Why Did Simms Write to Him?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Jonathan

I think it's rather convenient that you think that Macnaghten's "mistakes" were to protect the Druitt family. You are only making the assumption that Farquharson and Macnaghten talked, which they might not have done. Rather, I think the converse of what you think. You think that Macnaghten was the master of the truth about the Ripper case, and Druitt was the killer. In contrast, I think Macnaghten and Anderson were part of the comedy of errors that played out at Scotland Yard and that none at the Yard knew the real truth behind the murders.

Best regards

Chris

[Jonathan H]

To Chris G.

No, it's not 'convenient' that I think Mac's 'mistakes' protected the Druitt family.

It's that Mac's mistakes DID protect the Druitt family and were thus very, very convenient for them.

I asked if you believe this protection was by accident or by design?

You did not answer.



Secondary sources on this subject have been crippled by not realsing that Mac's 'mistakes' inlcuded extra material he passed on to Sims, which are not in his Report(s).

Even then we can see 'family' (in 'Aberconway') becoming 'friends' in Griffiths and Sims -- that is the first step in protecting the Druitts and the police (potentially from a libel suit).

Facts are stubborn things. The family were discreetly obscured.

Clearly by design. To some extent.

Why not the rest of the profile too?

The 'West of England MP titbit appears in 1891.

When it returns in 1898, every bit is either added to, like the Thames drowning, or fictionalised like a surgeon's son becoming a middle-aged doctor, with concerned pals.

Except the date of the murderer's self-murder -- which is wrong. That is retained from one source to the next. Arguably Mac kept that date because it was safe, eg. because it was wrong.

Is it not reasonable that further added details, which were also not true about Druitt, were also added for the same reason? For protection of all concerned? (thus even the doctor element could be consciously fictional, especially as it begins life as 'said to be a Doctor ...' meaning might be a doctor, and then again might not be a doctor)

That Mac added elements, in Sims, which he knew were not true shows cognition of a fictional construct.

How do we know that he knew those details were not true, rather than misremember them?

Because in his memoirs, the critical primary source which does not appear in a number of secondary sources, Mac debunked that the killer had been sectioned (which means he may have worked and was not a recluse), he debunked that he was the subject of a police hunt, and he did not confirm the 'drowned doctor' mythos -- neither 'doctor' nor 'drowned' appear in 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper'.

[curious4]

Hi C4,

This is actually way off the mark. When they say the average height was 5 fo 8 inches, not everyone was that height. Height would have fit the usual bell curve with many people over 6 feet. Also, it was at a time when wearing hats was the norm. Check out any photo of the Whitechapel streets. To say someone the height of Tumblety would have towered over everyone is simple wrong. Also, it was the norm to wear facial hair in the Victorian Era. Tumbletly probably would have been more noticable if his did not have a mustache. It being big? Check out the photo of Tumblety on the front of Riordan's book. The mustache contoured his face.

Tumblety himself stated when he was walking the streets of the Whitechapel district during the time of the murders he dress as to not bring attention to himself. He would have never said that if he could not blend in.

To discount Tumblety as a suspect because of modern-day bias and misconception is simply foolhearty.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hello Mike,

New try! Amost can´t remember what we were arguing about now! Anyway - where did you get your average height from? The whole of Britain? London? Or the East End? Remember that many of the inhabitants of Whitechapel were poor immigrants, who would most probably be short of stature because of deprivation. However, not familiar with the picture you mention, but if he was sporting the gigantic `tache he is usually pictured with, I can´t see him losing it just for a trip to London - it wasn´t the moustache itself, but the size which would be conspicuous. If you read Jack the Ripper, an encyclopaedia, the author gives a much better argument than I can against JTR being Tumblety - it is really worth reading.

ChrisGeorge - writing a personal letter by typewriter was a definite no-no - extremely disrespectful. Even now (probably because of my advanced age) I feel guilty if I write a personal letter on the computer and Littlechild had such beautiful handwriting that I can imagine he was a stickler for the niceties!

