How do Suspects compare?

[harry]

Paul,
Everything you state is quite plausible.Yes the Ripper search had closed by the time of Thomson's appointment,but it must be bourne in mind that the Ripper had never been caught,and could be still alive,so there was reason why Thomson could have been interested.The author of the article I have mentioned,Alice Monaghan,might have been influenced by earlier writings,but it would be unwise to conclude that she was.Possible that her source was more plausible than Mccormick.

[Wickerman]

To Wickerman

I think what you are missing is that here we have a notoriously corrupt New York police chief ......

Based on what?

Incidently, with respect to Druitt, would you have come across any reference to his height?

Regards, Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

To Wickerman

I think what you are missing is that here we have a notoriously corrupt New York police chief who is essentially being asked: so what are you doing about the bloodthirsty Jack the Ripper, a fellow low-life Mick just like you, and who is now running loose in this city?

He' is hardly going to say that, yes, the British police might have something here. About a fellow Irishman and a fellow Yank and wishing to clam the public his reflexive position would be nothing to see here, move along.

People often do not tell the truth, or mean what they say, or do not tell the whole story -- especially if it is against their own interests -- except here in [certain] Ripperological circles, where sources are always telling the whole truth and nothing but, at least as they know it -- and the word 'self-serving' is banished.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

I'm sorry you missed this newspaper article first time around.

May I therefore recommend you order a back copy of Ripperologist 106.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

"Do you think he is Jack the Ripper?" the Inspector was asked.

"I don't know anything about it, and therefore I don't care to be quoted. But if they think in London that they may need him, and he turns out to be guilty our men will probably have a good idea where he can be found."
[/I]

The subject was previously touched on the day before. Byrnes gave the same reply to the question of Tumblety being arrested for the "nominal offense", for which he jumped bail (in case the doctor is wanted he knew where to lay his hands on him), in the Evening Star Sayings of Dec 3rd.

The meaning of that last sentence is easily explained, "if Scotland Yard decide they need him for anything, I know where I can find him".
In a nutshell, that is what Byrnes is meaning, simply a general comment.

As you witnessed yourself, Byrnes completely sidestepped the "Jack the Ripper" issue by responding with:
"I don't know anything about it, and therefore I don't care to be quoted".
(end of discussion)

As he did not know anything about those accusations of murder, Scotland Yard have not approached him on the matter. He is either avoiding those current & false newspaper stories or he is intentionally lying to this reporter.

The former is the most likely due to the fact he has already declared that there is "no proof of his complicity in the murders" and therefore nothing that Tumblety is wanted for, for which he can be extradicted.
So there you have it, the subject is not one of murder suspect!

Note that Byrnes did not say, "Scotland Yard does not consider him a suspect in the Whitechapel murder case",

Well, in a manner of speaking he already did, by saying "there is no proof of his complicity in the Whitechapel murders". This knowledge could only come from Scotland Yard, it is not his place to speculate on the guilt of a private individual.

Regards, Jon S.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

New York detective Michael Powers, twenty-year veteran of the 8th Precinct.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 9th December 1888—

"Mark my words, sir, we have not yet heard the last of this ultra morbid misogynist, this demon incarnate, whose unholy delight is to dye his hands in the blood of his foully murdered victims. He has a nature which Moloch might have envied, and in my opinion is not one to rest content with a paltry half dozen offerings. Before long his hellish hands will again find work to do. Soon will the death groan of another unfortunate punctuate the stillness of some Whitechapel purlieu, and next morning palsy-stricken London will cry, 'Where are the police?’”

He obviously didn't think much of Tumblety as a Ripper suspect.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I love how you come up with stuff I've never seen before. Excellent find. Now, this actually has no bearing on what evidence Scotland Yard had to make them suspect Tumblety enough to have Anderson solicit information from US chiefs of police, since they clearly did not share it with them. The only information these people had on Tumblety was his US history. Also, this further corroborates my point that US newspapers were not participating in sensationalist journalism, because they almost always ended their story on why people did not believe he was the killer.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

New York detective Michael Powers, twenty-year veteran of the 8th Precinct.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 9th December 1888—

"Mark my words, sir, we have not yet heard the last of this ultra morbid misogynist, this demon incarnate, whose unholy delight is to dye his hands in the blood of his foully murdered victims. He has a nature which Moloch might have envied, and in my opinion is not one to rest content with a paltry half dozen offerings. Before long his hellish hands will again find work to do. Soon will the death groan of another unfortunate punctuate the stillness of some Whitechapel purlieu, and next morning palsy-stricken London will cry, 'Where are the police?’”

He obviously didn't think much of Tumblety as a Ripper suspect.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Mike.
I do not think it is necessary to be sidetracked by irrelevant material.

Hardly, his article is all about this.

Your "Achilles Heel" is Inspector Byrnes of the New York City police.

Actually, it's yours, read below...

