How do Suspects compare?

[PaulB]

Originally Posted by Jonathan H View Post
To Trevor

Paul is correct about historical methodology being the only science-of-detection left to us.

I am sorry I have to disagree

And unfortunately you are utterly wrong to do so.

Where Paul and I disagree -- we agreeably disagree about everything -- is that I do not see Dr. Tumblety as a suspect but rather the police suspect of 1888.

Had perhaps an academic historian, with the time and the resources of a college or university, tackled this topic Tumblety would have been inevitably found in the US newspapers -- and then in the more oblique fragments in the UK press.

I have said before what was written by the press cannot be safely relied upon yet people still want to use it as primary sources


And as has been pointed out to you time and time again, the only - only - evidence for the past you possess are the voices of those who were there and who speak to us through what has survived, and that includes newspapers. As for 'safely relied upon', do you imagine that is a thought original to you?

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally Posted by Jonathan H View Post
To Trevor

Paul is correct about historical methodology being the only science-of-detection left to us.

I am sorry I have to disagree

And unfortunately you are utterly wrong to do so.

Where Paul and I disagree -- we agreeably disagree about everything -- is that I do not see Dr. Tumblety as a suspect but rather the police suspect of 1888.

Had perhaps an academic historian, with the time and the resources of a college or university, tackled this topic Tumblety would have been inevitably found in the US newspapers -- and then in the more oblique fragments in the UK press.

I have said before what was written by the press cannot be safely relied upon yet people still want to use it as primary sources


And as has been pointed out to you time and time again, the only - only - evidence for the past you possess are the voices of those who were there and who speak to us through what has survived, and that includes newspapers. As for 'safely relied upon', do you imagine that is a thought original to you?

.
I have never suggested the matters we are discussing are original to me I am simply highlighting the flaws and as you know there are very many.

It gives people a better perspective on the case and allows further food for thought and for others to consider whether or not the historical documents and other facts you and others seek to rely can safely be relied upon.

[PaulB]

What those authors thought and belived and wrote is unreliable and uncorroborated by official documents and as I said previous should not be relied upon as primary sources.

The trouble with historians as I see it is they automatically accept without question as gospel what has been written in the past and wont accept new things which have a modern day impact on those past historical facts.

No offence intended here Trevor, but you really are talking trough your anal orifice. If you really understood what history is and what historians do you would know that the very, very, very, last thing they do is unquestioningly accept what was written in the past. The whole reason for their existence is arguably to question what was written in the past. That's how academic historians mostly spend their days, and constantly looking for fresh approaches and new interpretations. That's why history is a living subject, constantly evolving, always and forever responding to fresh perspectives. Sorry, Trevor, but Jack the Ripper isn't a modern day crime investigation, it's history, and it is subject to the tools of the historian. To even think, let alone express the opinion that historians 'automatically accept without question as gospel what has been written in the past' simply demonstrates that you don't really understand what history is and what historians do. If you had even the slightest idea of what history is and what historians do you wouldn't ever make such a completely asinine comment. It is such an utterly absurd thing to say.

[PaulB]

.
I have never suggested the matters we are discussing are original to me I am simply highlighting the flaws and as you know there are very many.

It gives people a better perspective on the case and allows further food for thought and for others to consider whether or not the historical documents and other facts you and others seek to rely can safely be relied upon.

The point is that they are not original to you, but have been thought of by others and answered. And you are not giving people reasons for considering whether the source materials can be relied on. You are stating that they can't be. The Littlechild letter is an authentic document written by a senior and informed source, you have no evidence at all to so much as suggest that he was mistaken or wrong in saying that Tumblety was a suspect in 1888. All you've done is argue that Littlechild is worthless because he is uncorroborated by 1888 sources, and when it is pointed out that Tumblety himself acknowledged that he'd been a suspect, you attribute that to Tumblety being a self-publicist, and the US press simply picking up on what Tumblety said. None of it supported by a tittle of evidence or reasoned arguent.

[PaulB]

Where Paul and I disagree -- we agreeably disagree about everything --

I have to disagree with you there. We do not disagree about everything.

[jason_c]

To Trevor

Well, we agree to disagree.

The notion of a suicided doctor as chief suspect was propagated by Macnaghten via George Sims.

Of course, the 'drowned doctor' was, by implication, an Englishman who took his own life in the Thames. On the other hand, Like Tumblety he was a police suspect in 1888, very affluent, friends no family and was out of action after the Kelly murder.