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. Regarding height and American moustaches, have you seen the film clip on You Tube of Petticoat Lane in 1903? About 2.00mins in there is a (possible) American leaning against the wall sporting a moustache that would not have disgraced Tumblety.

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike,

New try! Amost can´t remember what we were arguing about now! Anyway - where did you get your average height from? The whole of Britain? London? Or the East End? Remember that many of the inhabitants of Whitechapel were poor immigrants, who would most probably be short of stature because of deprivation. However, not familiar with the picture you mention, but if he was sporting the gigantic `tache he is usually pictured with, I can´t see him losing it just for a trip to London - it wasn´t the moustache itself, but the size which would be conspicuous. If you read Jack the Ripper, an encyclopaedia, the author gives a much better argument than I can against JTR being Tumblety - it is really worth reading.

Hi curious4,

Yes, I am familiar with Jack the Ripper, an Encyclopedia (2001), and the arguments are only good for those unfamiliar with Tumblety. They are outdated, based upon misconception, and frankly wrong. Eddleston unknowingly created beautiful strawman arguments and those unfamiliar with Tumblety get easlily sucked into it. For example, he states, "There is no evidence of violence in his background [simply wrong, just ask the man who had a gash on his face to the bone thanks to Tumblety's cane], and although some of his contemporaries refer to his hatred of women, ..." Notice how Eddleston minimizes Chief Inspector Littlechild as a mere contemporary, a man privy to the Scotland Yard investigation who stated, but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record. This was repeated by private investigator William Pinkerton, a man who was not only familiar with Tumblety's past he was at Scotland Yard at the beginning of the murders.

Example two, There is no evidence to support this [Tumblety being in Whitechapel during the murders]. Firstly, just because Eddleston claims there is no evidence Tumblety was not in Whitechapel does not mean he wasn't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's wrong, anyway. Tumblety himself admitted he was in Whitechapel during the time of the murders. The purpose of this interview (for Tumblety) was to convince the American public that he was not the killer. It would have been the perfect opportunity to say, "I was never in Whitechapel and here's the proof", but he didn't and had to admit he was there.

Factor 4 is an example of a beautiful strawman. Tumblety was clearly 'arrested' for gross indecency charges and not 'on suspicion of being the killer'. He then did not get his facts straight, thus his argument is flawed.

"Tumblety was flamboyant, an exhibitionist, and a show-off. The Ripper was a totally different personality. Oh, Eddleston knows who the killer was, thus can claim who fits his personality and who doesn't? Rediculous. Also, to claim his public flamboyant show-off persona completely defines Tumblety is to have a huge misconception about the man. The flamboyancy only occurred in his earlier money-making days (it worked, because he made big bucks) and even then, his private life was exceedingly private. Try and find any flambouyant show off Tumblety events from the 1880's until his death in 1903, aside from a few donation events to clear his name. So, when was he an exhibitionist? I'd like to see that evidence.

The other arguments are just plain out of date or irrelevent. If this is what has convinced you, then I recommend some updated material and I'd start with Roger Palmer's article.

Sincerely,

Mike

[curious4]

Tumblety

Hello Mike,

Thank you for taking the time to reply in such detail. It was very lazy of me to use the arguments from the "Encyclopaedia" - my own arguments having been lost in transmission, so to say. Anyway, are you saying that Tumblety wasn´t arrested on suspicion of so-called "unatural practices". As far as I can see anywhere that was the charge.

My main opposition to him is firstly his height - all of the witnesses at the time describe a much smaller man - and you still haven´t said where you got your average height of 5 feet eight. My own opinion is that JTR was showing signs of being more and more out of control - the escalating mutilations, which seem to be the main aim, and that he would not have suddenly gone back to a seemingly "quiet" life. Even if not much is known about his later life, if Tumblety had continued to murder and mutilate it would have been noticed, surely. Also he was much older than the man decribed by witnesses. And why come to Whitechapel to murder - he could have found prostitutes in america.