Byrnes makes it very clear, Scotland Yard are not pursuing Tumblety "on suspicion of murder", otherwise he could be arrested, and could be extradicted. Tumblety does not have to be guilty, just a "suspect". Therefore, Tumblety was also not even a "suspect".

Even if Tumblety had been arrested but released in the UK, but not cleared, due to time constraints (Paul), and fled to the US, he still could be "arrested on suspicion of murder", in the US, because he was never cleared in the UK.

The information which is obtained through Inspr. Byrnes admirably scuttles any unsourced suspicions published in the press about Tumblety being a murder suspect. As Inspr. Byrnes is my witness, it is simply not true.

Believe all the newspaper stories you choose they amount to nothing when we have an official opinion to clear up the matter.

Notice how Inspector Byrnes' own words undercuts your point, regardless that his comments were recorded in a newspaper article.



New York World, December 4, 1888
Inspector Byrnes was asked what his object in shadowing Twomblety. "I simply wanted to put a tag on him." he replied, "so that we can tell where he is. Of course, he cannot be arrested, for there is no proof in his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he was under bond in London is not extaditable."

"Do you think he is Jack the Ripper?" the Inspector was asked.

"I don't know anything about it, and therefore I don't care to be quoted. But if they think in London that they may need him, and he turns out to be guilty our men will probably have a good idea where he can be found."




OK, so you believe Vanderlinden is wrong.

Note that Byrnes did not say, "Scotland Yard does not consider him a suspect in the Whitechapel murder case", but actually answers a reporter's question which said nothing about Tumblety being a suspect. Byrnes brought it up and then counters your point about Tumblety could be extraditable as a murder suspect.

So you told Paul:

As I outlined in my previous post, Byrnes opinions argues very strongly, almost conclusively, that Tumblety could not have been wanted for murder.

Notice Byrnes' last statement. It demands the assumption that Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a murder suspect. It wasn't the newspaper 'story' that stated this, but Byrnes himself -an official opinion.

So, do you still think I based this upon just a newspaper story or Byrnes' own words?

Sincerely,
Mike

[Wickerman]

Er, Jon, they could only be detained for a specified time, then they had to be released or charged and brought before a magistrate. This was one of the constraints within which the British Police had to work .....

Thankyou Paul, yes I was aware that they cannot hold someone indefinitely, but I assumed it to be 24-48 hrs, afterall, it doesn't take days or weeks to establish the whereabouts of the suspect on the nights in question.

That Tumblety was released therefore doesn't mean he was cleared of suspicion, only that there was insufficient evidence on which to base a charge (by which one can mean nothing more than that Tumblety's alibi had not checked out).

I agree, but this also means he still is "suspected of involvement in murder", which also means he could be "arrested on suspicion" in any country where Britian has an agreement for extradition.
Thats really what I'm getting at, the comments by Byrnes are crucial for us to understand the legal position the New York police were in.
As I outlined in my previous post, Byrnes opinions argues very strongly, almost conclusively, that Tumblety could not have been wanted for murder.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

You never read Roger's article did you.

Mike.
I do not think it is necessary to be sidetracked by irrelevant material.

Your "Achilles Heel" is Inspector Byrnes of the New York City police.

You know that Scotland Yard cannot kidnap Tumblety, they can do nothing more than surveillance. Scotland Yard can only enlist the assistance of the New York City police by outlaying their suspicions to their peers, namely Inspector Byrnes.

As I earlier remarked to Paul, Inspector Byrnes knew that he could not arrest Tumblety for an extradictable offence. Murder IS an extradictable offence.

Byrnes makes it very clear, Scotland Yard are not pursuing Tumblety "on suspicion of murder", otherwise he could be arrested, and could be extradicted. Tumblety does not have to be guilty, just a "suspect". Therefore, Tumblety was also not even a "suspect".

Even if Tumblety had been arrested but released in the UK, but not cleared, due to time constraints (Paul), and fled to the US, he still could be "arrested on suspicion of murder", in the US, because he was never cleared in the UK.

The information which is obtained through Inspr. Byrnes admirably scuttles any unsourced suspicions published in the press about Tumblety being a murder suspect. As Inspr. Byrnes is my witness, it is simply not true.

Believe all the newspaper stories you choose they amount to nothing when we have an official opinion to clear up the matter.

Tumblety was neither arrested nor even suspected as a murderer.

Regards, Jon S.

[PaulB]

Paul,
Of course I do not know that he checked the files.I do however believe,because the crimes had not been solved,and because his naming of a person seems to show more than a casual interest,that if he didn't check himself,then someone checked for him.
I have a book in which an author states Thomsom suspected Pedenchenko.