The Littlechild Letter, with Tumblety as a potetnial suicide when he was nothing of the kind, arguably shows how much Sims' Ripper was a fusion of Druitt and Tumblety -- with a perplexed Jack Littlechild in 1913 recognising some of the American suspect's features.

Your notion -- and it's a widely believed mistake -- was that the police thought that Kelly was the last murder and that 'Jack' was gone, either made, fled or dead at the time.

Hence the myth that the timing of Druitt's suicide put him in the frame. A rigorous examination of the primary sources shows that this is, to use your word, 'rubbish'.

These were all later notions, post-dating 1891 and the Coles murder, which were backdated into the initial investigation. All of the police sources do this, except Macnaghten (in his own name, in public) and Reid.

Let me try a circuit-breaker here, Trevor.

It's 1891, and you're the second-in-command at CID, and you investigate the unlikely tale of a tragic chappie as the fiend, a gentleman who is long deceased and by his own hand. This is, by the way, in the immediate aftermath of the Tom Sadler disappointment.

Unexpectedly you are totally convinced by what you learn about this deceased man, who can never never be arrested, or tried, or convicted.

What do you do next ...?

Jonathan,

I dont know if im going off topic here but you raise an interesting point. That Druitt's candidacy grew over time as no new obvious Ripper murders took place. Druitt's suicide was an interesting anomaly in January 1889. A couple of years later, with no new murders, the timing of Druitt's death grew more suspiscious.

The fact that the timing of Druitts death was so important can be gleamed from Sims. Its the very reason Sims/MacNaghten gives for favouring Druitt over the Polish Jew or Ostrog.

It's not evidence that is the primary reason for Druitts candidacy as time grew on, its events(or lack of them.)

[Jonathan H]

Agreed

No, that's true -- I agree.

As we agree that information about Druitt reached Macnaghten posthumously; 'some years after' he took his own life.

I presume that is to what you refer, as that is the insightful point you make in
'--The Facts' which had so profound an effect on my thinking, for better or worse.

[Jonathan H]

To JasonC

I'm sorry, but that is the exact reverse of what I am arguing.

When Druitt took his own life in late 1888, it was not connected by CID to the Ripper case -- why should it have been?

Druitt was a totally unknown figure to CID when the MP revelation broke in 1891.

Furthermore, the timing of Druitt's suicide seemed to preclude his culpability, as there were Whitechapel-harlot murders after his death.

What Macnaghten had handed to him was not a suspicious suicide, but simply the family's belief that Montie was 'Jack'. It did not evolve -- it was all of a piece at once.

There is no evidence that anybody at the Yard took this seriously, except Mac. There is no evidence that they had even much knowledge about the matter.

When Mac hustled his literary cronies, and through them the public, he enhanced the image of his beloved Yard by giving the false impression that police were hunting this suspect before he took his own life. In his memoirs he withdrew this demonstrably false notion (William Le Queux was not fooled and said so in 1898)

Mac's Report(s) try the same con; that Druitt was a suspect in 1888, 1889. He wasn't. It was to protect the Yard against the Liberal government, in the official version, which was never sent to the Home Office.

But Griffiths and Sims, both crime writers, fell for this myth of the super-efficient constabulary closing upon the 'demented doctor', completely and utterly.

[PaulB]

No, that's true -- I agree.

As we agree that information about Druitt reached Macnaghten posthumously; 'some years after' he took his own life.

I presume that is to what you refer, as that is the insightful point you make in
'--The Facts' which had so profound an effect on my thinking, for better or worse.

Actually, I am just disagreeing with your statement that we disagree. It was a sorry attempt at humour. But, actually, for the most part it isn't that I disagree with you about things, it's just that I am interested in information about Druitt and less so in theorising. I'm pleased to see you pushing Druitt back to the fore.

[Trevor Marriott]

The point is that they are not original to you, but have been thought of by others and answered. And you are not giving people reasons for considering whether the source materials can be relied on. You are stating that they can't be. The Littlechild letter is an authentic document written by a senior and informed source, you have no evidence at all to so much as suggest that he was mistaken or wrong in saying that Tumblety was a suspect in 1888. All you've done is argue that Littlechild is worthless because he is uncorroborated by 1888 sources, and when it is pointed out that Tumblety himself acknowledged that he'd been a suspect, you attribute that to Tumblety being a self-publicist, and the US press simply picking up on what Tumblety said. None of it supported by a tittle of evidence or reasoned arguent.