So sorry, not convinced. If I were looking for an american JTR I would rather pick H.H.Holmes. He did kill for gain, but what went on his his "house of horrors" points to more than that.

Realised that this is a little "off-thread". In answer to your original question, yes, why would he? If it was in reply to previous letters, why are none of those preserved?. I think copies would have been kept of letters then and the Littlechild letter would have far more interest/value as part of previous correspondence.

Best wishes,
C4

[Hunter]

Littlechild hints that this letter was part of a series of exchanges between Sims and himself and the possibility that Sims had queried him about other crimes as well:

'Knowing the great interest you take in all matters crin(m)inal, and abnormal, I am just going to inflict one more letter on you on the "Ripper" subject....'

Sims may have covered several subjects during their correspondences. It does appear that Littlechild had grown weary of the exchange. He at first kindly says that letters are only a nuisance when they require a reply and ends it with the more curt, "It is finished".

It is interesting that the implication seems that Sims was referring to Griffiths as his source of information, but maybe it was in reference because Griffiths' writings on the subject were in the public domain. Possibly, Sims corresponded through Griffiths and not Macnaghten? And because Littlechild had known Griffiths 'for many years' Sims figured that Littlechild may have discussed a Dr. 'D' with him? Evidently from Littlechild's response, Sims mentioned Griffiths in some context related to this and not, apparently, Macnaghten at all because Littlechild's reaction and comment about Anderson would have been different.

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike,

Thank you for taking the time to reply in such detail. It was very lazy of me to use the arguments from the "Encyclopaedia" - my own arguments having been lost in transmission, so to say. Anyway, are you saying that Tumblety wasn´t arrested on suspicion of so-called "unatural practices". As far as I can see anywhere that was the charge.

My main opposition to him is firstly his height - all of the witnesses at the time describe a much smaller man - and you still haven´t said where you got your average height of 5 feet eight. My own opinion is that JTR was showing signs of being more and more out of control - the escalating mutilations, which seem to be the main aim, and that he would not have suddenly gone back to a seemingly "quiet" life. Even if not much is known about his later life, if Tumblety had continued to murder and mutilate it would have been noticed, surely. Also he was much older than the man decribed by witnesses. And why come to Whitechapel to murder - he could have found prostitutes in america.

So sorry, not convinced. If I were looking for an american JTR I would rather pick H.H.Holmes. He did kill for gain, but what went on his his "house of horrors" points to more than that.

Realised that this is a little "off-thread". In answer to your original question, yes, why would he? If it was in reply to previous letters, why are none of those preserved?. I think copies would have been kept of letters then and the Littlechild letter would have far more interest/value as part of previous correspondence.

Best wishes,
C4

Hi Curious4,

You debate with class and I wish we could all do it this way. I would like to go into a little detail to make my point. With regard to Tumblety’s arrest, Eddleston’s point is that the ‘pro-Tumblety’ position is he was officially arrested on suspicion of being the killer and not gross indecency, and that’s just plain wrong. He was OFFICIALLY arrested for gross indecency on November 7, released on police bail within 24 hours to face the judge on November 14, was a no show for the Nov 14 court date (at the Old Bailey Court House) so a court appointed arrest warrant was issued and was most likely arrested and incarcerated that same day (as per Dr. T stating he was in jail for a couple of days). On November 16, he was in front of the judge and charged with four counts of gross indecency and four counts of indecent assault with force and arms against four men (the ones on the charge sheet I posted). Bail was set for $1500 (or 300 pounds) most likely because he was a no show on Nov 14. That day, two men paid the bail. A hearing was scheduled for 20 November (most likely attended by Dr. T’s barrister, but not him) where a court date was set for December 10. Once he jumped ship on November 24 out of Dover, he had officially jumped bail.

