Why Did Simms Write to Him?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris,

What I had pointed out was the reasons why his exit was not encumbered was because he could not legally be considered jumping bail until he fails to make his court date, and that was not going to happen until December. A warrant for his arrest would have then been issued. Him physically leaving country is the other way (and he did it), thus, they could only legally arrest him if they were following him AND were at the docks while he's boarding the ship. Scotland Yard, for every reason, believed that if Tumblety was going to attempt this it would be in Liverpool, because this was his usual point of entry/departure. Tumblety knowing he was being followed is the perfect explanation as to why he chose to sneak off in Dover on the English Channel.

Tumblety also published an autobiographical pamphlet in 1893, but these two had nothing to do about advertising for his business, as evidenced by him not doing his business. Why would one advertise a business that is no longer in operation? He was doing it for reputation as he enjoyed the twilight of his life.


To say publishing a pamphlet to counter Ripper assertions does not sound like the act of the killer is like saying Ted Bundy's interview with the press demonstrates he did not do the killing. It sounds exactly like a killer would do if his name was in the papers claiming he was the killer.

Sincerely,
Mike

Hello Mike

Yes editions of his autobiography in 1889 and 1893, as you say. Sorry but your Bundy analogy is not exactly apt. You don't think it's possible that friend Frank hoped to make a buck or two on the sales of his autobiography? He might not have been running and publicizing his herb medicine business any more but possibly he hoped to add some to his fortune. He was, after all, famous, after all that new publicity.

Best regards

Chris

[Jonathan H]

To Chris G

Dear, oh dear ...

When I wtote that quote by Mac about 'that remarkable man ...' who took his own life, of course he meant Druitt.

But who would have known that in 1913?

Only Mac and the Druitts.

Whereas, Littlechild would have naturally thought he meant Tumblety because it was 'believed' he had taken his own life too.

Well not 'too'.

Tumblety is the suicided doctor suspect, or so Littlechild seems to think -- and why would he think differently?

And who misled him to believe that tosh -- tosh which elimiated Andrew's trip? Perhaps Mac, who told Tom Divall that the murderer was a man who escaped to America?

Yes, Littelchild wrote a private letter to Sims, not a letter to 'The Times'.

But he was writing to a very famous writer whom he knew might use this scoop, though not necessarily Tumblety's name -- but he had to use the name to Sims or the bombshell he was confiding might not be accepted or believed (he might still it was Dr D).

It wasn't anyway.

What you also do not get -- and you are hardly alone -- is the potential agitation of Sims in that 1913 and 1914 period over this case.

Littelchild tells him he has never heard of 'Dr D' -- huh? -- but here is the sucided doctor suspect who severely embarrassed the Yard. You've been propagating a Yard-friendly yarn, you credulous nob! Blame that conceited Anderson!

Part of the 'drowned doctor' mythos which was the clincher detail -- and which Griffiths did not have and was thus Sims' big scoop -- was that the mad medico had 'confessed'.

He had confessed to doctors in an asylum that he wanted to kill harlots. Yet the penny-pinching state let him back onto the street. That's the real Ripper scandal, claims Sims in 1902.

In his 1914 memoirs, Mac totally undercut Sims on this point; that the real chief suspect had never been 'detained' in a madhouse. He uses another novellist, M. Lowndes, to debunk this point. It was part of his Cold War with Anderson, and he did not want any crumb left about 'Kosminski', a nothing suspect he had himself set in motion in the extant record.

In 1915, for the firt time Sims gets to mention 'Blackheath', and that the 'mad doctor' lived with his 'people' there, who noticed he was absent on the nights of the murders.

Are these 'friends' or family -- or neither?

Mac withdrawing the asylum detail is vital too because it is the reason the doctor did not work. If he had never been sectioned then perhaps he did work? What did he do?

You see if he worked, then the other element of the mythos, that of a mad recluse, also falls away. How can his 'people' notice he is 'absent' if he works every day, and perhaps goes out at anight like any mnornal adult would?

Unless he had a reason, an official reason, perhaps a voicational reason, to be in at night, and so on.

