Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tumblety's Past; not Tumblety Today - Andrews' True Agenda

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • caz
    replied
    Hi All,

    I understand that they had all the "goods" they needed on Tumblebum for the gross indecency charges, without needing to look into his background, and that they would need some serious "goods" if they wanted to trade those charges in for the big one - Jack the Ripper himself.

    What I'm struggling a little bit with is what evidential value they hoped to put on any "goods" they could have obtained by haring across to Canada and checking out every last detail of his past. If he had anything as serious as a prostitute murder or attempted murder in it, for example, would he have been free to come over in the first place to sample the delights of West End rent boys? And if information like this was there for the finding, couldn't it have been found and sent across with any handwriting samples?

    Even if the quack doc was discovered to have a record of violence as long as your arm that side of the pond, how would that have led to a conviction for a single Whitechapel murder without the necessary "goods" here at home to charge him with it? What evil smelling skeletons could they have found in his cupboard to rub his nose in and force a confession?

    I'm impatient for part 3 to see what RJ has in mind.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf Vanderlinden
    replied
    Dan's article (and Wolf's arguments) was excellent, but when taking the new evidence into account, the argument is no longer sound.
    Hi Mike.

    Exactly what "new evidence" are you talking about?

    Wolf.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan H
    replied
    Thanks Mike!

    For what it is worth, it was a revelatory moment for me when I realized that the Mac Report, official version, implies that Druitt was a minor though contemporaneous suspect and that the Aberconway Version -- in which Druitt WAS the fiend! -- was probably written second for Griffiths/Sims' eyes only.

    With Sims confidently calling it a definitive 'Home Office Report' in 1903. Where did that subterfuge come from?

    The truth being, as the 1914 Mac memoirs show, that the un-named Druitt was not a contemporaneous suspect at all -- which dovetails with the 'West of England MP' titbit -- and that this was the critical info which Mac was obscuring from everybody.

    To Livia

    That Inspector Andrews was exploiting the Ripper mystery as cover for other purposes is a perfectly reasonable theory [though overplayed by some as a 'definitely ascertained fact'].

    In R J Palmer's second article on Andrews in Casebook Examiner #2 he argues, I think cogently and convincingly, that the weight of the fragments bequeathed to us -- the balance of probabilities -- is that Andrews was indeed investigating Tumblety in North America as a Ripper suspect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Livia
    replied
    Sorry Mike. Although I realized that Dan's article was slightly dated, there was no date mentioned for Roger's article, so chicken/egg.

    Wolf's theory did sound intriguing though, given that Walter Andrews was also investigating Fenians for the Parnell Commission.

    I've also since noticed that there's another thread, "Inspector Walter
    Andrew's own words" (paraphrasing here). So I'd better get reading before
    commenting again.

    Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi All,

    An envelope arrived yesterday via snail mail from a friend. Inside was a print-out of Roger Palmer's 2nd Tumblety installment and a note saying "thought you might enjoy this".

    Well, I did enjoy it. In fact I enjoyed it so darned much that I'm going to send $9 to Don Souden to make certain I don't miss Part 3.

    All I will say in the meantime is that I hope Roger's wilder assumptions get more firmly grounded in historical fact before he attempts to pull the rabbit from his empty hat.

    Drum roll, please, maestro . . .

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • mklhawley
    replied
    Please excuse the messy typos. I had to rush it!

    Leave a comment:


  • mklhawley
    replied
    Originally posted by Livia View Post
    Hi Livia,

    It looks like you did not read the first post. Dan's article that point to bases the premise that Tumblety was not a serious suspect b/c Andrews did not go anywhere near NYC (where Tumblety was). This article predates Roger Palmer's article which renders this argument irrelevant. Not what I stated in the first post:

    One argument against Francis Tumblety being a serious JTR suspect follows this line of thinking: "Since Andrews never came within 100 miles of New York City, it must be concluded that he had no interest in investigating Tumblety."

    Part two or Roger Palmerís article explains how this argument is irrelevant, because it assumes that Inspector Andrews was chasing Francis Tumblety across the Atlantic. Why would Scotland Yard spend all that money sending an inspector to New York City when they already had people there to pick him up? Also, was it smart to have an inspector involved with the ripper murders leave the Whitechapel district at the peak of the investigation (especially when they needed all the manpower they had)?