As per Scotland Yard Chief Inspector Littlechild, New York Chief Inspector Byrnes, an official in Canada, and other sources, Tumblety was suspected of being involved with the Whitechapel murders, but at that time there was no direct physical evidence on anyone being the killer, since no one saw the murders in the act. This was a time prior to fingerprinting, fiber analysis, etc. Because of this, they could not arrest him for the murders, just like they could not arrest anyone. They decided to get him off the streets for at least a year with the gross indecency charge while they completed a more thorough investigation on him, such as sending Inspector Andrews off to North America. Andrews was not ‘chasing’ Tumblety across the Atlantic, since the decision to send Andrews predates his jumping bail (a big anti-Tumblety misconception).

There’s absolutely no problem with being unconvinced of Dr. T. It makes for great debate ideally for truth’s sake. My concern is when people have rejected Tumblety for the common misconceptions as Eddleston touted. Since you encouraged me to read those because you thought they were excellent, I concluded you were under these same misconceptions. Your last post clarified this.

The height concern… There were no witnesses to the murders, so it is only conjecture that the witnesses were describing the murderer. Also, if you take a closer look at all of the witness descriptions, they vary considerably. With respect to the average height, I believe it was the East End, but I will try and find my sources. There are a number of photos of the Victorian Era East End streets, even on Casebook, and you’ll see that a taller person would easily fit in. As I stated earlier, 6 ft 2 inches conforms to the bell curve pattern, so someone this tall would not look unusual –especially at night on the exceedingly dark Whitechapel streets. A 7 feet tall person would…at least during the day.

I definitely have no problems with you not convinced of Tumblety being the killer because of your educated opinion upon who the killer probably was. I enjoy your logic. I merely take the words of a Scotland Yard Chief Inspector working at the time of the murders over modern-day theorizing. Hindsight cannot be 20:20 in this case because we have no idea what evidence they were basing their investigations upon. Most of it is lost with time. This is why I’d take Tumblety over Holmes, since a Chief Inspector did not say Holmes was ‘a likely’ candidate for being the killer as they did with Dr. T.

With regards to the original question, it seems clear to me that Sims knew from other sources that Littlechild was in the know.

Thanks C4.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

Littlechild hints that this letter was part of a series of exchanges between Sims and himself and the possibility that Sims had queried him about other crimes as well:

'Knowing the great interest you take in all matters crin(m)inal, and abnormal, I am just going to inflict one more letter on you on the "Ripper" subject....'

Sims may have covered several subjects during their correspondences. It does appear that Littlechild had grown weary of the exchange. He at first kindly says that letters are only a nuisance when they require a reply and ends it with the more curt, "It is finished".

It is interesting that the implication seems that Sims was referring to Griffiths as his source of information, but maybe it was in reference because Griffiths' writings on the subject were in the public domain. Possibly, Sims corresponded through Griffiths and not Macnaghten? And because Littlechild had known Griffiths 'for many years' Sims figured that Littlechild may have discussed a Dr. 'D' with him? Evidently from Littlechild's response, Sims mentioned Griffiths in some context related to this and not, apparently, Macnaghten at all because Littlechild's reaction and comment about Anderson would have been different.

Intriguing thoughts Hunter.

[mklhawley]

I forgot, here's the charge sheet discovered I believe by Simon Wood:

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

The credit in this instance should go to Chris Phillips.

But thanks anyway.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Thanks Simon. I first saw it on one of your post.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Jonathan H]

To Hunter

Yes, that's possible but it is more likely that what Sims referred to was that he was quoting from the [allegedly] definitive 'Home Office Report' to Littelchild.

Yet Sims never claimed, at least in the extant record, that he had himself seen this 'Report' -- which named the Ripper as a middle-aged medico.

Sims' vigorous defence against critical letter-writers and a dismissive Abberline in 1903, was that he was reporting information which was already in the public domain -- put there by an officer of the state, Major Arthur Griffiths, who had seen the 'Report':

Dagonet (Sims) in 'The Referee', March 29, 1903.