Come on get real look at all the people who confessed to being the ripper in 1888 that part of your argument about Tumblety sinks without trace. Isnt it funnny that with regards to these type of press related issues, the reporters never seem to ask questions which are relevant of the person they are interviewing. i.e "What made them suspect you" "How did you prove you innocence Mr Tumblety" "Why did they let you go if they thought you were the ripper"

Maybe they did ask and the answers he gave had they been included in the article wouldnt have made much of a story. BUt hey ho we know the power of the press it was still the same then as it is today.

Littlechild did not have any direct involvment in the investigation so anything he relates to at a later date could be no more than hearsay and thus waters down his credibily as a prime source.

You are right much of this has been answered before but I am questioning what has been said and relied upon now in the present.

[Trevor Marriott]

The point is that they are not original to you, but have been thought of by others and answered. And you are not giving people reasons for considering whether the source materials can be relied on. You are stating that they can't be. The Littlechild letter is an authentic document written by a senior and informed source, you have no evidence at all to so much as suggest that he was mistaken or wrong in saying that Tumblety was a suspect in 1888. All you've done is argue that Littlechild is worthless because he is uncorroborated by 1888 sources, and when it is pointed out that Tumblety himself acknowledged that he'd been a suspect, you attribute that to Tumblety being a self-publicist, and the US press simply picking up on what Tumblety said. None of it supported by a tittle of evidence or reasoned arguent.

Come on get real look at all the people who confessed to being the ripper in 1888that part of your argument about Tumblety sinks without trace. Isnt it funnny that with regards to these type of press related issues, the reporters never seem to ask questions which are relevant of the person they are interviewing. i.e "What made them suspect you" "How did you prove you innocence Mr Tumblety" "Why did they let you go if they thought you were the ripper"

Maybe they did ask and the answers he gave had they been included in the article wouldnt have made much of a story. BUt hey ho we know the power of the press it was still the same then as it is today.

Littlechild did not have any direct involvment in the investigation so anything he relates to at a later date could be no more than hearsay and thus waters down his credibily as a prime source.

You are right much of this has been answered before but I am questioning what has been said and relied upon now in the present.

[mklhawley]

Littlechild did not have any direct involvment in the investigation so anything he relates to at a later date could be no more than hearsay and thus waters down his credibily as a prime source.

To suggest Tumblety’s ripper suspect status hinges solely upon the Littlechild letter is a fallacy. In 1993 Stewart Evans discovers the Littlechild letter which revealed to him not only a Ripper suspect, but a suspect considered significant in the eyes of a senior Scotland Yard official:

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...


Next are the discoveries of US newspapers commenting upon one of their kind as being a Ripper suspect. Note that the VERY FIRST TIME the US reads about a Francis Tumblety being a Ripper suspect is on November 19, 1888, and it gives two claims. These two claims came from England via a cable dispatch (not the mind of a reporter in the US):

November 19, 1888 The New York Herald, 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 first claim, Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders, has been corroborated by the Littlechild letter. …and then comes the discovery of another private letter from Canada. Recovered by Canadian historian Gerard Keith was a private letter from Marine Deputy Minister Smith to a government official named James Barber in St. John dated December 1, 1888, only days after Assistant Commissioner Anderson contacted US law enforcement officials about Francis Tumblety. Smith had worked with Barber in St. John years earlier. In it, it states:

"My dear Barber.... Do you recollect Dr. Tumblety who came to St. John about 1860 and who used to ride on a beautiful white horse with a long tail, and a couple of grey hounds following after him? Do you recollect how he used to canter along like a circus man? And do you recollect that it was asserted that he killed old Portmore, the Carpenter who built the extension to my house and fleeced me to a large extent? Do you recollect how he suddenly left St. John, circus horse, hounds and all, and afterwards turned up at different places in the States and Canada? He was considered by Dr. Bayard and others an adventurer and Quack Doctor. He is the man who was arrested in London three weeks ago as the Whitechapel murderer… He now spells his name Twomblety [suggests that his source originated in England, since Tumblety purposely used ‘Twomblety’ in England] …."


This is no US newspaper, AND it further corroborates the first claim of Tumblety being a suspect. Keep in mind, at the time of the murders the Department of Marine and Fisheries was the Canadian Coast Guard (warship and all), a very important department. Smith’s office was in the same area as the Canadian Prime Minister’s office. Smith was in the know with all of the Canadian Ministers.

