How do Suspects compare?

[Tom_Wescott]

Simon might be getting ahead of himself again. I find it extremely unlikely that if Tumblety was safely caged in jail at the time of the Kelly murder he could have gone on to become a suspect in the murders, particularly considering that all the investigators involved held fast to Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

lovely

Hello Simon. Lovely. keep us informed, will you?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

Early days yet, but I thought you should know that from a piece of information recently received it appears that Francis Tumblety was being held on remand at the time of the Millers Court murder.

I'll firm this up as soon as is possible.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Very interesting indeed. Thank you for this titbit- which- although early days as you say, will, if confirmed, raise the white flag I believe. One uses the similarity of PAV being elsewhere on the murder dates.

Good luck with your research Simon

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Hi All,

Early days yet, but I thought you should know that from a piece of information recently received it appears that Francis Tumblety was being held on remand at the time of the Millers Court murder.

I'll firm this up as soon as is possible.

Regards,

Simon

Excellent.

[PaulB]

No problem with that, but as Littlechild resigned in 1893 then your scenario must have occured before that date. Therefore, if the information had any value to Scotland Yard Tumblety would be on their radar, but we read nothing to substantiate that from any police officials.
Alternately, if he learned of Tumblety after he resigned, then as we are talking about "police suspicions", then his source must have come via friends on the inside, hearsay.

Regards, Jon S.

Jon,
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning here. Isn't Bridewell simply saying that Tumblety as a possible Ripper could have been brought to Littlechild's attention and as it was outside his remit he passed it on to the murder team, thus the information being known to him first-hand? Because if he is, I don't see how that has any relevance to Tumblety's importance as a suspect or why we don't hear of him from other police sources.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Early days yet, but I thought you should know that from a piece of information recently received it appears that Francis Tumblety was being held on remand at the time of the Millers Court murder.

I'll firm this up as soon as is possible.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

I guess Paul, what we are left with is the struggle of what constitutes a 'suspect', someone who is under surveillance?, or someone who has been brought in for questioning, and then released?

As hundreds of people must, at some point, have been asked where they were on certain nights, this does not automatically include these persons as suspects.

However, if Tumblety had actively been followed & investigated in connection with the murders for however short a period, possibly in lieu of Wynne Baxters theory?, then yes this would qualify Tumblety as a bonafide suspect in the eyes of the police.

The position I take is that this scenario has not been determined to be true.
We have nothing to enable us to argue otherwise, certainly we have hints & possibilities, but both could have originated by other means.
Littlechild was not directly involved, and those officials which were (Anderson, Swanson, Reid, Abberline, Dew, Macnaghten, etc.) all overlooked his importance as a suspect.

Therefore, on balance of probability it appears Littlechild was not in the best position to know and those who were have not indicated Tumblety was a suspect in any way. Which I admit does not mean he was not suspected, but when we are being pursuaded to pay attention to the exception rather than the rule, we are on shakey ground.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,
It seems to me that you are assuming that somebody thought Tumblety was an important suspect. Littlechild arguably didn't. As far as the letter indicates, Littlechild mentioned Tumblety only because 'T' sounded like 'D', which doesn't suggest, to me anyway, that he thought Tumblety was an important suspect. And if I correctly read his statement about the Ripper being a sadist and Tumblety not being a sadist then Littlechild arguably didn't rate Tumblety very highly himself. Why, then, would any other policeman have mentioned Tumblety at all?

A suspect is a suspect, namely someone on whom suspicion has fallen, for whatever reason. Obviously we have different levels of suspicion, and in the case of Tumblety Littlechild states that he was 'a very likely' suspect. I have always taken to mean plausible or otherwise that there were good reasons for suspecting him, and as Littlechild then goes on to say that Tumblety's 'feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme', we can, I believe, infer that this was why suspicion fell on him.

It seems to me that 'a very likely one', meaning that there was a plausible reason for suspecting Tumblety, has been misunderstood as meaning that he was a suspect who in Littlechild's opinion was 'very likely' to have been the Ripper, and that this misreading has unduly elevated Tumblety's importance as a suspect. As said, I think the sadist comment in fact shows that Littlechild discounted Tumblety as the Ripper, as does the inference that he wouldn't have mentioned Tumblety but for the 'T'/'D' similarity.

I would therefore suggest that if Littlechild was not in the Ripper loop, so to speak, the fact that he did know about Tumblety, and knew enough about him to think the reasons for suspecting him were plausible, then he probably was talking from first-hand knowledge. That's just a suggestion, however.

Paul

[Wickerman]

Dangerous to assume anything, surely? Information could have been brought to the attention of Special Branch which was outside their remit, and so passed on, by Littlechild to the Whitechapel Murder team for their attention. Just as likely as the information going in the opposite direction I would have thought.

Regards, Bridewell.

No problem with that, but as Littlechild resigned in 1893 then your scenario must have occured before that date. Therefore, if the information had any value to Scotland Yard Tumblety would be on their radar, but we read nothing to substantiate that from any police officials.
Alternately, if he learned of Tumblety after he resigned, then as we are talking about "police suspicions", then his source must have come via friends on the inside, hearsay.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Why is it strange? All Littlechild says is that Tumblety was suspected. Lots of people were, so why would Macnaghten necessarily have mentioned him, especially if there was nothing much to distinguish him from them.

Paul

I guess Paul, what we are left with is the struggle of what constitutes a 'suspect', someone who is under surveillance?, or someone who has been brought in for questioning, and then released?