' ... I was rather surprised to find high-class newspapers suggesting

Chapman as 'Jack the Ripper ..."

"Jack the Ripper" committed suicide after his last murder - a murder so maniacal that it was accepted at once as the deed of a furious madman. It is perfectly well know at Scotland Yard who "Jack" was, and the reasons for the police conclusions were given in the report to the Home Office, which was considered by the authorities to be final and conclusive.

How the ex-Inspector can say "We never believed 'Jack' was dead or a lunatic" in face of the report made by the Commissioner of Police is a mystery to me. ... The genuine "Jack" was a doctor. His body was found in the Thames on December 31, 1888.'

And then ...

Dagonet (Sims) in 'The Referee', April 5, 1903.

'But that several correspondents have forwarded me news cuttings, and that two or three newspapers have inserted letters questioning my statement, I should not have alluded to

The Ripper Mystery

again. It is argued that "Jack" could not have drowned himself in 1888, because there were murders in Whitechapel in 1891. ... A little more than a month later the body of the man suspected by the chiefs at the Yard, and by his own friends, who were in communication with the Yard, was found in the Thames. The body had been in the water about a month.

I am betraying no confidence in making this statement, because it has been published by an official who had an opportunity of seeing the Home Office Report, Major Arthur Griffiths, one of Her Majesty's inspectors of prisons. ...

I have no time to argue with the gentlemen, some of them ex-officers of the detective force, who want to make out that the report to the Home Office was incorrect. ... "Jack the Ripper" was known, was identified, and is dead. Let him rest.'


It is obvious from both Macnaghten's 1914 memoirs and from Sims' writings, mutually affectionate, that they were pals who were also both members of a gentleman's Crimes Club (as was Griffiths).

Sims did not mention Mac in his correspondence with Littlechild who was, inevitably and understandably, ignorant of Mac's role in all this.

Thus anything Griffiths might have told Sims he could quickly and easily check with Macnaghten.

It is a testimony of the Old Etonian and Tory, Sir Melville Macnaghten's celebrated affability that he could cultivate in Sims, who was a political/radical gadlfy against the police and the establishment, such a cosy friendship.

But from what he know about the real Druitt we can see that Mac also ruthlessly exploited Tatcho's credibility and credulity.

That is why George R. Sims' Edwardian Ripper prognostications are so vital as a primary source, and until now woefully under-appreciated in secondary sources; for they are a Mac source-by-proxy in terms of what he wanted the public to know and believe and also not know, about the un-named Druitt.

Also, from 1902, Sims had material that Griffiths did not.

In fact Sims had the scoop which we know was not in this 'conclusive' Home Office Report (actually the 'Aberconway' version, which had no official status whatsoever -- another Mac subterfuge).

After all, how did the 'friends' of the 'doctor' know, or suspect, that their fellow gentleman was -- of all things -- a maniacal murderer?!?

Because this real-life Henry Jekyll had 'confessed' to doctors that he wanted to kill and mutilate prostitutes; the 'doctor' was on record wanting to kill, he had been 'diagnosed' as a potential killer.

Therefore when the Whitechapel murders began the ex-doctor's worried 'pals' naturally feared that their rich, reclusive, unemployed friend was 'Jack'. Once Kelly was torn to pieces they finally, if somewhat belatedly moved to have their friend sectioned for a third time but he had vanished -- actually already a corpse in the Thames taking a month to float back to the surface.

Astonishingly, the police already knew about the doctor and were closing fast upon him to arrest 'Jack' but made the same discovery as the pals: he had disappeared. They did not need the pals to tell them any off this because their enquiry was so 'exhaustive and nearly successful.

In terms of identifying the murderer it was a success!

How did the pals keep tabs on their mentally unstable contemporary, when the latter had so much time on his hands?

Did they panic every time he was late coming back from one if his junats on an omnibus?

