumblety.

Wolf.

Wolf Vanderlinden
03-12-2008, 12:29 AM
Mr. Palmer.

It’s hard to see what the point is of your rambling posts. I think you are trying to prove that Sir Robert Anderson did indeed contact the San Francisco Police about Tumblety first and that all those San Francisco newspaper reports which state that it was Crowley who first contacted Anderson are wrong. Why are they wrong? Well…

“The official documentation between San Francisco and Scotland Yard has not survived. Nor has the official documentation between Scotland Yard and San Francisco survived…. Without the official documentation at our disposal, extreme caution should be used before insisting that these reports are accuate (sic)…. Vanderlinden is entitled to his interpretation, but it is no (sic) kosher to give official sanction to what is only a press report.” (RJ Palmer, 8 March, 2008.)

Fair enough, but I question why all this caution is then thrown right out the window when you come to the news article from the Daily Alta-california. This article, also from a San Francisco newspaper, is printed at the same time, and offers virtually the same information, as all the other San Francisco papers and yet we are supposed to believe that it should be treated as gospel while all the others papers should be disregarding. Your logic escapes me.

There is no reason to tell you “how this ‘considerable correspondence’ was exchanged by November 22, if Crowley didn’t start his investigation until the afternoon of the 18th.” As you have pointed out “Without the official documentation at our disposal, extreme caution should be used before insisting that these reports are accurate.” After all, you are entitled to your opinion but it is not kosher to give official sanction to what is only a press report.

Chew that over slowly, old bean, because someday it will bite you back. The only telegram we know of took three days to go full circle. I already explained to you why that was: it required an independent and relatively expensive cablegram to be sent by way of Halifax. Crowley on the 19th. Anderson response makes it back on the 22. = 3 days.

Again, your logic escapes me. In order for the above assumption to be correct you have to prove that Anderson immediately responded to the initial San Francisco telegram when he received it and that thus the time from sending to receiving a response was 3 days. If Anderson didn’t read it or respond to it for two or three days your timeline evaporates. Can you prove this? No.

Wolf.

Natalie Severn
03-12-2008, 12:32 AM
Catching your drift Simon,so you tend towards a connection between Tumblety slipping off,Lord Arthur Somerset and Charles Hammond "slipping off"--- [to avoid the legal consequences of Cleveland St]....and Pigott slipping off---his clogs too being part of that bargain presumably!
In the cases of Lord Arthur Somerset/Charles Hammond and Pigott to have stayed could have caused further intense embarrassment to the establishment.So what caused them to want shot of Tumblety?
What I also noted was that John P Hayes/Haynes,the informer, had been Jenkinson"s man originally,one of his circle of spies and informers.And,although as a Spymaster, Jenkinson worked for the British establishment,he answered to Home Secretary Matthews not the Police Chiefs and kept his hand in it long after his resignation in 1884, still furiously hatching his entrapment plots in 1888.But his end game appears to have been quite different from the Unionist minded Robert Anderson"s end game.
Jenkinson,it appears, believed the way forward for Ireland [and everybody else] was through "Home Rule", he came to the conclusion that the only way this could be brought about was through ratchetting up the pressure on the mainland---in short through bogus dynamite scares and hoaxes that put the wind up the "anti Home Rulers" Anderson and Monro.No wonder they hated him and did everything they could to get rid.
At some point in 1888, the Philadelphian Irishman and informer to Jenkinson, Hayes ,appears to have moved away from Jenkinson and towards [more lucrative?] work for The Times newspaper.He could have been a double agent ofcourse----there were plenty of those about no doubt.But to me,in the little I can glean of him, Hayes comes across ,as does Pigott ,as far more interested in the money[and in Hayes case , the booze,] than the politics of it all.For that matter Tumblety doesnt come over as particulary committed to anything---except cheating his way through.
Well thats about as far as I have got I guess.
Natalie

Cap'n Jack
03-12-2008, 12:41 AM
Simon, when you understand the 'winds' of Mah Jong then you understand everything.
I detected a 'wind' in your post.
Personally I'm a bit leary of finding connections everywhere, but I'm up for a bit of wind myself, for is it not true to suggest that Tumblety's close and possible familial relationship with the Hayes - or Haynes - family would have explained his supernatual ability to dodge criminal charges, especially during the American Civil War?
You raise some fine points in your post, and directly I'm sober I'll address 'em.
This could take some time.

Natalie Severn
03-12-2008, 12:53 AM
good thinking Cap"n Jack....look forward to you answering Simon"s points.

Simon Wood
03-12-2008, 12:54 AM
Hi Cap'n Jack,

Take thee your time, me hearty, as forsooth I'm about to launch a single-handed attack on a fine looking bottle of 'Old Tennis Shoes'.

May the hairs in yer head turn to candles and light yer way to heaven.

