How do Suspects compare?

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m not throwing down any gauntlet to you, Trevor, and all you ever find to pick up is your inflated pig’s bladder on a stick which you wave around as you prance and cavort like the unfunny court jester of the message boards that you are.



It is very noticeable that nowhere in this whole sentence do you volunteer any reason – any reason at all – why my perfectly sensible and reasonable observation puts me out of touch with reality. Like so much of what you say on the boards, your sentence is just verbal flatulence.

For the record, although I really shouldn't bother, I am not trying to prove that Tumblety was a police suspect. Chief Inspector John Littlechild is telling you that Tumblety was a police suspect, and Littlechild was there and was in a position to know, and if you think he was wrong then you have to prove it or at least present a good and reasoned argument, and you have done neither. Instead you claim that every source is reporting hearsay, as if that negates what they say, and because you don’t understand anything about how to treat historical source documents, because your ignorance is so profound that you can actually come here and flatulate something so asinine as claiming that historians ‘automatically accept without question as gospel what has been written in the past…’, you can’t understand why your arguments are wrong.

For a long time I have wondered just what your agenda is on here. You say you are not trying to prove Tumblety was a police suspect and you say the same in relation to Kosminski. Yet when others try to do the same you seem to want to pour water on the fire. I think the reasons and explantions which have been put forward far outweigh the reasons you keep putting forward.

You also keep telling us that this ripper mystery now should not be looked upon as a criminal investigation but looked upon as historical anaylsis of the facts. Well the facts are not correct and have been proven to be innacurate and unreliable.

As to the criminal investigation side, you explain why that side should be ignored when there has been more new material and evidence come to light in the past few years than ever before and some is still being unearthered and other new material has yet to be made public.

All of which could have a dramatic impact on this case, and you never know there is still a chance that the missing piece of the jigsaw may turn up. So tell me where do you see the historical side of this going then because you cant keep playing the history card for ever.

And whilst Mike Hawley knows a great deal more about this subject than you ever will, which God knows isn’t difficult, I haven’t sought to rely on anything he has said, and if you think I have then you can produce it and show it to everyone. All I have done is to observe that in response to Mike’s lengthy and detailed post, you wrote: ‘I give up with you people that research is not from official sources so it must be hearsay.’ To which I said, correctly, that you think hearsay diminishes a source so when you encounter anything in the sources you don’t like you dismiss it as hearsay, so ‘it’s hearsay when Littlechild says it, it's hearsay when Smith says it, and its hearsay when the newspapers say it, and self-seeking publicity when Tumblety himself says it, and the reports of Anderson requesting samples of Tumblety's handwriting is a journalistic invention because you think he would already have them.’

And whether Mike Hawley’s use of Smith may not have been correct, it’s significant that Wolf highlighted it, not you.

I dont need to delve to deep into Tumblety because I know he was never a police suspect. As I said before feel free to look at hearsay eveidence and newspaper articles in the name of history but dont insult and put down those who look at it in another light.

If you were a detective you would have a job to catch a cold let alone a criminal with your mindset.

So go away and enjoy the day, Trevor. Give the pig's bladder a rest.

No time to rest there is a crime to be investigated :shakehead:

[PaulB]

No time to rest there is a crime to be investigated :shakehead:

You go and play.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Littlechild does not say Tumblety was 'arrested as a Ripper suspect', he says he was suspected of being Jack the Ripper, which aredifferent things.

Paul.
The suggestion that Tumblety was arrested is repeatedly introduced by Mike, and in one instance he refers to the Littlechild letter as proof:

"Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders, has been corroborated by the Littlechild letter...."

It is this erroneous claim that I was referring to, and I'm glad to see that you also agree this was wrong.

Too much reliance is being placed on unsourced American newspaper stories which claim Tumblety was arrested.

Of all the people in America whom Scotland Yard would be required to put the most trust in, is Inspr. Byrnes, who had Tumblety under surveillance and could place him in custody at a moments notice.
When asked by a reporter if Tumblety could be arrested for anything here (US), "The Inspector replied that although Tumblety was a fugitive from justice under $1500 bail for a nominal offence in England, he could not be arrested here".
Which clearly demonstrates that Tumblety was not wanted for anything so serious as murder, for which he could be arrested in the US if requested by Scotland Yard.
Continuing in a similar article published in, The New York World, Inspector Byrnes explained; "...of course he cannot be arrested for there is no proof of his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he was under bond in London is not extradictable".