    If Scotland Yard did consider Tumblety a serious JTR suspect, it actually makes more sense for Andrews to have done exactly what he did, visit Montreal and Toronto, Canada. As Palmer explains, this better fits how Scotland Yard investigated serious cases prior to the use of modern forensics. They did a deep background search into a suspect (only the serious suspects, because of cost in money and manpower) in order to find anything. Palmer gives two clear examples of this process, and Francis Tumblety lived in both Toronto and Montreal. Is there evidence of Scotland Yard digging into Tumbletyís background? Keep in mind, Anderson had also contacted the Chiefs of Police in San Francisco and Brooklyn for information on Tumblety during the same week.

    In view of Andrews being used for a background investigation on Tumblety, Anderson making arrangements before or after Tumblety jumping bail is irrelevant. It even makes sense that Anderson arranged the trip before Tumblety jumped bail, because in their mind Tumblety was going to be safely stashed in prison for gross indecency. They would have had at least a year of serious background investigation to find something on him. The reason why Anderson decided to send Andrews to North America in December 1888 was because he wanted to piggy-back off of extraditing Barnett, and this HAD to occur within one month. Canada even paid for it. It was mere coincidence that Tumblety jumped bail, but that coincidence has caused confusion even today.


    Dan's article (and Wolf's arguments) was excellent, but when taking the new evidence into account, the argument is no longer sound.

    Roger Palmer's part three of his article continues to focus upon this, which should be out in the summer.

    Sincerely,

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Livia
    replied
    Interesting discussion.

    But then there's this:

    Scotland Yard Inspector used Jack the Ripper case as cover for espionage

    Leave a comment:


  • mklhawley
    replied
    a priori in an a posteriori world

    I for one am impressed with Jonathan's ideas. To me, it's a case of a priori in an a posterior world. Not only is Jonathan evaluating his ideas with the available evidence he is also analyzing this evidence with a set of principles (ex. "...his social superior..."). It is still clearly a series of logical inferences, not unlike Einstein first visualizing special relativity a priori with a clock based upon a set of principles. Only later does Einstein and the scientific community proceed a posteriori with the theory of relativity.

    I also suggest him not following KISS, or parsimony, might very well be an illusion simply because of the shear volume of infomation he has connected. A number of physicists argued against Einstein's theories claiming they violated parsimony, but only later have we realized relativity is much simpler than a static universe infinite in time and space. There are now dozens of areas within his theories that can be researched a posteriori.

    This I believe has also occurred with Inspector Andrews' true agenda for crossing the Atlantic (notice how I beautifully flowed back into the Andrews section ). The simplest explanation that conforms to Tumblety being on the same streets as the victims of the Whitechapel killings (and at the same time), arresting Tumblety a second time and charging him with gross indecency, Anderson contacting two American chief's of police about Tumblety, allowing an investigator to leave Whitechapel for weeks during the peak of the JTR investigation, and Scotland Yard procedures doing a deep background investigation on serious suspects, is that Andrews went to Canada primarily because of the JTR case.

    Sincerely,

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan H
    replied
    Simple?

    You're pursuing the rong mystery, pal. Why don't you try Bigfoot? It's just a guy in a suit.

    Montie Druitt was the murderer, but he came to Macnaghten's attention, alone, via a school chum, over two years after the young barrister killed himself -- when Scotland Yard were still pursuing 'Jack's' ghost, as with Sadler.

    To hide this painful embarrassment -- and steer clear of a libel suit from the Druitt family -- Macnaghten, a deft Whitehall player, discreetly misled the Home Office and his literary cronies, claiming that Druitt was a middle-aged physician, who had been efficiently hunted by police in 1888, thus exploiting 'Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde' -- and inverting the Tumbelty fumble into a near success.

    In his 1914 memoirs Macnaghten set the record straight, within the bounds of Edwardian discretion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
    Now step aside and let people who are fascinated by the 'Jack the Ripper' mystery -- especially the contradictory police sources -- get on with it.
    But, K.I.S.S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan H
    replied
    To Scott

    I support your right to 'wish' for whatever you like, mate.

    Now step aside and let people who are fascinated by the 'Jack the Ripper' mystery -- especially the contradictory police sources -- get on with it.


    To Mike

    Another thing to consider from R J Palmer's second article -- fragments of which I will soon be using in my teaching -- is that if Anderson was that involved in trying to nut out the homicidal potential of Tumblety, it makes you wonder what lodged in his mix-and-match memory about the American suspect?