Regards,

Simon

Cap'n Jack
03-12-2008, 10:05 PM
Well, Natalie, and Simon, it does appear that Tumblety had taken the trouble to write letters to the authorities, actually incriminating himself in earlier criminal acts, as this report from the Rochester press of December 1888 appears to demonstrate:

'Colonel Dunham also said that Tumblety had not been arrested on suspicion of having guilty knowledge of the assassination conspiracy. "He was arrested in St. Louis," said the Colonel, "on suspicion of being Luke P. Blackburn, lately governor of Kentucky, who had been falsely charged with trying to introduce yellow fever into the northern cities by means of infected rags. It is perfectly clear that Tumblety purposely brought about his own arrest by sending anonymous letters to the federal authorities to the effect that Blackburn and himself were identical. His object, of course, was notoriety. He knew he was too well known in Washington, whither he felt certain he would be sent, to be kept long in custody. '

I see no good reason to think that he acted otherwise in regard to the Whitechapel Murders.

Simon Wood
03-13-2008, 12:10 AM
Hi Cap'n Jack,

Do I take it the assassination conspiracy mentioned by Colonel Dunham was that of Abraham Lincoln? "Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" an intrepid young reporter was heard to ask.

Tumblety appears to have been the original Teflon boy—Tony Blair must have had a portrait of him hanging on a wall in Downing Street.

Spreading yellow fever, cottaging, manslaughter, the WM—my God, Tumblety was a busy beaver, cleaving unto himself all manner of sins. Did he, perchance, also happen to go by the name of Grim Reaper?

Joshing aside, Robert Anderson wasn't a stupid man. Mendacious, certainly. Gripped by a righteous and lofty opinion of himself, most definitely.

But not stupid.

If Anderson had the merest suspicion that Tumblety was the author of (or had complicity in) the WM (and here we are being asked to believe SY was busting its collective CID balls to bring the miscreant to justice), he would never have allowed him to break bail, travel to France and subsequently board a ship for America.

Littlechild (Head of Section 'D' in 1888) summed it up best in his September 1913 letter to George R. Sims.

"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."

"Never heard of afterwards."

In June 1903—ten years before Littlechild's letter to Sims—the NYT was reporting Tumblety's death and the disposition of his not inconsiderable estate.

Faulty memory? Pshaw. People at the time were being lied to on a grand scale.

Regards,

Simon

Natalie Severn
03-13-2008, 12:57 AM
Hi Cap"n and Simon,
I wouldnt say anything at all is perfectly clear,Cap"n, with regards to Tumblety....the man presents a mighty mess of a mystery.
Ok so he liked attention,but even that could have been some kind of cover for what he was really getting up to.For example,from very humble beginnings he had a line in making advertisements for himself as a "doctor" , setting up "herbal shops",becoming famous for his "pimple cures"etc and all the while making money, hand over fist.But was the money made from his herbal cures or did he have it as a front for what he really made money from?
If you read Fenian Fire,especially the footnotes you will discover that Pigott wasnt just a Dublin journalist who went to Buckle to offer his services regarding Parnell but he ran a Porn business as a sideline.According to Parisian booksellers he bought the most scandalous books and Michael Davitt's notes reveal this Richard Pigott the forger claimed to represent a "Club of Tory connoisseurs of the erotic"---and wait for it---the Club included Irish patriotic union people of the types Anderson and Randolph Churchill supported.Now Pigott and John P Hayes were joined at the hip when it came to drinking and plotting in Parisian bars and had earned a "reputation" of sorts.Its at this point I think of Tumblety.Joe is dead keen to have Tumblety "passing through" these Gentlemen"s Clubs.I wonder if Tumblety was in there peddling his line of "erotica sales" which got that old galloping major going-Hughes Hallett was it--you know the one who got on his charger and raced to George Yard within hours of the Martha Tabram murder? Remember too that Tumblety was peddling porn practically as a toddler.He seems to have been a sort of" infant prodigy" in sussing out the black market value of pornography on canal boats at the age of six so by the time he had his herbal doctorate business up and running he probably had a double first in both .Sounds to me that might have been how he was known as a "collector of wombs" it was a sort of "euphemism" for him being a "collector of high class pornography"?
Hey Cap"n Jack could Uncle Charles have been part of Pigott"s or Tumblety"s " Genteman"s Club of "connoisseurs"of Erotica?-----and if that was how poor Thomas Cutbush was corrupted into buying pictures of ladies in pink silk stockings?
Natalie
:)

Natalie Severn
03-14-2008, 05:51 PM
This thread has gone so very quiet ---
anyway---I have been intrigued to have found out who Macnaghten was referring to as "the leader of an assassination plot to kill Balfour" -the person linked to the Ripper---according to Macnaghten.This apparently was JP Walsh who had taken time out from his 6 year exile in America after his alleged leading role in the Phoenix Park murders of 1882.
He had taken time out to go to Paris [where the dynamitards hatched their various plots usually in the company of British spies-posing as dynamitards such as Patrick Casey and John P Hayes].He had gone this particular time to organise "the Balfour assassination" [and invigilate other assassinations]in March 1888 and was followed,and soon interviewed by the French police and "M" Melville,posing as a French policeman.They simply put them on the boat back to New York .....!!!!Curious!
more to follow
Cheers
Natalie