Therefore Paul, Mike's insistence on Tumblety being arrested in London (when there is no proof of his complicity) is clearly based on missinformation in the US. Tumblety was not, and could not, be arrested as a suspect in the Whitechapel murders.
Detained?, questioned?, maybe, because hundreds were that is not impossible, but arrested? No!

The issue, as you kindly remind us, was the original point I made which started this discussion, that Tumblety claimed to have been a suspect, "is not established that this was true".

Given the enthusiasm with which the press attach suspicion to anyone whom the police show an interest in it is not remarkable that Tumblety is touted as a suspect by the press while not being regarded as an official suspect by the police. Afterall, the press are also concerned with selling copy.

So we are left with the passing remarks of John George Littlechild, and his 25 year old (in 1913) accusations of Tumblety being as suspect, but from what source?, because Littlechild was not involved in the Whitechapel murder case.

Regards, and Happy Easter to you and yours.
Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

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?

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

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.

[PaulB]

Paul.
The suggestion that Tumblety was arrested is repeatedly introduced by Mike, and in one instance he refers to the Littlechild letter as proof:

"Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders, has been corroborated by the Littlechild letter...."

It is this erroneous claim that I was referring to, and I'm glad to see that you also agree this was wrong.

Too much reliance is being placed on unsourced American newspaper stories which claim Tumblety was arrested.

Of all the people in America whom Scotland Yard would be required to put the most trust in, is Inspr. Byrnes, who had Tumblety under surveillance and could place him in custody at a moments notice.
When asked by a reporter if Tumblety could be arrested for anything here (US), "The Inspector replied that although Tumblety was a fugitive from justice under $1500 bail for a nominal offence in England, he could not be arrested here".
Which clearly demonstrates that Tumblety was not wanted for anything so serious as murder, for which he could be arrested in the US if requested by Scotland Yard.
Continuing in a similar article published in, The New York World, Inspector Byrnes explained; "...of course he cannot be arrested for there is no proof of his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he was under bond in London is not extradictable".

Therefore Paul, Mike's insistence on Tumblety being arrested in London (when there is no proof of his complicity) is clearly based on missinformation in the US. Tumblety was not, and could not, be arrested as a suspect in the Whitechapel murders.
Detained?, questioned?, maybe, because hundreds were that is not impossible, but arrested? No!

The issue, as you kindly remind us, was the original point I made which started this discussion, that Tumblety claimed to have been a suspect, "is not established that this was true".

Given the enthusiasm with which the press attach suspicion to anyone whom the police show an interest in it is not remarkable that Tumblety is touted as a suspect by the press while not being regarded as an official suspect by the police. Afterall, the press are also concerned with selling copy.

So we are left with the passing remarks of John George Littlechild, and his 25 year old (in 1913) accusations of Tumblety being as suspect, but from what source?, because Littlechild was not involved in the Whitechapel murder case.

Regards, and Happy Easter to you and yours.
Jon S.

Hi Jon
It is difficult sometimes to know who or what is being cited and in what context, especially as we can all be less precise than we should be - Tumblety was suspected and was arrested and in the circumstances it's easy to use the words interchangeably.

The Littlechild letter was a very exciting discovery and immediately elevated Tumblety to what is probably an unmerited status as a suspect. There is, however, no reason that I can see (I am happy and receptive to any reasoned argument) to disbelieve Littlechild's statement that Tumblety was a suspect, no matter that he was writing 30-years after the event, and he is corroborated by the US papers and Tumblety himself, albeit that they are almost certainly wrong to say that he was arrested on suspicion of being the Ripper. Just to add, yes, Byrne's comment is paramount in any consideration of Tumblety as the Ripper, but not that he was suspected. As said, I read Littlechild as saying that Tumblety expressed a hatred of women and for that reason came under suspicion. But Littlechild himself seems to have discounted him, although did note the coincidence of his departure/death with the cessation of the murders.

I am grateful for the reference to Josephus. It allowed a detour, brief but wonderful, into real history. And, of course, a happy Easter weekend to you too.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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