Hi Harry,
The thing is that the case papers were huge. They fill a whole cupboard here at home and that's a mere fraction of what existed in Thompson's day. The Ripper case wasn't active in Thompson's day, so there's no particular reason why he would have been interested in it (and the passing reference in his book suggests that he wasn't), and he had sufficient troubles on his plate, from suffragettes to German spies, to keep him pretty occupied as Britain headed towards war. Had there been reason to pull the files, Thompson is unlikely to have done the job himself, a subordinate would have done it, as you say, and Thompson would likely have seen no more than a summary report. On the whole the evidence would suggest that the only information he was recalling was the Macnaghten memorandum or similar and that he was amalgamating Ostrog and Druitt. As for Pedachenko, he was advanced by the sensationalist journalist William Le Queux on the authority of a manuscript by Rasputin which nobody has ever seen and the existence of which is doubted, and there is no other evidence that Pedachenko ever existed. Pedachenko ad Le Queux were revived by Donald McCormick, a hugely unreliable author. I wish that Thompson could be introduced, but unfortunately he can't.
Paul

[harry]

Paul,
Of course I do not know that he checked the files.I do however believe,because the crimes had not been solved,and because his naming of a person seems to show more than a casual interest,that if he didn't check himself,then someone checked for him.
I have a book in which an author states Thomsom suspected Pedenchenko.

[PaulB]

Mike.
What do you think this means...

Great excitement was caused shortly before ten o'clock to-night in the East-end by the arrest of a man with a blackened face, who publicly proclaimed himself to be "Jack the Ripper." This was at the corner of Wentworth-street, Commercial-street, near the scene of the latest crime. ............ It took four constables and four civilians to convey him to the station and protect him from the infuriated crowd. He is detained in custody.

The next day...

"It was stated late last night that the persons taken in custody on the previous day had been liberated, and it is doubtful if the constabulary have obtained new clues to assist their search."

Don't bother with all that gobbledygook about due process. Anyone suspected of murder was detained until they were checked out. You will find dozens of examples if you'd only look.
If Tumblety was suspected at any time he was 'nicked', in lock-up, in the slammer, until he was cleared.

Regards, Jon S.

Er, Jon, they could only be detained for a specified time, then they had to be released or charged and brought before a magistrate. This was one of the constraints within which the British Police had to work and to which Anderson referred when explaining why comparisons between the British and French police were unfair. That Tumblety was released therefore doesn't mean he was cleared of suspicion, only that there was insufficient evidence on which to base a charge (by which one can mean nothing more than that Tumblety's alibi had not checked out). In France, of course, you could be hauled off the streets almost indefinitely while the police worked up a case against you, which was great for the police, a bummer for civil liberties, and a policy open to all kinds of abuses. As Anderson said, sometimes the police knew who'd done it, but they had to let him go before they could get the evidence to convict, and he gave an exceedingly dumb example to illustrate his point.

[PaulB]

The point I was making about Thomson,is that in 1913 when he took over,he was in a position to avail himself of all information,of an official nature,that w as on file at that time..Had there been anything that conclusivly identified the Ripper,such as an identification,he disregseded it in naming Pedechenko.Sure he may,like his predecessors,have been,because of time,a little hazy in remembering,but was he likely to forget evidence that had proved the identity of the Ripper.?Swanson could remember a seaside home and the name of the suspect.Why not Thomson? Like Trevor says,the information should have been there in the files.Had it happened.

Harry,
How do you know Thompson checked the files?
And where did Thompson name Pedachenko? I quoted what he wrote.

[PaulB]

Paul.
Had a private investigator come across evidence that a Dr. Tumblety was associated in some way with the Whitechapel murders I am quite sure Littlechild would place his own interests first.

This evidence would be the goose that laid the golden egg in so far as his reputation and private investigation business was concerned.
Are you suggesting Littlechild would pass this major discovery off with such a passive comment by saying, "Tumblety was just another police suspect"?

On the other hand, if the evidence turned out to be misinformation therefore incorrect, why mention it to Sims at all?

Lets face it Paul, if Tumblety could provide an alibi for the nights in question, he is not a suspect. If he couldn't he would be detained. The police are not setting murder suspects free while their stories are checked out.

Investigation of a murder suspect may take hours or days, but once located he will be detained until checked out. If Tumblety had been suspected in England he was investigated and cleared. If he was not cleared then he could not have jumped bail while still detained and under investigation.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon
I'm not saying that Littlechild received information about Tumblety and passed it on to the Whitechapel murders investigation team at all. I'm simply saying that it I don't see it as an impossibility. But surely Littlechild receiving information that the woman-hating Fenian quack was back in London would not have been any golden egg laying goose? Or with Tumblety being a quack, should that be a golden-egg laying duck? Anyway, there is no reason from what Littlechild says to suppose that there was anything special or significant about Tumblety, is there? Litllechld mentioned Dr T simply because it sounded like Dr D, and he simply says he was arrested at the time on indecency charges, skipped bail, and went abroad, where, Littlechild thought, he killed himself. Dr T expressed a great dislike of women (implied but not stated as being the reason why he was suspected) and after he skipped there were no more murders. There is no suggestion that Dr T was at any time anything more than one of the many people on whom suspicion quite naturally fell. One would assume that Tumblety couldn't provide an alibi or that it didn't check out, but surely that's why we further the research, to find answers which enable us to reach conclusions.
Cheers
Paul