Without the asylum detail it begs the question, how did his 'people' or pals know or suspect he was the fiend in the first place ...?

That's a rhetorical question, ok.

[Hunter]

Reckon why Littlechild seemed to not be privy to all of the fuss over Tumblety in the American papers that clearly established the fact that 'Doctor T' was alive and well? Someone in charge of Special Branch would surely keep abreast of events in America considering the strong ties there to the Irish Independence movement.

Something just ain't right with that picture.

[mklhawley]

Reckon why Littlechild seemed to not be privy to all of the fuss over Tumblety in the American papers that clearly established the fact that 'Doctor T' was alive and well? Someone in charge of Special Branch would surely keep abreast of events in America considering the strong ties there to the Irish Independence movement.

Something just ain't right with that picture.

Hi Hunter,

Excellent point. For me, it's a non-issue specific to Littlechild being approached by Simms as an authority on the ripper murders and Littlechild considering Tumblety a significant suspect, but there are a few things to take into consideration.

First, this letter is a quarter of a century after the murders, which is why I am so surprised Littlechild recalls so many accurate details about Tumblety. Maybe he mixed up the drowning part by this time.

Second, I believe most of us agree Littlechild was not in charge of the office directly responsible for the Whitechapel killings, yet was clearly privy to the latest investigations at the time (Simms certainly thought so and he was buddies with Mac). In view of this, his concern for Tumblety after leaving British soil was most-likely minimal.

Third, when I look at the 1888 US newspapers, the Americans at the time received their British news from these papers and not from British papers. There is a page dedicated to European news. On the flip side, I'm sure the British received their US news from British papers (keeping in mind instant TV or internet news was unavailable), and we already know the British papers were not reporting anything on Tumblety. My guess is Littlechild and everyone else knew about Buffalo Bill, though, since there was no liability in that news.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jonathan H]

To Hunter

I agree with Mike, that that is an excellent counter-point.

How could Littlechild not know about, if not Andrews' trip, then intelliegnece about Tumblety as still very much alive back in the States. they had a huge file on him paparently -- di that just become completely inactive?

Here some possibilities:

1. Littlechild's memory genuinely failed him on this point, and he guessed that Sims had this aspect correct.

2. He was not as well informed as we think about such a transient, eccentric figure and accepted that he may have killed himself, because he was told as such by somebody in authority -- Mac is the obvious dodgy source here.

3. Littlechild knew that Tumblety did not kill himself but he felt contrained at dislodging this key piece of Sims' long-standing tale as not to completely embarrass the Yard (Andrews' trip) and/or so as not to completely embarrass Sims.

4. A rumour happened in 1889 that Tumblety killed himself. It was shown to be spurious, but it has stubbornly lodged in his memory.

I don't think Littlechild would be foolishly making it up about Tumblety's sucide, since that could be checked by an affluent gentleman such as Sims, with his wide and trans-Atlantic contacts.

I subscribe to No. 2, but that could be quite wrong.

To Chris G

I have always mentioned Tumblety in my articles, the latest being 'A Pair of "Jacks"' which is to what the title refers; the fusion of Druitt and Tumblety into Sims' drowned doctor super-suspect.

It was the very first notion I ever had about this case when I watched 'Secret History' several years ago, about Tumblety, whom I had never heard of.

I was just stunned to discover that the likely fiend was not a poor, obscure wretch -- as I expected -- but a middle-aged doctor who had been arrested by the police. He absconded and the murders stopped (actually they didn't, but anyway ...) These were the very aspects so conspicuously and disappointingly missing from the real Montague Druitt; who was neither a doctor, nor middle-aged, nor the subject of a police hunt in 1888.

Nobody agrees here.

[Stephen Thomas]

For me, it's a non-issue specific to Littlechild being approached by Simms as an authority on the ripper murders and Littlechild considering Tumblety a significant suspect, but there are a few things to take into consideration.

Do yourself a favour, Mike.

It's Sims not Simms.

[ChrisGeorge]

To Chris G

I have always mentioned Tumblety in my articles, the latest being 'A Pair of "Jacks"' which is to what the title refers; the fusion of Druitt and Tumblety into Sims' drowned doctor super-suspect.

