How do Suspects compare?

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;214892][QUOTE=PaulB;214887]

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?



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.

Trevor,
I don't give a damn about your opinion. But unless you can substantiate it, you shouldn't voice it, especially when it is derogatory and potentially libelous. You have said that I have a habit of propping up suspects. I don't. I don't even come near to doing it. So either substantiate it or have the guts to withdraw it.

The trouble is, Trevor, is that making such statements is what you do when trying to counter or diminish other people's arguments or when you have no sensible defense when challenged: there's a cartel withholding information from you there isn't), I habitually propping up non-starter suspects (I don't), Martin Fido back peddled a lot on his theory (he hasn't), Philip Hutchinson doesn't deliver to his customers (which you have refused to substantiate). Even now, challenged to substantiate something you have said and unable to doso, you twist it into a claim that I can't handle your challenges to my beliefs (as if you know what I believe anyway), when I simply think you should put up the evidence for the things you say and stop wasting people's time.

So sure, you can say it's a cheap shot. I don't much care what you say it is. But I am calling you to substantiate an accusation you have made.

[caz]

Thanks Mike.

You would have to demonstrate that Tumblety's 'unusual hatred of women' was not just Victorian speak for 'batting for the other side' or 'fanny dodger'. It does appear that the expression 'woman hater' was used in that sense and the uptight Victorians did consider it most unusual. Victoria herself wouldn't even admit that genuine Lesbians existed.

For me, the most promising point you make is that the Yorkshire Ripper found inspiration by looking at representations similar to this Florentine Venus monstrosity. I do think it highly likely that our man would have enjoyed gawping at such things - along with all the other hundreds of visitors for whom such 'attractions' were intended. And that's the fly in the ointment. Our man could have been any one of those visitors, and that's assuming he did take an interest. Tumblety presumably made no secret of his interests, whereas one might have expected the murderer himself to be a bit more discreet about it, like the husbands and fathers, wives and mothers, who went to see such exhibits.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

mea culpa

Hello Caroline.

"I understand that people who doubt their own sanity will often blame themselves for bad things that happen in the world around them"

Uh-oh.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Dunham

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

Time to reevaluate.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks - I'll take a look when time permits.

If you could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was in fact Druitt who confessed to the north country vicar (presumably while said vicar was working down south?), that would be a good start.

But then again, didn't all sorts of less than sound mind confess to the murders at one time or another?

I understand that people who doubt their own sanity will often blame themselves for bad things that happen in the world around them, whereas serial killers tend to blame eveyone but themselves and tend only to confess when presented with overwhelming evidence against them. They also rarely commit suicide unless their power over life and death has been taken from them by the force of law, and they can only exercise it over themselves.

Druitt comes across as a truly tragic character who genuinely thought the best thing for everyone was for him to die. This doesn't seem to fit with a bloodthirsty mutilator who cared not a jot for all the unfortunate lives he set about destroying. If he was so full of remorse and self loathing, why not a full and detailed confession in writing to the police before taking his final swim?

Love,

Caz
X

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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?