Tweet
Greetings all,
Howard Brown has posted on his forum a comment and an article from the Daily Alta California, San Francisco, November 23, 1888, which is in dire need of correcting, since it makes the casual reader embrace falsehood. I understand, though, why Howard didn’t know. He comments on San Francisco’s Chief Crowley’s correspondence with Assistant Commissioner Anderson about Francis Tumblety specific to him being a Whitechapel murder suspect. Brown’s claim –which has been high-fived by Trevor Marriott- is that this article refutes the position that Anderson initiated the correspondence (apparently demonstrating that Anderson did not consider Tumblety a suspect). Brown clearly supports the belief that Chief Crowley read about Tumblety being a suspect on November 19, heard that Tumblety lived in his city for a time, contacted Anderson on his own to offer his assistance the very same day, Anderson gave a courtesy cable saying, ‘cool’ on November 22, which made the paper on the 23rd.
So, why does this very article begin by refuting this very claim? The very first sentence states: “Chief Crowley has exchanged considerable correspondence with the Scotland Yard officials in reference to “Dr. Tumblety,” who is under arrest on suspicion…”
How would a query wire from Crowley followed by one courtesy wire by Anderson be translated to ‘has exchanged considerable correspondence’?
Well, on the very same day (November 23), the San Francisco Examiner clarifies it:
Dr. Tumblety
The London Detectives Ask Chief Crowley About Him
Dr. Francis Tumblety, the suspect arrested at London in connection with the Whitechapel murders, is still held by the police of that city, and a good deal of importance seems to be attached to his apprehension. All facts in relation to the suspected “doctor” are being fully collected, and, as Tumblety was once in this city, there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London. Chief of Police Crowley has succeeded in gaining some further information about Tumblety, who came to this city in 1870 and opened an account at the Hibernia Bank...
If you read Roger Palmer’s article, you would have known the answer. Anderson initiated the correspondence. Note what the Examiner stated on December 4, 1888:
San Francisco Examiner, December 4, 1888, SHADOWED BY THE POLICE
Arrival in New York of the Notorious Dr. Tumblety.
(Special to the Examiner.) New York, December 3. - Dr. Francis Tumblety, who was suspected of having something to do with the Whitechapel murders, arrived in New York on Sunday. The doctor was held in $1,500 bail by the London authorities under a special law passed after the exposure of the Pall Mall Gazette. He jumped his bail, went to France and took passage on the La Bretagne at Havre.
Although he shipped under a false name, Chief Inspector Byrnes knew of his coming, and on the arrival of the French vessel the doctor was watched. A detective from England is also shadowing him.
Tumblety traveled a great deal in Europe. When arrested in London the English authorities telegraphed to San Francisco for samples of his handwriting to compare them with the supposed writings of "Jack the Ripper." He had always manifested a great dislike for women.
Finally, in New York there was no confusion. Anderson initiated correspondence with the chiefs of police (at the same time as he was having correspondence with San Francisco) and not the other way around.
Brooklyn Citizen, November 23, 1888
“Is He The Ripper?” A Brooklynite Charged With the Whitechapel Murders Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety — Captain Eason Supplies the Information and It Is Interesting
Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault. Tumblety is referred to in the dispatch in the following manner: “He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty.”
Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed that he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. The superintendent gave the dispatch immediate attention, and through Captain Eason, of the Second Precinct, has learned all about Tumblety. He came to this city in 1863 from Sherbrook, Canada, where he said he had been a practicing physician. He opened a store on the southeast corner of Fulton and Nassau streets, and sold herb preparations. He did a tremendous business and deposited in the Brooklyn Savings Bank at least $100 a day. He was a very eccentric character, six feet high, dark complexion, large and long flowing mustache, and well built.
What makes more sense, Anderson contacted all US chiefs of police for info on his incarcerated suspect, or Anderson only contacted New York’s chiefs of police, but not San Francisco’s, yet Crowley coincidentally contacted Anderson on a whim?