It was the very first notion I ever had about this case when I watched 'Secret History' several years ago, about Tumblety, whom I had never heard of.

I was just stunned to discover that the likely fiend was not a poor, obscure wretch -- as I expected -- but a middle-aged doctor who had been arrested by the police. He absconded and the murders stopped (actually they didn't, but anyway ...) These were the very aspects so conspicuously and disappointingly missing from the real Montague Druitt; who was neither a doctor, nor middle-aged, nor the subject of a police hunt in 1888.

Nobody agrees here.

Hi Jonathan

I am not surprised that nobody agrees. Look at it this way, Sims had been promulgating a version of the drowned doctor story for years before he was told about Tumblety by Littlechild in 1913. So how is "Sims' drowned doctor super-suspect," as you put it, "the fusion of Druitt and Tumblety"?

Of course, Tumblety was not a doctor. He was a quack. He only called himself a "doctor," claiming phony medical degrees and expertise.

When the idea arose early on that the Ripper could have been a doctor, the idea came about because of the mutilations rumored at first to be expertly done, as if by a surgeon. But Tumblety did not do surgery. He was a herb doctor, who did his work with pills and potions and not the knife. He indeed expressed an aversion to the knife and to doctors who used knives.

By the time Sims wrote the bulk of his writings on the case, Tumblety was forgotten about, probably even by the police, so it might be somewhat of a mystery why Tumblety would bring him up years later. He was just one of many suspicious men arrested during the case, apprehended by a police force who were desperate to catch an elusive killer. His importance ceased after he skipped out.

Best regards

Chris

[mklhawley]

Do yourself a favour, Mike.

It's Sims not Simms.

You know, I have a close friend who spells his name with two m's. Sims, Sims, Sims - I'll get it right soon. By the way, this is evidence that you are reading my posts!

Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

You know, I have a close friend who spells his name with two m's. Sims, Sims, Sims - I'll get it right soon. By the way, this is evidence that you are reading my posts!

Mike

Always nice to know.

Watch it, Mike. Stephen is counting the number of m's you use. Mmmmmmm.

Cheers

Chris

[Jonathan H]

To Chris George

So, since you did not highlight my point about Macnaghten's comments from 1913 being about the un-named Druitt, but misunderstood by Littlechild, inevitably, as being about Tumblety -- you agree now, you understand and agree, and that you were wrong in what you wrote?

Sims did not know that Druitt and Tumblety seemed to be fused together, that is what Littlechild was getting at -- so far as he understood it. Only Mac held all the cards.

In fact, having watched only 'Secret History' I did not know how close I was.

When I read 'The Lodger' I read the full Littlechild Letter for the first time and discovered two things.

1. Littlechild mentions that it was 'believed' that Tumblety had taken his own life, drawing the two suspects even closer together.

2. those elements: a middle-aged doctor who does not have patients and is not a surgeon, and yet is very wealthy, and is the subject of a police chase which is unsuccessful, were propagated by Sims, none other than the person to whom Littlechild wrote his letter.

I did not know those things when I had my notion watching the documentary, as they are not mentioned in it.

Oh, and I did not mean nobody agrees. Just not here.

Everybody agrees outside of these sites. Not to please me. I just hand over the material and they always come to the same [provisional] conclusion.

Tom Divall claimed in 1929 that Mascnaghten said that the murderer was a man who fled to the States. Arguably Mac did not forget what he was told and read about Tumblety, and elements of this suspect was rebooted for the Edwardian public.

It's not rocket science, though here I feel like Von Braun.

[ChrisGeorge]

To Chris George

So, since you did not highlight my point about Macnaghten's comments from 1913 being about the un-named Druitt, but misunderstood by Littlechild, inevitably, as being about Tumblety -- you agree now, you understand and agree, and that you were wrong in what you wrote?

Sims did not know that Druitt and Tumblety seemed to be fused together, that is what Littlechild was getting at -- so far as he understood it. Only Mac held all the cards.

In fact, having watched only 'Secret History' I did not know how close I was.