How did they know he was even on a bus? Did they live with him ...?

It's a flimsy construct that not bear scrutiny?!

The truth was, we know now, that this 'shilling shocker' was a veiled version of events that happened in both 1888, eg. Druitt's self-murder and his family's agony, and 1891, eg. the tale leaking to M.P. Farquharson, and then Macnaghten becoming fully and discreetly briefed about the story.

I have argued -- and nobody has provided a counter-argument -- that the asylum element of Sims' tale is Druitt's confession to a priest, who was either also a family member or passed this terrible revelation onto the family, otherwise the reaction of people to him being the Ripper -- 'in all probability'; 'doctrine'; 'belief'; 'knowledge'; 'solved' -- makes no sense.

In 1913, after Mac's retirement comments about a suicided chief suspect, Jack Littlechild was exposed to Sims' tale and it certainly made no sense to him, because the 'likely' doctor suspect, whilst he was under-employed, and had pals, and was middle-aged and was affluent, his being arrested and jumping bail was not a near success but an embarrassing debacle for CID and Anderson!

Whether Littlechild initiated the correspondence with Sims or not, in that final letter he pulled back the curtain on the Wizard and showed the famous writer that he had been misled.

It was one of the great scoops of Dagonet's career, and yet he never used it, probably because Mac the Smoothie reassured him that it was the 'wrong' suicided doctor.

[Jonathan H]

Arguably here is another person who -- like Littlechild -- mistook Anderson for being in favour of a variation of the medical man theory, yet the un-named crime writer, who writes about a sailor theory, also shows that he has read Mac's memoirs:

Empire News (U.K.)
23 October 1923

NEW STORY OF 'JACK THE RIPPER'
RASPUTIN DOCUMENT CHALLENGED

SPECIAL TO 'EMPIRE NEWS'

'Every head of police knows that Jack the Ripper died in Morris Plains Lunatic Asylum in 1902.

'He was sent there from Jersey City in 1899, and was, for a time, employed in the infirmary of the institution. He was not a "perma- nent"; he had fits of insanity, and I, who knew him as a patient, gave information to the Mulberry-street authorities concerning the patient's identity.

'He was not "wanted" in the United States, so the Detective Depart- ment of New York took no steps in the matter. A letter, giving the facts of the case, was sent to Scotland Yard, and as nothing further was heard of the matter it was allowed to lapse.

'The man was not a Russian. He was a native of Norway and had no knowledge of surgery. He was just a simple sailor suffering from an incurable and terrible disease ...'

'Against this theory, Sir Melville Macnaghten, Chief of the CID at the time, says in his memoirs:-

"'I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people; that he absented himself at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about November 10, 1888."

And in favour of the Russian doctor theory Sir Robert Anderson, who was Commissioner of the Police at the time, always maintained the view that the murders were the work of a medical man.'

[Stewart P Evans]

This document...

...
The credit in this instance should go to Chris Phillips.
But thanks anyway.
...
Simon

This document, PRO reference CRIM/1037 21927, was discovered by Andy Aliffe back in 1995 and I've had a copy for the past sixteen years.

[curious4]

Hi Curious4,

You debate with class and I wish we could all do it this way. I would like to go into a little detail to make my point. With regard to Tumblety’s arrest, Eddleston’s point is that the ‘pro-Tumblety’ position is he was officially arrested on suspicion of being the killer and not gross indecency, and that’s just plain wrong. He was OFFICIALLY arrested for gross indecency on November 7, released on police bail within 24 hours to face the judge on November 14, was a no show for the Nov 14 court date (at the Old Bailey Court House) so a court appointed arrest warrant was issued and was most likely arrested and incarcerated that same day (as per Dr. T stating he was in jail for a couple of days). On November 16, he was in front of the judge and charged with four counts of gross indecency and four counts of indecent assault with force and arms against four men (the ones on the charge sheet I posted). Bail was set for $1500 (or 300 pounds) most likely because he was a no show on Nov 14. That day, two men paid the bail. A hearing was scheduled for 20 November (most likely attended by Dr. T’s barrister, but not him) where a court date was set for December 10. Once he jumped ship on November 24 out of Dover, he had officially jumped bail.