Cap'n Jack
03-14-2008, 09:18 PM
Yes, Natalie, I have come across several references to Fenians and the like being shoved onto the next steamer for New York, after they had been shadowed and then been warned that their criminal activities were known to the police. It seems always from France.
What strikes me in Tumblety's case is that travelling under the alias 'Townsend' he would have had no problem boarding a New York bound steamer from Liverpool, but instead he chose a French port. One has to remember that he was on bail at the time and was not being actively searched for by the police.
So why depart from France?
Simply because it suited the authorities to have known criminals leave their actual area of control - England - so that they could claim afterwards that they could do nothing about it, because the person was on foreign soil.
I have always said that I believe Tumblety left England at the behest and request of the authorities.
I posted something up for you on How's board demonstrating how any well known Irish American from New York in 1888 was shadowed by detectives from the second they disembarked at Liverpool. I am convinced that this would have applied to Tumblety.

Natalie Severn
03-14-2008, 11:20 PM
Thanks for responding Cap"n Jack.I looked to see where you had posted on How"s site but couldnt find that particular reference.I will look again later.
Meanwhile, I quite agree.Any Irish American was likely to have been shadowed.
What I find unusual about Tumblety are two things: the wealth he amassed from such humble beginnings as Joe outlined in his timeline, and his ceaseless travels from one continent to another,from East coast to West from there on to Canada,over the pond to England ,speeding up at certain times such as in 1883/4 etc.
I wonder what type of man would amass a fortune while constantly on the move?
And why would the police want rid of him?
If he helped Clan na Gael in the transportation of dynamite and arms that could account for the wealth.But if he was being shadowed by British Intelligence-and the large file Littlechild refers to suggests he was being shadowed, then why wasnt he stopped? And the answer I think may lie with his links with someone,possibly Jenkinson who though he worked for the British ,Jenkinson worked to quite a different agenda to Monro and Anderson.Jenkinson"s agenda included his firm belief that Home Rule for Ireland was essential.To this end he betrayed Anderson, Pigott and other anti Home Rule plotters to the dedicated Irish Nationalist,Michael Davitt.This was in Paris on the eve of the Special Commission of October 1888.Whether Anderson or Monro or Littlechild ever knew this is debateable----he was already considered a dangerous enemy and they had actually managed to get him to "resign" and "had tried "to put a stop to his use of extra legal informers.
Tumblety,with his flamboyant manner,Fenian sympathies and flouting of the law,might have been a perfect "runner" for the fenians while being kept watch on by Anderson and Monro.And ofcourse Jenkinson answered to a higher authority than either Monro or Anderson viz Home Secretary Matthews and the Prime Minister himself-he actually tried hard to win Salisbury round to Home Rule.Obviously Jenkinson had friends in some very high places moreover he was the one who was knighted-Sir Edward Jenkinson -not James Monro.
BTW I am mindful that according to Joe"s timeline, Tumblety was in Paris in 1874.Doing what? He either had a sideline,maybe in porn, or he was in the Casey /Tevis Paris cabal even back then- or maybe porn was par for the course[-not with Jenkinson but certainly with the others from what I can gather from Fenian Fire and the book on Melville !
Best
Natalie

Cap'n Jack
03-15-2008, 12:06 AM
It's on the 'Dr T as a Suspect' thread, Natalie.
As I said to you before I'm not 100% fit at the moment, and am having great difficulty relating to stuff that I have written a few moments before; and appear unable to digest and respond to information in my usual manner.
So please forgive the lack of response.
I appear to be slowing down, but that should cheer some folks up.

Natalie Severn
03-15-2008, 12:53 AM
Found it Cap"n! Cheers and thanks a lot-Natalie

Cap'n Jack
04-19-2009, 06:48 PM
Natalie - a little present from DS McIntyre:

'I am attached to the Criminal Investigation Department at Scotland Yard—throughout the London divisions there are a number of divisional detectives different from Scotland Yard—information of any Crime in London would come first to the local police, and be forwarded to Scotland Yard—I do not know anything about
the divisional police—on (1st November I received a letter about Clover's death—I don't know whether that letter came from Scotland Yard—Tunbridge would know more about it than I know—I know Haynes, not as an ex-detective or a private inquiry agent—I first knew him as an engineer on board ship; he is a friend of mine—I asked him what he had been doing in America—he has been in the Home Office department, as a secret agent to make inquiries about suspected persons—I was connected with the dynamite case—'

lynn cates
07-26-2011, 02:49 PM
Hello Norma and Simon. Given the discussion of Tumblety on the Swanson thread, I was wondering if there had ever been any resolution to the questions you were asking:

Norma: posts #68, #72, #73, #78, #82, #88, #94, #95 & #97.

Simon: posts #80, #85, & #93?

Cheers.
LC