When I read 'The Lodger' I read the full Littlechild Letter for the first time and discovered two things.

1. Littlechild mentions that it was 'believed' that Tumblety had taken his own life, drawing the two suspects even closer together.

2. those elements: a middle-aged doctor who does not have patients and is not a surgeon, and yet is very wealthy, and is the subject of a police chase which is unsuccessful, were propagated by Sims, none other than the person to whom Littlechild wrote his letter.

I did not know those things when I had my notion watching the documentary, as they are not mentioned in it.

Oh, and I did not mean nobody agrees. Just not here.

Everybody agrees outside of these sites. Not to please me. I just hand over the material and they always come to the same [provisional] conclusion.

Tom Divall claimed in 1929 that Mascnaghten said that the murderer was a man who fled to the States. Arguably Mac did not forget what he was told and read about Tumblety, and elements of this suspect was rebooted for the Edwardian public.

It's not rocket science, though here I feel like Von Braun.

Hello Jonathan

Sorry but I don't agree. It's you who seems to have your wires crossed. Yes Littlechild writes that it was believed that Tumblety killed himself. But that doesn't mean that the Druitt and Tumblety stories were in any way fused together. They don't seem to have been fused for Macnaghten or his acolytes, so I am not sure why you see so much significance in Tumblety for your Druitt theory. Druitt killed himself... that's a fact, and that reality doesn't need Tumblety to add anything to make it a theory Macnaghten could latch onto. Macnaghten wrongly thought that Druitt was a doctor. He wasn't though he was the son of a doctor.

Littlechild saying Tumblety did away with himself is a convenient way to end his discussion of the American quack, even if he believed it... it also explains why the murders stopped if that "likely" suspect did the crimes. So it's as much of a slapdash statement as the bad information that Macnaghten presents as the supposed "truth" about Kosminski, Ostrog, and Druitt.

All the best

Chris

[Jonathan H]

To Chris G

You are not addressing what I wrote before, but i am sued to that, so you never address the argument I am putting.

Sims wrote about a figure who is partly Tumbletyesque, his source being Macnaghten who knew it all. Littlechild noticed this and called him on it.

Your claiming that Mac did not know the real Druitt is a theory, not a fact.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

George R. Sims had obviously asked Littlechild about a "Dr. D."

You blithely assume Sims meant Druitt.

If Sims had picked up on the name Druitt, why, in 1913, did he not know that he wasn't a doctor?

Regards,

Simon

[ChrisGeorge]

Your claiming that Mac did not know the real Druitt is a theory, not a fact.

Mac gets the facts wrong. That's a fact, not a theory.

[Jonathan H]

To Chris G


I did not write about Mac and the 'facts'.

I wrote that your assumption that Macnaghten did not know the real Druitt is a theory regarding contradictory sources.

It's a long-standing theory not a fact, leaving to one side whether it is a strong or weak one.

It's a long-standing theory which has become accepted as fact, but it is not a fact.

I am not denying that Mac told Griffiths and Sims things which were not true about Druitt, but in his memoirs he either did not confirm what he had told them, or he specifically retracted them -- like the asylum detail and the police hunt.

Mac knew about the real Druitt, in my opinion.

He had in Henry Farquharson the perfect, clubby contact from the Old Boy Net, who knew the family as both near-enighbours and from constituency business -- and the MP had learned their terrible secret.

It had leaked in 1891, and was refrred to again in 1892.

When it returned in 1898 as the semi-official solution the tale had been altered -- whether by accident or design -- and rendered libel-proof.

These are also facts, Chris.

the question is: by accident or design?

When the Druitt family read about their tragic sibling in Sims, in the 1900's, they were relieved to discover -- if they did not already know what was coming -- that Mad Montie had been rendered unrecognisable as he had been in Griffiths.

Their family name was safe, among their respectable circles who would know that that they had a troubled, young member who 'also' took his life in the Thames -- but he was not a doctor, he was not middle-aged, he was not so affluent and reclusive, he had not been in an asylum, and he was not the subject of a police investigation.

