How do Suspects compare?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jon,

Check out my post again. Anderson's cable dispatch is a primary source, which had nothing to do with his Irish sympathies. Anderson's requests to the Chiefs of Police were about Tumblety with respect to the Whitechapel murders. I agree with you that Tumblety's extensive file from Special Branch began because of his Irish sympathies, but CID was interested in Tumblety because of the murders. Once the murders continued after Tumblety sneaked out the country (or so Scotland Yard authorities believed until MacNaghten reintroduced the idea Kelly was the last murder), then they focused their attention of others. After Tumblety, Littlechild was clearly not privy to continued investigations.

With respect to the Littlechild Letter, he wrote it to Simms, a man who approached him about another suspect. He went into detail not only about Tumblety, but what his motive to kill might have been. Littlechild was absolutely clear about his intenstions that Simms does not have the whole story and the source, most likely Anderson, only thought he knew:

I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard. Although a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject he was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record. Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.

...It is very strange how those given to 'Contrary sexual instinct' and 'degenerates' are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about. It may interest you if I give you an example of this cruelty in the case of the man Harry Thaw and this is authentic as I have the boy's statement. Thaw was staying at the Carlton Hotel and one day laid out a lot of sovereigns on his dressing table, then rang for a call boy on pretence of sending out a telegram. He made some excuse and went out of the room and left the boy there and watched through the chink of the door. The unfortunate boy was tempted and took a sovereign from the pile and Thaw returning to the room charged him with stealing. The boy confessed when Thaw asked whether he should send for the police or whether he should punish him himself. The boy scared to death consented to take his punishment from Thaw who then made him undress, strapped him to the foot of the bedstead, and thrashed him with a cane, drawing blood. He then made the boy get into a bath in which he placed a quantity of salt. It seems incredible that such a thing could take place in any hotel but it is a fact. This was in 1906.

... He probably got his information from Anderson who only 'thought he knew'.

To say Tumblety was not considered a serious suspect is to accept convoluted logic. Anderson would not have approached the Chiefs of Police about Tumblety is he was a nobody.

Sincerely,

Mike

I will ask the same question again which I asked regarding the same issues which no one chose to answer (I wonder why) that is if as you say Tumblety was a police suspect

1. Why didnt they arrest him, after all they knew all about him and they were
apparently watching him in connection with the indeceny investigation.

2. Having then arrested him for the indeceny offences and having him locked up
why was he not arrested at that point and questioned about the murders. If
he been that much of a prime suspect I am quite sure they would not have
granted him bail on the indeceny matters.

If the cable source you refer to came from the press then it must not be takn on face value as being accurate.

[mklhawley]

I will ask the same question again which I asked regarding the same issues which no one chose to answer (I wonder why) that is if as you say Tumblety was a police suspect

I chose not to answer, because Paul B clearly pointed out that people should get over the idea Tumblety was not a suspect in November 1888.

1. Why didnt they arrest him, after all they knew all about him and they were apparently watching him in connection with the indeceny investigation.

They did arrest him, but since no one saw the murders, they had nothing on him. Did they arrest anyone for the murders and prosecute them? Point: This was before fingerprinting, fiber analysis, etc., so since he did not confess, then going to court was meaningless.

2. Having then arrested him for the indeceny offences and having him locked up why was he not arrested at that point and questioned about the murders.

He was.

If he been that much of a prime suspect I am quite sure they would not have granted him bail on the indeceny matters.

The courtcase was on gross indecency, and the bail was appropriate. I believe the UK was a country of laws, so they couldn't just tell the magistrate to slam him on no evidence.

If the cable source you refer to came from the press then it must not be takn on face value as being accurate.

The cable was published in the paper, but it's also an extant cable. Roger Palmer states:
Indeed, the only surviving and reliable example of the actual communications
exchanged between the San Francisco Police and the C.I.D. is Robert Anderson’s telegram of Nov. 22nd.

London (England) Thursday
November 22 - P. Crowley, Chief of
Police San Francisco Ca.: Thanks. Send
handwriting and all details you can
of Tumblety. ANDERSON, Scotland
Yard.

Sorry Trevor. Tumblety was considered by Anderson a significant suspect in November 1888.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Police bail [or so it's been suggested by SPE] on 7th November 1888.

Millers Court, 9th November 1888.

Bailed again 16th November 1888.

Tumblety was a Ripper suspect?

Gimme a break.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Police bail [or so it's been suggested by SPE] on 7th November 1888.

Millers Court, 9th November 1888.

Bailed again 16th November 1888.

Tumblety was a Ripper suspect?