    For example, why did he never denounce or disparage the 'Drowned Doctor' tale?

    Did he not know it originated with Macnaghten, whom he despised? Perhaps he didn't.

    Did it cut too close to the knuckle?

    Byt that I mean, did he recognise in Sims' 1907 piece for 'Lloyds-Weekly' a suspect, though thankfully mistaken about nationality and demise -- and actually quite positive in terms of enhancing both his and the Yard's image -- whom was nevertheless too dangerously 'Tumbletyesque', and so it was better left alone?

    It is after that date that the Polish Jew suspect is firmed up as 'case closed', and solved in 1888, and now complete with a never-mentioned-before Judas witness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied


    I wish you'd ground yourself in less entropic theorizing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan H
    replied
    To Mike

    It's a private letter and so Littlechild can say what he likes, knowing that he does not have to be held accountable.

    Yet he initiated this letter, according to the way it opens, and I think he was somewhat torn between writing nothing, and getting this famous nob off the hook; that Sims was writing about Tumblety in a semi-fictional, silly way perhaps due to being fed disinformation by Anderson [about which Littlechild was mistaken].

    The reason I think that the Tumblety 'suicide' claim is a deceitful deflection by Littlechild, is that it is so patently absurd -- and awkwardly expressed.

    Surely if such a wealthy, and flamboyant Irish-American had vanished off the face of the Earth there would be an inquiry by somebody, either French or American, or both? I just think Littlechild was trying to give Sims something, to throw him a bone. Otherwise, he would have to be brutal -- by saying that the suspect got away to the States and did not kill himself -- and really make the uber-famous writer and 'criminologist' realise that somebody from Scotland Yard was playing him for a chump [I think somebody was: Macnaghten] about the Not-a-Drowned Doctor.

    Re: Druitt

    Of course, there is no evidence that anybody at Scotland Yard ever knew of Druitt's existence as a Ripepr suspect, except for Macnaghten.

    We all assume that Anderson must have seen the Mac Report, official version 1894, because he latched onto 'Kosminski'. But that could have been from verbal communciation. Especially when you realise that Druitt-Kosminski-Ostrog are all described as minor, minor suspects in that document [Druitt is not No. 1 in a scale of likelihood but simply the first listed].

    The first version was never sent to the Home Office and therefore may not have been seen by anyone, including Anderson. Just gatherred dust in the files?

    I have never seen a source in which Anderson refers -- even obliquely -- to either Druitt, or the 'Drowned Doctor'?

    Nothing. He may have thought, like Abberline, that it was just a press invention [like the original hoax letter] of which there many over those years.

    The Mac Report, rewrite version seen by Griffiths in 1898, and maybe Sims thereafter, in which Druitt is catapulted to chief suspect status, was never seen by other policemen.

    So, it makes perfect sense that Littlechild is scratching his head, in 1913, perplexed over 'Dr D', a middle-aged medico who was the subject of serious police agitation in 1888, and thinks: surely Sims must mean 'Dr T' -- in garbled form. That bloody Anderson, feeding this celebrity and well-known do-gooder with self-serving, inaccurate info!?

    Then why did Sims not exploit the Tumblety scoop -- ever?

    Either because he was in on it with Macnghten to hide Druitt in a Tumbletyesque cocoon, or if not because Mac simply dismissed Littlechild as misremembering/confusing another minor suspect, Dr Tumblety, with the chief suspect; the very affluent, middle-aged, reclusive, asylum-vet, no family, and unemployed Dr Druitt of Blackeath -- who really was Jack the Ripper.

    Macnaghten may have cheekily inverted Sims' concern by saying, quite truthfully, that Tumblety did not commit suicide -- but Druitt sure did. That Littlechild is in the wrong: it is 'Dr D' not 'Dr T. The Etonian Schoolboy prankster, Mac, could have claimed that, yes, these two suspects were very alike -- when really he knew they were not -- and that the initials do rhyme.

    Leave a comment:


  • mklhawley
    replied
    Hi Jonathan,

    I can see why a man who was head of the Special Irish Branch knowing quite a bit about the Irish-American Tumblety. His memory after 20 years was quite detailed about the Tumblety events up until he jumped bail. It certainly is strange, though, how he then got it completely wrong. How could someone claim to not hear about Druitt, but then give some details about him? I think you're onto something.

    Sincerely,

    Mike

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X