Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[TheTypeWriter]

I would like to know any of the reasons that you have heard of that suggest he was not the Ripper.

I have only ever heard two reasons, and they are (1) His age and (2) his height.

Does anyone know of any others? Please list them.

I believe it's very likely that Tumblety could have been JTR but I'd like to look at his case from both sides, I know all the reasons in favour of him being guilty and would now like to know what the other reasons against him are besides what I have said above.

[Simon Wood]

Hi TW,

Lack of reliable evidence.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

And on that enigmatic note he leaves you...well ok...if you want to hear about the "pro Tumblety" argument, you could start with Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey "The Lodger"...the against? Well you could start in a minor way, with Don Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper" and build up as you go...but as Simon suggests there ain't much in the way of evidence...

I suspect (with no real reason I guess) that Stewart Evans may now regret "The Lodger" - everything else he's written being pretty sound!

All the best

Dave

[mklhawley]

I would like to know any of the reasons that you have heard of that suggest he was not the Ripper.

I have only ever heard two reasons, and they are (1) His age and (2) his height.

Does anyone know of any others? Please list them.

I believe it's very likely that Tumblety could have been JTR but I'd like to look at his case from both sides, I know all the reasons in favour of him being guilty and would now like to know what the other reasons against him are besides what I have said above.

Greetings 'TheTypeWriter',

I recommend you read the threads on the Tumblety section. They are much more up-to-date. Lots of new information has come up since Stewart Evans reintroduced Francis Tumblety to the world of ripperology. Also, it shows credible ripperologists on both sides of the issue make their cases.


Sincerely,

Mike

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Tumblety not the killer?

Some sleuths claim that as Tumblety was gay, he could not have been a serial killer of women. He would have vented his spleen upon those he was attracted to - men.
I don't agee. There are many examples in history of gays, bisexuals and asexuals killing the opposite sex instead of their own. I did a list ages ago and posted it on here (somewhere). Will have a look and see if I can find...then post the link to it.

[Abby Normal]

I would like to know any of the reasons that you have heard of that suggest he was not the Ripper.

I have only ever heard two reasons, and they are (1) His age and (2) his height.

Does anyone know of any others? Please list them.

I believe it's very likely that Tumblety could have been JTR but I'd like to look at his case from both sides, I know all the reasons in favour of him being guilty and would now like to know what the other reasons against him are besides what I have said above.

Hello
He does not match any of the witness descriptions. Not even close.

[mklhawley]

Hello
He does not match any of the witness descriptions. Not even close.

...and that's why Sir Robert Anderson personally contacted Brooklyn's chief of police on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety at the peak of the murders, Inspector Andrews was sent across the Atlantic to investigate Tumblety's background, and why Chief Inspector Littlechild considered him a likely suspect. Notice the disconnect.

He did match a description: a lone male wearing an american slouch hat. Ever since early October, this was one of the descriptions.

Scotland Yard in November 1888 took him seriously. Why didn't they ignore him because, as you say, 'he does not match any of the witness descriptions'? I'm quite sure they knew much more about the details of the investigation that we give them credit for.

Besides, how are you so sure that the witness descriptions were of the killer when absolutely no one saw the murders! Unless you know who the killer was.

[Phil H]

My reading of Tumblety is that his sexuality (whether bi or gay) was not what I imagine the Ripper's to have been.

I think he might have been around in Whitechapel and environs that autumn, but so were a lot of odd types (D'Onston Stephenson, for instance) around. If there was a Fenian connection to any of the killings, then i wouldn't rule out a Tumblety connection.

Also, if Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan Man is remotely reliable (I think it is based on a tailor's window dummy, so is unreliable) then it might just be a misremembered, half-seen description of Tumblety. The flamboyance would be right, and the moustache maybe.

I also think that Tumblety was too tall, too "flashy" and too strange not to have stood out had he been prowling in the East End on murder nights.

Phil H

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,

Isn't it intriguing, though, that the 500-plus pound brightly colored tiger hunts it's prey through stealth. How? Blending with its environment. Tumblety himself admitted he dressed as to not bring attention to himself. Also, 6' 2" is not out of the bell curve of height, especially in a society of hat wearers. Check out any photos of the Whitechapel streets and you will find tall people, yet they do not stand out.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

Notice what Guy Logan stated in 1928 in Masters of Crime, over ninety years prior to 'pro-Tumblety' folks push the idea of Andrews crossing the Atlantic because of the Whitechapel murders.



Sincerely,

Mike

[Haskins]

...and that's why Sir Robert Anderson personally contacted Brooklyn's chief of police on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety at the peak of the murders, Inspector Andrews was sent across the Atlantic to investigate Tumblety's background, and why Chief Inspector Littlechild considered him a likely suspect. Notice the disconnect.

He did match a description: a lone male wearing an american slouch hat. Ever since early October, this was one of the descriptions.

Scotland Yard in November 1888 took him seriously. Why didn't they ignore him because, as you say, 'he does not match any of the witness descriptions'? I'm quite sure they knew much more about the details of the investigation that we give them credit for.

Besides, how are you so sure that the witness descriptions were of the killer when absolutely no one saw the murders! Unless you know who the killer was.

I think they couldn't ignore anyone as they had to keep an open mind.

The problem with Tumblety I think is that you can't convict just on circumstantial evidence. But more than that, the direct evidence seems to show he was not the ripper.

For example, the documented witnesses include Laurende and Levy, who almost certainly did see the ripper, at least as far as we can be certain of anything, and Levy said that the man with Eddowes was about 3 inches taller than her. Eddowes was about 5 feet, so Tumblety would have towered over her.

[mklhawley]

...But more than that, the direct evidence seems to show he was not the ripper.

For example, the documented witnesses include Laurende and Levy, who almost certainly did see the ripper, at least as far as we can be certain of anything, and Levy said that the man with Eddowes was about 3 inches taller than her. Eddowes was about 5 feet, so Tumblety would have towered over her.

First of all, "for example" hints that there's more against Tumblety and there's not.

Second, if Scotland Yard believed Laurende and Ley 'almost certainly did see the ripper', then why did Anderson spend his precious time on personally contacting US chiefs of police on Tumblety AS A RIPPER SUSPECT. No, Scotland Yard did not believe Laurende and Levy almost certainly saw the ripper.

We know one thing for certain, though, they were on the lookout for someone in an American slouch hat, which Tumblety certainly wore.

[Stewart P Evans]

As is...

Hi TW,
Lack of reliable evidence.
Regards,
Simon

As is the case with every proposed Ripper. At least Tumblety was named as a suspect by a contemporary chief at Scotland Yard in 1888.

[Stewart P Evans]

Please...

...
I suspect (with no real reason I guess) that Stewart Evans may now regret "The Lodger" - everything else he's written being pretty sound!
...Dave

Please do not presume to suspect anything about what I may regret.

No, I do not regret The Lodger which was a necessary book to introduce a newly found genuine 1888 suspect. The book has sold over 47,000 copies and introduced much new information, including the newly found police suspect.

True, I would rather have not written a 'suspect' book, but what was I to do? Leave to someone else to write a book on a suspect I had discovered and a suspect unknown to Ripperworld.

Thanks for the kind comment about my subsequent books.

[Stewart P Evans]

Really?

Hello
He does not match any of the witness descriptions. Not even close.

Really? Please do tell exactly what the Ripper looked like, and who the witnesses were that actually saw him.

Have you ever taken a witness statement? I have, hundreds of them, in a police career spanning nearly thirty years. I think I know more about witnesses, and what they say, than you ever will.