AND THEN comes the corroboration of the second claim of the November 19 article that Tumblety was arrested for Gross Indecency:



Interestingly, the charge sheet has detective Froest. Note what Tom Wescott stated in July 2010:
“In researching Le Grand I read some of the biography of Jabez Spencer Balfour, whom Froest travelled overseas to arrest. In this biography, the writer stated that Froest claimed to have been the only policeman reprimanded for his zeal in chasing the Whitechapel murderer...”


…and then comes the discovery that Anderson solicited information from US Chiefs of Police about Tumblety:

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.


The only newspaper articles referred to are corroborated by primary sources. Stewart Evans did not just discover the Littlechild letter and then stop. He backed it up with amazing research.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Before you reply Trevor, read the entire post. Lot's in it.

[Trevor Marriott]

To suggest Tumblety’s ripper suspect status hinges solely upon the Littlechild letter is a fallacy. In 1993 Stewart Evans discovers the Littlechild letter which revealed to him not only a Ripper suspect, but a suspect considered significant in the eyes of a senior Scotland Yard official:

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...


Next are the discoveries of US newspapers commenting upon one of their kind as being a Ripper suspect. Note that the VERY FIRST TIME the US reads about a Francis Tumblety being a Ripper suspect is on November 19, 1888, and it gives two claims. These two claims came from England via a cable dispatch (not the mind of a reporter in the US):

November 19, 1888 The New York Herald, 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 first claim, Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders, has been corroborated by the Littlechild letter. …and then comes the discovery of another private letter from Canada. Recovered by Canadian historian Gerard Keith was a private letter from Marine Deputy Minister Smith to a government official named James Barber in St. John dated December 1, 1888, only days after Assistant Commissioner Anderson contacted US law enforcement officials about Francis Tumblety. Smith had worked with Barber in St. John years earlier. In it, it states:

"My dear Barber.... Do you recollect Dr. Tumblety who came to St. John about 1860 and who used to ride on a beautiful white horse with a long tail, and a couple of grey hounds following after him? Do you recollect how he used to canter along like a circus man? And do you recollect that it was asserted that he killed old Portmore, the Carpenter who built the extension to my house and fleeced me to a large extent? Do you recollect how he suddenly left St. John, circus horse, hounds and all, and afterwards turned up at different places in the States and Canada? He was considered by Dr. Bayard and others an adventurer and Quack Doctor. He is the man who was arrested in London three weeks ago as the Whitechapel murderer… He now spells his name Twomblety [suggests that his source originated in England, since Tumblety purposely used ‘Twomblety’ in England] …."


This is no US newspaper, AND it further corroborates the first claim of Tumblety being a suspect. Keep in mind, at the time of the murders the Department of Marine and Fisheries was the Canadian Coast Guard (warship and all), a very important department. Smith’s office was in the same area as the Canadian Prime Minister’s office. Smith was in the know with all of the Canadian Ministers.

AND THEN comes the corroboration of the second claim of the November 19 article that Tumblety was arrested for Gross Indecency:

[ATTACH]13551[/ATTACH]

Interestingly, the charge sheet has detective Froest. Note what Tom Wescott stated in July 2010:
“In researching Le Grand I read some of the biography of Jabez Spencer Balfour, whom Froest travelled overseas to arrest. In this biography, the writer stated that Froest claimed to have been the only policeman reprimanded for his zeal in chasing the Whitechapel murderer...”


…and then comes the discovery that Anderson solicited information from US Chiefs of Police about Tumblety:

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.


The only newspaper articles referred to are corroborated by primary sources. Stewart Evans did not just discover the Littlechild letter and then stop. He backed it up with amazing research.

Sincerely,

Mike

I give up with you people that research is not from official sources so it must be hearsay. Why would Anderson want a sample of his handwriting in connection with the ripper anyway. They had him in custody he would have signed papers in custody there would have been samples of his handwriting available. it all doesnt make sense in connection with the murders.

What you cite above is nothing more than hearsay accept it and stop using it to prop up Tumblety as a prime police suspect

[mklhawley]

I never said 'prime suspect', just significant suspect. Did any of the possible ripper letters have Tumblety's signature? Of course not, so how would Tumblety's signature on official Scotland Yard documents really help? Wouldn't a volume of handwritten material give a better idea of his handwriting than just one signature? Also, Anderson wasn't just looking for handwriting samples from Brooklyn's Chief of Police. Just as Roger Palmer pointed out Scotland Yard may very well have known about Tumblety's San Francisco experiences because of a bank transaction, which means extra handwriting examples. Brooklyn was Tumblety's hangout for years, so there would be much more stuff.