How do Suspects compare?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

I'm interested in why Anderson appears to have been soliciting information about Tumblety from the USA two days before the quack boarded a transatlantic liner at Le Havre.

Had Littlechild's "large dossier" yet to be compiled at this juncture?

In the eight days between Tumblety's £300 bail and his boarding La Bretagne under the name Frank Townsend, Anderson's time might have been better spent alerting the rail and port police on both sides of the English Channel in order to secure his arrest; or, perhaps as was later suggested in the matter of the forger Richard Pigott, Anderson connived in allowing him to flee the country. If this was the case, then it is no surprise that he would have paid lip service to Chief Crowley.

There's more to Tumblety than meets the eye, and it is slowly becoming apparent that none of it had anything to do with him ever being a Ripper suspect.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

There's more to Tumblety than meets the eye, and it is slowly becoming apparent that none of it had anything to do with him ever being a Ripper suspect.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,
Whilst it may be true that there was more to Tumblety than meets the eye, and a large pre-1888 file on him (if it was pre-1888) has always suggested that there might have been, doesn't mean that he wasn't a Ripper suspect as well, does it?

[Trevor Marriott]

Simon,
Whilst it may be true that there was more to Tumblety than meets the eye, and a large pre-1888 file on him (if it was pre-1888) has always suggested that there might have been, doesn't mean that he wasn't a Ripper suspect as well, does it?

And what grounds would you say there were for bringing him under suspicion because on the face of it if there was never anyhting at the time.

If you are going to say someone mentioned his name then you might as well suggest that every man woman and child in Whitechapel could have been a ripper suspect because until such time as the killer was caught potentially every man woman and child could be regarded as a suspect.

If you are going refer to the likes of Tumblety as a suspect you have to have some evidence to show how he comes under supsicion what Littlechild wrote all those years later is not evidence and what he did write is watered down by the SB entry where he names O`Brien as a suspect in an official file.

I dont see O`Brien, Magrath and Wilson being championed by anyone on here as prime suspects despite being named in official police records as suspects. It only seems to be the suspects certain people have a vested interest in and are trying to keep them from disappearing without trace that we have to continually argue over.

[mklhawley]

I'm interested in why Anderson appears to have been soliciting information about Tumblety from the USA two days before the quack boarded a transatlantic liner at Le Havre.

Hi Simon, I'm surprised that it's not clear to you. Once Tumblety posted bail -a legal right-, his court date was set for early December. Anderson fully expected Tumblety to be there. Remember, Tumblety used to use Liverpool as his point of entry and departure. It's not a surprise that Tumblety sneaked out the back way through Dover. You may not be privy to this, yet, but Roger Palmer has uncovered more information on Sir William Melville and his days at La Havre, France. We know that Melville left his duty there in December 1888. Was Melville involved with the Ripper case, i.e., possibly encountering Tumblety in France? Chances are now better. [/QUOTE]

There's more to Tumblety than meets the eye...

So true, but you'll hear about this stuff in later articles. 2012 is a good year.

Trevor, why are you in so much denial about Tumblety? Your comments are clearly based upon faulty and outdated information. Why not read my article that just came out

Sincerely,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Simon, I'm surprised that it's not clear to you. Once Tumblety posted bail -a legal right-, his court date was set for early December. Anderson fully expected Tumblety to be there. Remember, Tumblety used to use Liverpool as his point of entry and departure. It's not a surprise that Tumblety sneaked out the back way through Dover. You may not be privy to this, yet, but Roger Palmer has uncovered more information on Sir William Melville and his days at La Havre, France. We know that Melville left his duty there in December 1888. Was Melville involved with the Ripper case, i.e., possibly encountering Tumblety in France? Chances are now better.

So true, but you'll hear about this stuff in later articles. 2012 is a good year.

Trevor, why are you in so much denial about Tumblety? Your comments are clearly based upon faulty and outdated information. Why not read my article that just came out

Sincerely,

Mike[/QUOTE]

I am in denial because there is no evidence.

You and others may want to base your suspicions on wild uncorrobtated theories but i would rather look at it differently.The cases against Tumblety and Kosminski are based on issues you and others seek to rely on. Issues which from a police perspective go against the grain and against all that they would have done and could have done had they had the evidence in way back then.

Its about time some on here stopped using the words "maybe" "What if" "could have" "probabaly" these words are used constantly to try to negate valid points that are put forward by those who seek to remove the likes of Kosminskki and Tumblety from suspicion.

[PaulB]

And what grounds would you say there were for bringing him under suspicion because on the face of it if there was never anyhting at the time.

If you are going to say someone mentioned his name then you might as well suggest that every man woman and child in Whitechapel could have been a ripper suspect because until such time as the killer was caught potentially every man woman and child could be regarded as a suspect.

If you are going refer to the likes of Tumblety as a suspect you have to have some evidence to show how he comes under supsicion what Littlechild wrote all those years later is not evidence and what he did write is watered down by the SB entry where he names O`Brien as a suspect in an official file.