Gimme a break.

Regards,

Simon

Let me see, these dates make perfect sense with respect to Tumblety being considered a significant suspect by Anderson himself (supported by the US papers and supported by Littlechild), especially when Anderson contacted the US Chiefs of Police just after this. You should re-read Roger Palmer's article...or maybe read it for the first time.

Now really, how could Anderson not consider Tumblety a significant suspect when he PERSONALLY contacted two chiefs of police.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

I have read Roger's article.

However, I am not certain if he's read mine.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

I see what you are getting at.

The police, under enormous pressure, have a prime Ripper suspect ... and they just let him go?!

Then you get him back into your clutches and ... and you lose him again?!

Yet, I think the weight of the [meagre] evidence and the weight of the arguments of Evans, Gainey, Palmer and Hawley far outweigh the arguments against.

That of ocurse Tumblety was a major Ripper suspect, who was seemingly cleared by subsequent 'Jack' murders reaching into 1891.

That is the main reason I think that Anderson later dismissed him; events appeared to have proved his innocence.

But once Macnaghten set up the 'atutmn of terror', in public in 1898, then this I think brought back Tumblety into contention in Littlechild's mind.

Tumblety was the only doctor suspect about whom it was 'believed' that he had taken his own life after the 'final' murder (Mac again, I theorise, who had told something smiliar to Tom Divall?)

I also argue -- and nobody agrees -- that a strand of the later 'Drowned Doctor's' DNA can be traced back to the Irish-American Confidence Man.

Sims had written about 'Dr D' in public as the prime police suspect. Littelchild does not question that prime status, or that he was affluent, or that he probably did kill himself, or thar he was a doctor, of sorts, but he does question his surname's initial -- though they rhyme -- and that he was about to be arrested (he was arrested), and asserts that he was a Yank.

The lack of Tumblety in modern books up until the discovery of the 1993discovery of the Littlechild Letter is arguably the best example of secondary sources trumping and distorting primary ones -- thiugh not intentionally.

By the way, what are your articles and where are they, as I would love to read them?

[bolo]

Hi Sally,

I'm hoping for a general discussion here - there are specific suspect threads aplenty as it is.

agreed. Let's hope this most interesting thread does not drown in yet another tedious Anderson/Mac/Littlechild debate.

Regards,

Boris

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=mklhawley;214866]I chose not to answer, because Paul B clearly pointed out that people should get over the idea Tumblety was not a suspect in November 1888.

Yes Paul has a habit of propping up the viablity of suspects when clearly the facts say otherwise

They did arrest him, but since no one saw the murders, they had nothing on him. Did they arrest anyone for the murders and prosecute them? Point: This was before fingerprinting, fiber analysis, etc., so since he did not confess, then going to court was meaningless.

Where is the evidence that he was ever arrested for the murders ?

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. If that evidnce is strong enough to bring a charge so be it.

However if that evidence of suspicion is weak as you seem to suggest then they would still arrest that person in the hope that when interviewed and when questioned further evidence or further lines of enquiry would emerge which may lead to more evidence emerging.

I have said before there is a difference between a person coming under suspicion, being a likley suspect and being a prime suspect.

He was.

The courtcase was on gross indecency, and the bail was appropriate. I believe the UK was a country of laws, so they couldn't just tell the magistrate to slam him on no evidence.

But they could have objected to bail on the following grounds

1. That Tumbety was not a UK resident
2. The seriousness of the charge which would lead to a lengthy prison sentence if
found guilty
3. Due to the seriousness of the charges and because of (1) above is likley to
abscond.
4. Off the record I would have bet that if the police thought he was the ripper
the police would have had a quiet word in the magistrates ear.


The cable was published in the paper, but it's also an extant cable. Roger Palmer states:
Indeed, the only surviving and reliable example of the actual communications
exchanged between the San Francisco Police and the C.I.D. is Robert Anderson’s telegram of Nov. 22nd.

London (England) Thursday
November 22 - P. Crowley, Chief of
Police San Francisco Ca.: Thanks. Send
handwriting and all details you can
of Tumblety. ANDERSON, Scotland
Yard.

Sorry Trevor. Tumblety was considered by Anderson a significant suspect in November 1888.

As I said previous the police were looking for him in The US because he had absconded in relation to his indecency charges. The cabel you refer to mentions nothing about the ripper

[Jonathan H]

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.

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;214880]

I chose not to answer, because Paul B clearly pointed out that people should get over the idea Tumblety was not a suspect in November 1888.