As per Scotland Yard Chief Inspector Littlechild, New York Chief Inspector Byrnes, an official in Canada, and other sources, Tumblety was suspected of being involved with the Whitechapel murders, but at that time there was no direct physical evidence on anyone being the killer, since no one saw the murders in the act. This was a time prior to fingerprinting, fiber analysis, etc. Because of this, they could not arrest him for the murders, just like they could not arrest anyone. They decided to get him off the streets for at least a year with the gross indecency charge while they completed a more thorough investigation on him, such as sending Inspector Andrews off to North America. Andrews was not ‘chasing’ Tumblety across the Atlantic, since the decision to send Andrews predates his jumping bail (a big anti-Tumblety misconception).

There’s absolutely no problem with being unconvinced of Dr. T. It makes for great debate ideally for truth’s sake. My concern is when people have rejected Tumblety for the common misconceptions as Eddleston touted. Since you encouraged me to read those because you thought they were excellent, I concluded you were under these same misconceptions. Your last post clarified this.

The height concern… There were no witnesses to the murders, so it is only conjecture that the witnesses were describing the murderer. Also, if you take a closer look at all of the witness descriptions, they vary considerably. With respect to the average height, I believe it was the East End, but I will try and find my sources. There are a number of photos of the Victorian Era East End streets, even on Casebook, and you’ll see that a taller person would easily fit in. As I stated earlier, 6 ft 2 inches conforms to the bell curve pattern, so someone this tall would not look unusual –especially at night on the exceedingly dark Whitechapel streets. A 7 feet tall person would…at least during the day.

I definitely have no problems with you not convinced of Tumblety being the killer because of your educated opinion upon who the killer probably was. I enjoy your logic. I merely take the words of a Scotland Yard Chief Inspector working at the time of the murders over modern-day theorizing. Hindsight cannot be 20:20 in this case because we have no idea what evidence they were basing their investigations upon. Most of it is lost with time. This is why I’d take Tumblety over Holmes, since a Chief Inspector did not say Holmes was ‘a likely’ candidate for being the killer as they did with Dr. T.

With regards to the original question, it seems clear to me that Sims knew from other sources that Littlechild was in the know.

Thanks C4.

Sincerely,
Mike

Hallo again Mike,

Thank you very much indeed for your kind words. I do my best! Whether I believe Tumblety was JTR or not, I have learned something more and that is always to the good. I wonder a little whether or nor the news reports in america were coloured by Tumblety´s version - after all, "I was arrested because I was an american and wore a hat, as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders" does sound better than "I was arrested for romping with rent boys in the East End".

As for Tumblety v Druitt, I think that the official police version was in favour of Druitt. My grandfather was a police officer and the version I was given via my mother was that JTR was a young doctor who threw himself into the Thames. If we are to take the Littlechild letter on face value, it is logical that Littlechild would be predjudiced against irishmen and catholics and would therefore take the opportunity to implicate Tumblety. I do, however, have issues with Druitt´s suicide, as I have said before, on the grounds of the known habits of watermen and the levels of pollution in the Thames.

My own view is that JTR was to be found among "the highest in the land". If little Sir George could be exonerated from the enquiries purely on the grounds that people from his club vouched for him, to me that is proof that the "upper classes" were treated differently. No evidence for any of this, of course, but I think that there is at least a possibility that JTR was caught and put into a private mental hospital (possibly West Malling Place, which I knew well at one time, having had an after-school job there. Sadly I had no interest in JTR at the time) from where he escaped several times - London is easily accessible from there.

Just a theory and one of many - I may think completely differently in a year´s time!

Best wishes,
C4