I dont see O`Brien, Magrath and Wilson being championed by anyone on here as prime suspects despite being named in official police records as suspects. It only seems to be the suspects certain people have a vested interest in and are trying to keep them from disappearing without trace that we have to continually argue over.

Trevor, on the face of it there was evidence against Tumblety at the time because Littlechild says Tumblety was "a very likely" suspect, so unless Littlechild decided for the hell of it to tell Sims that Tumblety was a suspect we have no alternative but to accept that he was. The fact that we also have Tumblety's admission that he was arrested on suspicion and that every newspaper in America accepted that he was is corroboration of Littlechild.

I do not have to have any evidence to show how Tumblety came under suspicion before I can refer to him as suspect, Trevor, because Littlechild tells us that Tumblety was a suspect. Littlechild is the evidence. And there is now a whole bunch or corroborative evidence, including Tumblety's own admission that he was a suspect, which supports what Littlechild said. The whole world and its mother accepts that Tumblety was a suspect, Trevor, except you! And you have no good reason for doubting it.

Littlechild isn't watered down by the SB files, as you claim. There is nothing in the SB documents which indicates that those named were ever considered good or likely suspects, or that anyone in the whole world actually thought they were Jack the Ripper. The suspects file, which you also claim didn't exist but which did, contained papers on 100 or more people on whom suspicion had fallen, and there i nothing to suggest that O'Brien and Co were any different from them. Tumblety is more than just a name.

Sadly, Trevor, your arguments simply don't hold water, which is why people argue against you, but you no doubt find comfort in believing that it's because they need to defend their personal sacred cows.

And yo were asked to substantiate your claim that I habitually prop up the viability of suspects in the face of contradictory facts. You haven't done so. Please do so. Or withdraw your accusation.

[PaulB]

So true, but you'll hear about this stuff in later articles. 2012 is a good year.

Trevor, why are you in so much denial about Tumblety? Your comments are clearly based upon faulty and outdated information. Why not read my article that just came out

Sincerely,

Mike

I am in denial because there is no evidence.

You and others may want to base your suspicions on wild uncorrobtated theories but i would rather look at it differently.The cases against Tumblety and Kosminski are based on issues you and others seek to rely on. Issues which from a police perspective go against the grain and against all that they would have done and could have done had they had the evidence in way back then.

Its about time some on here stopped using the words "maybe" "What if" "could have" "probabaly" these words are used constantly to try to negate valid points that are put forward by those who seek to remove the likes of Kosminskki and Tumblety from suspicion.[/QUOTE]

...'there is no evidence'! There's a lot of evidence: Littlechild telling us that Tumblety was a suspect is evidence, Tumblety telling us he was a suspect is evidence, newspapers across America telling us he was a suspect is evidence... What more do you want?

[mklhawley]

I am in denial because there is no evidence.
You and others may want to base your suspicions on wild uncorrobtated theories...

Trevor, I don't believe you know the difference between 'evidence' and 'theories'. Evidence is data and theories are explanations.

1) Anderson's cable along with newspaper accounts of Anderson in communication with US chiefs of police.
2) Marlborough Street charge sheet
3) US newspaper reports stating Tumblety was arrested because of the Whitechapel murders but charged with gross indecency, corroborated by the charge sheet.
4) A December 1888 private letter from Canadian Assistant Deputy of Marine and Fisheries (his office was on the same floor as the Canadian Prime Minister's) in Ottawa to an old friend and government employee in St. John about Tumbley being arrested for the Whitechapel murders
5) An interview from Tumblety himself admitting he was a suspect.
6) A private letter from Chief Inspector Littlechild to Simms.

None of these pieces of information are 'explanations', but are pieces of evidence confirming one explanation -This evidence is explain by Francis Tumblety being a significant suspect in November 1888. Notice that the 'explanation' is based upon 'evidence' and not 'wild theories'.

Now, where again are the wild theories?

I have an alternative explanation. Your comment, "I am in denial because there is no evidence", is actually faulty, therefore, it can be categorized as rhetoric.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Tumblety having admitted he was a Ripper suspect is hardly evidence.

All he did was appropriate the Sir George Arthur story, complete with slouch hat.

Regards,

Simon

[bolo]

Hi Jonathan,

To Boris

Of course tedium is a matter of taste and perspective.

I find nearly everything on these boards trivial and tedious, outside of the Anderson/Macnaghten/Littlechild debates.

That's just me, so I don't read them and I don't whinge about them.

But in defence of us worthless bores we are arguing about the real story of Jack the Ripper -- as we differently interpret the meagre sources -- on a Jack the Ripper site.

Jack the Ripper is Kosminski-Druitt-Tumblety,and their cop patrons. They are not the whole show, but they are the main players of the show

I've put my arguments time and again, and the only reason that I intrude upon this thread is that other posters have put arguments which I think are redundant and lame. It's nothing personal. It's purely about the merits and demerits of competing theories.

But if you don't answer this here, right now, then the historical truth falls by the wayside.