Yes Paul has a habit of propping up the viablity of suspects when clearly the facts say otherwise

A "habit". "Suspects" - plural. A habit is something done very often, even all the time, as in 'habitually', and 'suspects' mean more than one and probably several. I've had enough of you making false and generally derogatory remarks, Trevor, so substantiate that remark or withdraw it. Or Admin can consider this a complaint against you. And by substantiate it, I mean date, time and post, or cite book or article and page number.

As far as Tumblety is concerned: (1) Littlechild stated that Tumblety was a suspect, (2) Littlechild stated that Tumbety was a suspect and "a very likely one", (3) Chief Crowley offered Tumblety's handwriting in connection with his arrest on suspicion of involvement in the Whitechapel murders, (4) The US press extensively reported Tumblety's arrest on suspicion of involvement in the murders, (5) Tumblety admitted that he had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murders.

They did arrest him, but since no one saw the murders, they had nothing on him. Did they arrest anyone for the murders and prosecute them? Point: This was before fingerprinting, fiber analysis, etc., so since he did not confess, then going to court was meaningless.

Where is the evidence that he was ever arrested for the murders ?

By evidence, you mean something more substantial than his admission that he was?

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;214880]

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. If that evidnce is strong enough to bring a charge so be it.

However if that evidence of suspicion is weak as you seem to suggest then they would still arrest that person in the hope that when interviewed and when questioned further evidence or further lines of enquiry would emerge which may lead to more evidence emerging.

I have said before there is a difference between a person coming under suspicion, being a likley suspect and being a prime suspect.

He was.

The courtcase was on gross indecency, and the bail was appropriate. I believe the UK was a country of laws, so they couldn't just tell the magistrate to slam him on no evidence.

But they could have objected to bail on the following grounds

1. That Tumbety was not a UK resident
2. The seriousness of the charge which would lead to a lengthy prison sentence if
found guilty
3. Due to the seriousness of the charges and because of (1) above is likley to
abscond.
4. Off the record I would have bet that if the police thought he was the ripper
the police would have had a quiet word in the magistrates ear.


The cable was published in the paper, but it's also an extant cable. Roger Palmer states:
Indeed, the only surviving and reliable example of the actual communications
exchanged between the San Francisco Police and the C.I.D. is Robert Anderson’s telegram of Nov. 22nd.

London (England) Thursday
November 22 - P. Crowley, Chief of
Police San Francisco Ca.: Thanks. Send
handwriting and all details you can
of Tumblety. ANDERSON, Scotland
Yard.

Sorry Trevor. Tumblety was considered by Anderson a significant suspect in November 1888.

As I said previous the police were looking for him in The US because he had absconded in relation to his indecency charges. The cabel you refer to mentions nothing about the ripper

The cable doesn't mention anything about the indecency charges either. But it was reported in the context of Tumblety's arrest in connection with the Whitechapel murders, and Chief Crowley offered the handwriting in that context, so unless you have some evidence besides your personal opinion to the contrary, it has to be accepted that it was offered in that context. The facts state that Tumblety was a suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=PaulB;214887][QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;214880]

A "habit". "Suspects" - plural. A habit is something done very often, even all the time, as in 'habitually', and 'suspects' mean more than one and probably several. I've had enough of you making false and generally derogatory remarks, Trevor, so substantiate that remark or withdraw it. Or Admin can consider this a complaint against you. And by substantiate it, I mean date, time and post, or cite book or article and page number.

As far as Tumblety is concerned: (1) Littlechild stated that Tumblety was a suspect, (2) Littlechild stated that Tumbety was a suspect and "a very likely one", (3) Chief Crowley offered Tumblety's handwriting in connection with his arrest on suspicion of involvement in the Whitechapel murders, (4) The US press extensively reported Tumblety's arrest on suspicion of involvement in the murders, (5) Tumblety admitted that he had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murders.



By evidence, you mean something more substantial than his admission that he was?

The cable doesn't mention anything about the indecency charges either. But it was reported in the context of Tumblety's arrest in connection with the Whitechapel murders, and Chief Crowley offered the handwriting in that context, so unless you have some evidence besides your personal opinion to the contrary, it has to be accepted that it was offered in that context. The facts state that Tumblety was a suspect.

I have posted reasonable explanations but here you are again in your own inimtable way trying to twist things around yet again.

I am not going to get into a heated arguments with you the facts speak for themselves

Yoy clearly dont know the difference between suspects likley or prime and clearly dont know what remarks are derogatory or not.

I have no intention of withdrawing any remarks because I do not consider anyhting in that post to be derogatory. What was posted was my opinion.