Sincerely,
Mike
Howard Brown has posted on his forum a comment and an article from the Daily Alta California, San Francisco, November 23, 1888, which is in dire need of correcting, since it makes the casual reader embrace falsehood. I understand, though, why Howard didn’t know. He comments on San Francisco’s Chief Crowley’s correspondence with Assistant Commissioner Anderson about Francis Tumblety specific to him being a Whitechapel murder suspect. Brown’s claim –which has been high-fived by Trevor Marriott- is that this article refutes the position that Anderson initiated the correspondence (apparently demonstrating that Anderson did not consider Tumblety a suspect). Brown clearly supports the belief that Chief Crowley read about Tumblety being a suspect on November 19, heard that Tumblety lived in his city for a time, contacted Anderson on his own to offer his assistance the very same day, Anderson gave a courtesy cable saying, ‘cool’ on November 22, which made the paper on the 23rd.
So, why does this very article begin by refuting this very claim? The very first sentence states: “Chief Crowley has exchanged considerable correspondence with the Scotland Yard officials in reference to “Dr. Tumblety,” who is under arrest on suspicion…”
How would a query wire from Crowley followed by one courtesy wire by Anderson be translated to ‘has exchanged considerable correspondence’?
Well, on the very same day (November 23), the San Francisco Examiner clarifies it:
Dr. Tumblety
The London Detectives Ask Chief Crowley About Him
Dr. Francis Tumblety, the suspect arrested at London in connection with the Whitechapel murders, is still held by the police of that city, and a good deal of importance seems to be attached to his apprehension. All facts in relation to the suspected “doctor” are being fully collected, and, as Tumblety was once in this city, there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London. Chief of Police Crowley has succeeded in gaining some further information about Tumblety, who came to this city in 1870 and opened an account at the Hibernia Bank...
If you read Roger Palmer’s article, you would have known the answer. Anderson initiated the correspondence. Note what the Examiner stated on December 4, 1888:
San Francisco Examiner, December 4, 1888, SHADOWED BY THE POLICE
Arrival in New York of the Notorious Dr. Tumblety.
(Special to the Examiner.) New York, December 3. - Dr. Francis Tumblety, who was suspected of having something to do with the Whitechapel murders, arrived in New York on Sunday. The doctor was held in $1,500 bail by the London authorities under a special law passed after the exposure of the Pall Mall Gazette. He jumped his bail, went to France and took passage on the La Bretagne at Havre.
Although he shipped under a false name, Chief Inspector Byrnes knew of his coming, and on the arrival of the French vessel the doctor was watched. A detective from England is also shadowing him.
Tumblety traveled a great deal in Europe. When arrested in London the English authorities telegraphed to San Francisco for samples of his handwriting to compare them with the supposed writings of "Jack the Ripper." He had always manifested a great dislike for women.
Finally, in New York there was no confusion. Anderson initiated correspondence with the chiefs of police (at the same time as he was having correspondence with San Francisco) and not the other way around.
Brooklyn Citizen, November 23, 1888
“Is He The Ripper?” A Brooklynite Charged With the Whitechapel Murders Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety — Captain Eason Supplies the Information and It Is Interesting
Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault. Tumblety is referred to in the dispatch in the following manner: “He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty.”
Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed that he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. The superintendent gave the dispatch immediate attention, and through Captain Eason, of the Second Precinct, has learned all about Tumblety. He came to this city in 1863 from Sherbrook, Canada, where he said he had been a practicing physician. He opened a store on the southeast corner of Fulton and Nassau streets, and sold herb preparations. He did a tremendous business and deposited in the Brooklyn Savings Bank at least $100 a day. He was a very eccentric character, six feet high, dark complexion, large and long flowing mustache, and well built.
What makes more sense, Anderson contacted all US chiefs of police for info on his incarcerated suspect, or Anderson only contacted New York’s chiefs of police, but not San Francisco’s, yet Crowley coincidentally contacted Anderson on a whim?
Sincerely,
Mike
Comment