But to prove my point, about us having to play hit-and-run on these boards or be kicked to the curb upon I'll start another thread -- and I'll show you something.

don't get me wrong, I'm very interested in Anderson, Littlechild and Macnaghten and the things they had to say on the Ripper case of which they are an integral part, I just find it tedious to see perfectly fine threads getting derailed by emotional disputes about them.

I know that the Anderson/Littlechild/Mac thing is a hot potato among premier Ripperologists and as an interested bystander and basically "Ripper noob", it's not my place to complain about the merry-go-round discussions surrounding these historical figures and their various utterings, so please do not take my previous objection personally.

Sorry for the OT post, Sally.

Regards,

Boris

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Lynn

Hello Mike. Read your piece. Well done. At one time I just assumed that Dunham had made up the whole story.
Time to reevaluate.

Mike Hawley's fantasizing aside Dunham did make the "whole thing up" and a detailed look at Dunham's interview shows that Dunham either lied, was wrong, or he is the one and only source for what he says about Tumblety. Since Dunham was a pathological liar, petty criminal, confidence man, forger, thief and reptile journalist (ie one who's newspaper stories are made up of lies) he's hardly the type of source any unbiased and objective observer would rely on.

Was Tumblety a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders? Yes. Did Anderson ask for information about Tumblety from the New York and Brooklyn police? Obviously. However, Tumblity supporters want more than the few facts we have about suspicions of Tumblety by those involved in the Whitechapel Murders Investigation. If they have to bend logic or sanitize the facts and the historical record they apparently will in order to attempt to bolster their case.

Wolf.

[lynn cates]

collating

Hello Wolf. Thanks.

Although I am not a Tumblety supporter, I try to weigh evidence on its own merit. Right now I'm still collating.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I don't believe you know the difference between 'evidence' and 'theories'. Evidence is data and theories are explanations.

1) Anderson's cable along with newspaper accounts of Anderson in communication with US chiefs of police.
2) Marlborough Street charge sheet
3) US newspaper reports stating Tumblety was arrested because of the Whitechapel murders but charged with gross indecency, corroborated by the charge sheet.
4) A December 1888 private letter from Canadian Assistant Deputy of Marine and Fisheries (his office was on the same floor as the Canadian Prime Minister's) in Ottawa to an old friend and government employee in St. John about Tumbley being arrested for the Whitechapel murders
5) An interview from Tumblety himself admitting he was a suspect.
6) A private letter from Chief Inspector Littlechild to Simms.

None of these pieces of information are 'explanations', but are pieces of evidence confirming one explanation -This evidence is explain by Francis Tumblety being a significant suspect in November 1888. Notice that the 'explanation' is based upon 'evidence' and not 'wild theories'.

Now, where again are the wild theories?

I have an alternative explanation. Your comment, "I am in denial because there is no evidence", is actually faulty, therefore, it can be categorized as rhetoric.

Sincerely,

Mike

Theories and personal explantaions used to prop up suspects viablity dont solve cases do they ? and clearly despite what you say you and others do not know what is evidence and what is not.

Material from newspapers is not evidence

Comments from ageing police officers in later years is not

The matters you have set out above refer to reports etc after he absconded. Where is the proper evidence to show that at any time before he absconded he was regarded as a suspect by the police.

They were watching him prior to his arrest for the indecency offences it seems, they could have arrested him then. They didnt,

Then they finally do arrest him and again nothing, no mention of him being the ripper.

Anderson who you seem to hold in such high esteem doesnt even give him a mention in his book now doesnt that speak volumes. Littlechild only refers to him as a very likely suspect. Not a prime suspect as he is now portrayed as being by some.

The only way I can ever see Tumblety fitting into the scenario as a very likely suspect after the event is based on the same principle for Druitt being suggested, not around to defend himself.

Tumblety was known as a Doctor the police amongst their many different perceptions of the killer believed that JTR could have been someone who had anatomical knowledge, bearing in mind they were looking for three so called medical students in connection with Annie Chapmans murder.

So when Tumblety absconded Anderson could have wrongly assumed that because he was known as a doctor and was in and around Whitechapel at the times of the murders and the fact that he absconded in the way he did, he could have been JTR. In my opinion thats the only way there could have been a connection to ever suggest Tumblety was a suspect.

I do have other evidence from official sources which in my opinion clearly eliminates Tumblety from any further suspicion. However I am not prepared to disclose this at this time.

[Bridewell]

There is no evidence that Hutchinson was "investigated in connection with the murders", Jon.

After he made his witness statement he was interrogated (his word) by Abberline. He was investigated, although perhaps not for any great length of time.

There was no precedent in 1888 for killers injecting themselves into police investigations as witnesses. Ben

How can we possible know that there was no precedent? There may be no surviving record of such an occurrence, but that is not the same thing.

regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

I think you have to appreciate how the police work. If they have a crime commited and have a suspect, they have to have sufficient grounds to suspect that person in the first instance.

That's certainly the case now Trevor, and has been since the Criminal Law Act 1967. Was it the case in 1888?

Regards, Bridewell.