You clearly would like me me out of the way because I am one who will stand up to you and challenge your beliefs and arguments and it seems you dont like that or cant handle it so you run to admin. Hmmmmmmmmmmm cheap shot if i may say so.

[mklhawley]

November 19, 1888 The New York Herald:

I PAINT HIM IN THE CHARACTER.
--Coriolanus.
Dr. Tumblety's Queer Antics in this City - Known to the Police.
An odd character is the New Yorker Dr. Francis Tumblety, who, according to a cable dispatch, was arrested in London on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders and held on another charge for trial under the special law passed after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.


The very first time the world hears about Tumblety being a ripper suspect, it states he was held on another charge, that being gross indecency. Soooo, if we look in the official records, then we should see an arrest and charge for gross indecency and not something about the Whitechapel murders. …and that’s exactly what we find. Why would you reject the first part of the article when the second part is proven to be correct –especially when Anderson personally requested information on Tumblety about the murders from two US chiefs of police?

Trevor, just because a statement is in a newspaper doesn't make it automatically wrong, especially when it conforms to primary sources, such as the cable, the Littlechild letter, and Tumblety's charge sheet at Marlborough Street Court.

Mike

[caz]

Okay, so how do we set about comparing the suspects Druitt, Kosminski (or should I say Anderson's 'suspect') and Tumblety, in terms of the evidence against them?

I would submit that it is impossible to say which is the most 'likely' suspect, or indeed the least likely, because we simply don't know what that evidence was, beyond the conjectures of the individual senior policeman in each case, and the criteria they apparently used to decide who they would be inclined to exonerate. They don't give us enough clues, and what they do give us hardly inspires much confidence in their thinking.

We don't know what private information Macnaghten once had, or if it would have been strong enough to bring a murder charge if Druitt had survived. Heck, we don't even know if he would ever have been suspected if it had not been for his icy dip in the Thames.

We don't know how Anderson's suspect got into the frame in the first place, or if a murder charge stood a chance of sticking if he had been fit to plead and the witness had agreed to swear it was him with one of the victims shortly before she was found dead.

We don't know what caused Tumblety to be suspected of the murders, beyond his notorious character and bad habits, which don't appear on the surface to have much relevance to the crimes in question unless one is on Littlechild's wavelength and puts predatory gays in the same mental compartment as female prostitute mutilators.

In short, we have been given no direct links between any of these suspects and an actual Whitechapel murder. Anderson - with Swanson's help - may have come closest, but we still have the dog's breakfast of which murder, which witness and even which suspect was meant, and whether the witness really did 'know the man again' or if too much was read into either man's reaction on seeing the other.

I don't know how anyone could really exonerate any of the above, or have any faith in the guilt of any of the above, on the say so of three senior cops who haven't actually said very much at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

To Caz

I think that is an excellent, nuthshell summary debunking the top cops and their alleged top suspects.

I would just direct your attention to my new Druitt thread: 'Frantic Friends', to attempt an answer to your pertinent question regarding this prime suspect (those advocating the likelihood of Dr. Tumblety and 'Kosminski' can take care of themselves).

As in, no, it was not Druitt's suicide, or the timing of his 'icy dip' -- which didn't fit the span of the 1888 to 1891 police investigation -- though the semi-mythical version of the solution propagated to Edwardians; a penitential confession-in-deed, did stand in for the incriminating reality: a confession-in-word.

[mklhawley]

Hi Caz,

Excellent post. For me, I'm out of my league discussing Druitt and Kosminski with present forum company, but a few new discoveries I've written about specific to Tumblety are intriguing:

1) Dunham was not a pathological liar and evidence points to him telling the truth about Tumblety in 1888.
2) Tumblety most likely had a professional anatomical museum at the onset of the Civil War (not just a weird uterus collection) AND he had an unusual hatred of women.
3) Ol' Man Cotton's freak museum was up and running on Whitechapel Road during the 1888 murders and he even had a wax representation of at least one of the murder scenes.
4) Nineteenth century anatomical museums had as a major attraction an Anatomical (Florentine) Venus, which looked eerily like the Kelly murder -bed, exposed abdominal area, cut off breasts, and all.
5) The Yorkshire Ripper found inspiration for killing by looking at similar representations.
6) Just before Tumblety left for England, his New York City anatomical museums were closed down and destroyed (Jan 1888).
7) Tumblety was not a flamboyant attention-getter later in life (in 1888), because he no longer seriously promoted his business. It's a misconception to think Tumblety just wanted more attention, so he hung out in the Whitechapel District.

Sincerely,
Mike