Whitechapel Society Journal October 2010

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

I'd be interested to learn how, as soon as December 1st 1888, William Smith, the Deputy Minister of Marine in Ottawa, learned the details of the Euston arrest and concluded it involved Tumblety. Neither the Birmingham Daily Post or Belfast News Letter named Tumblety in their 19th November reports, and the latter newspaper reported that the anonymous arrestee "had no connection with the Whitechapel outrages." Also, the The Wheeling Register and Bucks County Gazette reports didn't appear until one and two weeks respectively after William Smith had mailed his letter to James Barber.

Any chance of Ron Keith showing us the William Smith letter?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

I'd be interested to learn how, as soon as December 1st 1888, William Smith, the Deputy Minister of Marine in Ottawa, learned the details of the Euston arrest and concluded it involved Tumblety. Neither the Birmingham Daily Post or Belfast News Letter named Tumblety in their 19th November reports, and the latter newspaper reported that the anonymous arrestee "had no connection with the Whitechapel outrages." Also, the The Wheeling Register and Bucks County Gazette reports didn't appear until one and two weeks respectively after William Smith had mailed his letter to James Barber.

Any chance of Ron Keith showing us the William Smith letter?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

My first thought is that authorities probably receive information from the pertinent authorities (and not newpapers which all of us agree they make mistakes), especially since the British authorities were soliciting information from Canada and the U.S. about Tumbltey. Speaking of this particular solicitation, Roger Palmer's part three is now out!

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Any chance of Ron Keith showing us the William Smith letter?

This would be awesome. I believe we would need the assistance of SPE.

Mike

[mklhawley]

Joe appreciated everyone's comments on this Euston article of his. He has this to pass along:


"Caroline was correct when she pointed out that if the suspect who moved into the Birmingham lodging-house on Monday Nov 12th was indeed Tumblety, then two train rides to London would have been necessary. A warrant for Tumblety's arrest would have been issued on Wednesday Nov 14th for his violation of the rules of police bail. So it is assumed that Tumblety was placed in a London jail sometime during the dates of Nov 14-15.

If Tumblety was taken into custody in Birmingham for this violation, then the journey from Birmingham to his London jail cell would consist of the first train ride that Caroline spoke of. After his release on bail on Friday Nov 16th and a return trip to his lodging-house, the second train ride from Birmingham to London would have taken place on Saturday Nov 17th.

That makes sense to me. And this set of circumstances does not contradict Deputy Minister Smith's letter that stated Tumblety was arrested on a Saturday soon after he traveled from Birmingham to London. As for the first train ride from Birmingham to London, I doubt that any news reporter was even told about it.

It's true that Tumblety's name was not mentioned in any English newspaper during this time. Yet Deputy Minister Smith was in London and receiving very good information. Smith was accurate when he wrote his private letter claiming that Tumblety was a Whitechapel murder suspect. Littlechild, Tumblety himself, and the North American press would all eventually confirm this. Smith knew of Tumblety's antics in St. Johns and his involvement in the death of James Portmore. Smith had a fine memory and he received information that most Londoners were not privy to. It's not far-fetched to think that Scotland Yard may have approached Smith to learn more about Tumblety's history in Canada.

I'd be inclined to listen to Smith if he were to write that Tumblety was arrested soon after he traveled from Birmingham to London on a Saturday. And that Birmingham detectives notified the London authorities of his eminent arrival."

Sincerely,

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Simon,

My first thought is that authorities probably receive information from the pertinent authorities (and not newpapers which all of us agree they make mistakes), especially since the British authorities were soliciting information from Canada and the U.S. about Tumbltey. Speaking of this particular solicitation, Roger Palmer's part three is now out!

Sincerely,

Mike

Lets not forget that "sometimes" newspapers make deliberate mistakes---but often these "mistakes" are only what Catholics would call sins of omission but leaving stuff out like names and addresses of "suspects" in the UK is a very long held tradition ---and probably a very wise practice. To be fair ,newspapers did not used to be allowed either to say things about people who the government or the crown didnt want them to say about them[they still cant] .
Don"t lets forget either that some Government files entitled ,"The Whitechapel Murders" are closed in perpetuity.Tumblety may well be in there- as hinted by several police historians --but it still may not have anything to do with his role or otherwise in any of the Whitechapel murders[though the Littlechild letter rather rules out that idea and gives him a definite status as a suspect ].
The double agent/informant , Frederick Millen [FM] [who was a dead ringer for Mr Astrakhan in dress,build and moustache, ] worked for the British re the Fenians and the American based Clan-na Gael.So its very intriguing to note that he also wrote for an American Newspaper-he was in fact correspondent for "The New York Herald "in Cuba, Panama etc. so would have had a lot of inside press information and the press employs "stringers" as well as reporters and correspondents ,who are usually based in the place where information on people is needed.
So its unwise to rule out Tumblety on the basis of Newspaper reports.Much wiser,in my view,to examine his escape route and why he chose to escape via Boulogne [where Inspector William Melville was based].[Americans and Canadians take note--we British weren"t called the "perfidious albion"for nout!].