As hundreds of people must, at some point, have been asked where they were on certain nights, this does not automatically include these persons as suspects.

However, if Tumblety had actively been followed & investigated in connection with the murders for however short a period, possibly in lieu of Wynne Baxters theory?, then yes this would qualify Tumblety as a bonafide suspect in the eyes of the police.

The position I take is that this scenario has not been determined to be true.
We have nothing to enable us to argue otherwise, certainly we have hints & possibilities, but both could have originated by other means.
Littlechild was not directly involved, and those officials which were (Anderson, Swanson, Reid, Abberline, Dew, Macnaghten, etc.) all overlooked his importance as a suspect.

Therefore, on balance of probability it appears Littlechild was not in the best position to know and those who were have not indicated Tumblety was a suspect in any way. Which I admit does not mean he was not suspected, but when we are being pursuaded to pay attention to the exception rather than the rule, we are on shakey ground.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Hearsay Definition:

Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

As there is no prospect of criminal proceedings in the Whitechapel Murders, the issue of "hearsay evidence" is relevant only in determining what, if any weight should be attached to it. If we dismiss all of it, we lose a lot of material. Much of what is in the police reports is hearsay, for example, and MacNaghten's "private information" certainly comes into that category.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

With respect to Littlechild's opinions, in 1913, that Tumblety was a likely Ripper suspect, in 1888, (25 years previous!). I was meaning that Littlechild had been in Special Branch and not involved in the Whitechapel murder investigation we might be allowed to assume that any information that came his way with respect to suspects was given to him by others, ie; his sources were second-hand or worse. Which is what I meant by heresay. Had Littlechild been in Swanson's position it would be a different matter.

Dangerous to assume anything, surely? Information could have been brought to the attention of Special Branch which was outside their remit, and so passed on, by Littlechild to the Whitechapel Murder team for their attention. Just as likely as the information going in the opposite direction I would have thought.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

To Paul

I know what you mean. Macnaghten has all the skills of a cat burglar, and leaves no 'fingerprints'.

Yes, I meant that Littlechild received some sort of reply from Sims and thought that it was incorrect, as he knew it.

Again we have some of the same elements as his public spat with Abberline in 1903: Sims versus a significant police figure, the shadow of Griffiths as some kind of authority, and a dispute over the exact identity of a suicided doctor suspect.

I do not think that Littlechild had any idea that Anderson had plumped for a poor, local Polish Jew or that Macnaghten was Sims' background source for the 'other' suicided doctor, who apparently was Jack the Ripper.

Instead Sims just mentioned Griffiths and perhaps threw in the allegedly definitive 'Home Office Report' (as he did in 1903) by the 'Commissioner' and Littlechild might have mistakenly thought he meant Anderson from 1888, or soon after?

So, Littlechild wrote, by hand, that if Anderson is the source of Griffith's 'Dr D' well, if this other suspect existed as a separate figure to Dr T, then Anderson 'only thought he knew' -- as a muddle has occurred somewhere along the line?

[PaulB]

Jonathan.
My concern about the 'suspect' argument is that Littlechild had been out of the force for 20 years (1893-1913). Had Littlechild heard of Tumblety being an official police suspect before he resigned in 1893, it is strange that Macnaghten makes no mention of him in 1894.

Why is it strange? All Littlechild says is that Tumblety was suspected. Lots of people were, so why would Macnaghten necessarily have mentioned him, especially if there was nothing much to distinguish him from them.

Paul

[PaulB]

To Wickerman

You are being too reductionist. Dr. Tumblety was clearly a Ripper suspect to Scotland Yard, the question is to what extent and for how long?

Precisely, and enviably succinct.

In 1913 Littlechild is querying Sims and his suicided doctor prime suspect, and the reply he received was about Druitt: eg. 'Dr D'.

I'm not sure what you mean by Littlechild querying Sims. Do you mean he is querying him in the extant letter or had queried him in previous correspondence?

It would be interesting to know if Sims wrote to Littlechild for further information about Tumblety, perhaps receiving a clearer explanation, thus not even giving a nod to Dr T in his memoir.

No such suspect was known to him, at least not exactly as put by Sims.

Jack Littlechild decided to clarify the real story, as respectfully as he could to his class superior, yet he did not challenge a central tenet of Sims' writings: that a [maybe] suicided medico was the prime police suspect of 1888.

That Jack was a doctor who committed suicide was as valid as any other theory, and unless Littlechild knew Jack the Ripper's occupation, why would he have challenged it?

I am intrigued by Littlechild's postscript. It suggests that Sims had attributed his Dr D story to Major Griffiths, which is hardly surprising as he did it in print too, but do you think he was protecting Macnaghten as is actual source, even in a private letter?

[Wickerman]

To Wickerman

You are being too reductionist. Dr. Tumblety was clearly a Ripper suspect to Scotland Yard, the question is to what extent and for how long?

Jonathan.
My concern about the 'suspect' argument is that Littlechild had been out of the force for 20 years (1893-1913).
Had Littlechild heard of Tumblety being an official police suspect before he resigned in 1893, it is strange that Macnaghten makes no mention of him in 1894.
Alternatively, if Littlechild learned of Tumblety after he left the force, in his subsequent occupation as Investigator, then he is repeating hearsay and, this is also justification for Macnaghten not being aware of Tumblety before 1894.

Nothing is clear about the claim by Littlechild because we do not know how he came by his information.

Regards, Jon S.