Those with really long memories of the death and funeral of Montague would also remember that he did not kill hmself in November, but in December 1888.


Do you really believe that was all a fortuitious co-incidence for the Druitts?


That Macnaghten, far from being compassionate, discreet and diligent was really lazy, callous, and incompetent -- but his poor memory had saved them!


To Simon

We do not know who initiated that correspodnece between Sims and Littlechild?

It may have been the other way round; Littlechild querying who this sucided doctor was who escaped the clutches of the police by drowning himself in the Thames?

Whichever Sims did not name him, either because he thought he was being appropriate, or he was being pompous -- or both.

It made Littlechild -- I think irrritated by this 'Dr D' shell game -- alert Sims that he was being conned, conned he assumed, wrongly, by I-never-made-a-mistake Anderson.

But by witholding the name, Druitt, it left open to Littlechild that he meant 'Dr T': Dr. Tumblety, the genuine suicded doctor who was arrested but absconded.

Not a complete failure of justice as this prevented any more ghastly murders, and this swine may have been so broken that he took his own life.

You ask why didn't Sims know that Druitt was not a doctor?

That's the point of the fix: for him not to know. for him not to know that most of what he written about this figure is fiction, or fictional exaggaeration of the facts

How could Sims know? The Druitts were not famous people.

Dan Farson could barely find Druitt with the name in 1959, as he had to wade through the same fictional cocoon not knowing it was one -- and even wondered if he was real (the answer was mostly 'no', if you had access to all of Sims' writings and Farson did not).

Oh, sure if Sims really tried to find 'Dr. Druitt' he would have, eventually, found the family, but why would he bother when he could not publish the name, nor should the name be published?

What's the point?

Remember, if Sims was not in on this fix, it would never have occurred to him that Mac was playing him.

Because being briefed by Mac, the Commissioner, was the research for a man who had famously and with much acclaim helped Adolf Beck, but did not concern himself with being a shoe-leather reporter.

He was a big shot and Mac played him like a fiddle.

Was Mac so deceitful? The surviving sources strongly suggest it, over and over.

That the definitive 'Home Office Report' seen by Griffiths (which he must have mentioned to Littlechild as he had done in public in 1903) was nothing of the kind. That document which Mac waved around, whether a draft or a backdated rewrite, had no bureaucratic status whatsoever.

By 1902, Mac is further fictionalising Druitt by turning him into a middle-aged, unemployed recluse who has tiwce been sectioned.

With friends and no family.

Another behind-closed-doors sigh of relief from the Druitts, as this profile spun evern further away from the real Ripper, who had held down two jobs and was a champion cricketer.

By 1907, Mac is impressing upon Sims that the date of the body's retrieval was really in early November, not late December -- and he complied with this further fictionalization.

Sims would not feel callous, or see Mac as callous, because the fiend had no family and his friends already knew the horrible truth.

What about ... his patients?

Surely they would be aghast at recognising that the Ripper had his hands on them...?

Well ... maybe, and then again maybe he never had any. He certainly has not had patients for years and years before the murders.

The perfect fix: everybody is happy and everybody looks good, and nobody's toes are trod on.

And then Littlechild, ho knew about the Tumblety debacle, hurled a Fenien bomb right into the middle of this mirage.

But Mac could have dealt with Sims' panic soooooooooooooooo easily.

For one thing he could have said, truthfully, that Tumblety did not kill himself. That Littlechild, ex-special branch not CID, has grasped the wrong end of the stick, and was ignorant of the 'drowned doctor' super-suspect (what he as ignorant about was that Sims' source was the wily Mac).

This would have mollified Sims, and so he never seed the great scoop, one of the greatest of his career -- exiled to a drawer!

But it also would have meant a proud, aged person admitting he was wrong, and that Sims had been hustled by his own charming chum, Tumblety style.

What deformed Ripper studies, from 1959, was not having full access to all of the Sims' writings.

Then the 'errors' in Mac's Report(s) would be seen in context -- Mac was making up a profile which would protect everybody -- and thus everybody would be satisfied.

Except 'Ripperologists' generations later, who do not understand any of this. Who are led down the garden path all over again ...