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe [Mike],

Can you confirm that William Smith was in London at the requisite time?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Joe [Mike],

Can you confirm that William Smith was in London at the requisite time?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

All I know is that Deputy Minister Smith wrote a letter from London on December 1, 1888. If Joe has more info, I will pass it on. Also, Stewart Evans was in communications with someone in Canada, so he might have more information.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

It might be useful to consider the last sentence in William Smith's letter to James Barber.

"He must now be 58 or 60 years of age as he left St. John about 1860. He was a tall handsome man and a beautiful rider. When I was in Eastport in 1860 detained by a storm, I met him there and spent part of the day with him. He was very agreeable and intelligent. I do not think he could be the Whitechapel fiend. He now spells his name Twomblety. I believe his original name was Mike Sullivan.” [my italics]

As to William Smith, Deputy of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in Ottawa, having written his letter to James Barber from London on 1st December 1888, this should be treated with caution until his prescence there can be firmly established, for the Euston arrest story had also appeared in The Ottawa Free Press, 19th November, 1888–

“. . . Great importance, however, is attached to an arrest made on Saturday. The Birmingham police have lately watched a man whom they suspected because of his habit of traveling to London on Saturdays. On the arrival of the train at Euston station he stepped out of the carriage briskly and was at once arrested and taken to Scotland Yard for examination. What gives particular force to the suspicion is that the prisoner is a doctor formerly holding a good position and large practice, but recently living in lodging houses.”

Regards,

Simon

[The Grave Maurice]

I suppose, as a Canadian, I should be more active in researching the suspects with a Canadian connection (Cream and Tumblety); but, frankly, both have always struck me as complete non-starters, although they are certainly interesting characters even without a Ripper connection.

However, I suspect that the closest JtR ever got to Canada was, perhaps, walking past the future home of Canada House on the western side of Trafalgar Square.

[mklhawley]

I suppose, as a Canadian, I should be more active in researching the suspects with a Canadian connection (Cream and Tumblety); but, frankly, both have always struck me as complete non-starters, although they are certainly interesting characters even without a Ripper connection.

However, I suspect that the closest JtR ever got to Canada was, perhaps, walking past the future home of Canada House on the western side of Trafalgar Square.

Hi Grave Maurice,

So, you haven't read Roger Palmer's article yet, eh. Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a prime suspect at the peak of the murders. I don't think that is a nonstarter.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a prime suspect at the peak of the murders?

My goodness, what will they dream up next?

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Some Sort Of...

Hi Mike,
Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a prime suspect at the peak of the murders?
My goodness, what will they dream up next?
Regards,
Simon

Some sort of police conspiracy?

[Simon Wood]

Touché, mon brave.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

All I know is that Deputy Minister Smith wrote a letter from London on December 1, 1888.

The point being, no one has shown that Smith did send the letter from London. This seems to be just an assumption. When I wrote about all this back in 2005 all I could discover was that Smith was in Ottawa in early November, 1888, and I didn't find any evidence that he went to London, or anywhere else other than Ottawa, in any of the Canadian or British newspapers I consulted.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

The point being, no one has shown that Smith did send the letter from London. This seems to be just an assumption. When I wrote about all this back in 2005 all I could discover was that Smith was in Ottawa in early November, 1888, and I didn't find any evidence that he went to London, or anywhere else other than Ottawa, in any of the Canadian or British newspapers I consulted.

Wolf.

Even if it was an assumption on Evans & Gainey's part, your research really does not conflict with it. 3 November is a full month away from December 1. My point is Smith's source seems to be an official source, i.e., Scotland Yard. Regardless if Smith believed Tumblety was guilty or not, his source certainly took Tumblety seriously enough to discuss this with him:

...He is the man who was arrested in London three weeks ago as the Whitechapel murderer. He had been living in Birmingham and used to come up to London on Saturday nights. The police have always had their eyes on him every place he went and finally the Birmingham Police telegraphed to the London Police that he had left for London, and on his arrival he was nabbed accordingly.

How else would Smith have known about Birmingham, Saturday nights, and nabbing him?

As I stated on the Andrews thread, Francis Tumblety sailed from Toronto, Canada, to England in the spring of 1888. Would Scotland Yard not check on ship information in order to discover where Tumblety was just prior to his Birmingham/Whitechapel escapades?

Sincerely,

Mike