Correspondence from the 1980s concerning the 'marginalia'

[Stewart P Evans]

'Very'

...
Just curious Mike. Where, exactly, did Littlechild state that Tumblety, as a suspect, was "the most likely one"? You have placed quotation marks around this sentence, so it must be a direct quote from Littlechild, yet I have no idea where this direct quote comes from.
Littlechild did say that "amongst the suspects, and to my mind a likely one, was a Dr. T" but he doesn't state that Tumblety was "the" most likely one just that he was a likely suspect among others.
Wolf.

If you are going to preach accuracy then it would be wise to practise it yourself.

What Littlechild actually wrote was "...but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. ..."

I presume the omission of 'very' was a Freudian slip.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

My only problem with Tumbelty, is that he started, apparently known as an iatraliptic, yet over time becomes an insidious maniac. The two do not seem to converge, and seem diametrically opposite, perhaps?

kindly

Phil

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Just curious Mike. Where, exactly, did Littlechild state that Tumblety, as a suspect, was "the most likely one"? You have placed quotation marks around this sentence, so it must be a direct quote from Littlechild, yet I have no idea where this direct quote comes from.

Littlechild did say that "amongst the suspects, and to my mind a likely one, was a Dr. T" but he doesn't state that Tumblety was "the" most likely one just that he was a likely suspect among others.

Wolf.

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you seriously believe one investigation could not pull out four different incidences by mere interviews with the young renters? The dates most likely came from the detectives asking the young men when the offense occurred.

I have to ask do you know anyhting about how police conduct investigations and how they gather evidence and put a case together and the size of files in some major investigations. ?

Besides, you are saying Chief Inspector Littlechild twenty five years later pulled out the name of Tumblety from the hundreds of minor suspects to say, 'the most likely one'. I think not.

Well it would seem that Littlechild,Abberline,Macnaghten,Anderson and Swanson were all founder members of the "Magic Circle" as they all seemed to have pulled rabbits out of hats !

[mklhawley]

Do you seriously believe one investigation could not pull out four different incidences by mere interviews with the young renters? The dates most likely came from the detectives asking the young men when the offense occurred.

Besides, you are saying Chief Inspector Littlechild twenty five years later pulled out the name of Tumblety from the hundreds of minor suspects to say, 'the most likely one'. I think not.

[Trevor Marriott]

[ATTACH]12309[/ATTACH]

I beg to differ. Notice it was not three but four males and only one charge. This does not create a large dossier.

The dates of the offences were all different.

I dont think viagra was around in 1888

If this were just a part of a police operation then there would be a large dossier on the whole operation.

[mklhawley]

Of course one must not forget that Tumblety was arrested and charged with three offences of gross indeceny with a male person. The court records show that these were not all on the same day and looks as though it was as a result of a lenghty police operation which led to his arrest.

This is where I would suggest the large dossier comes into play and not a large dossier relating to The Whitechapel Murders. having regard to all of this and Tumbletys liking to males, another reason to question his viablity and the accuracy of Littlechilds comments.

I beg to differ. Notice it was not three but four males and only one charge. This does not create a large dossier.

[Jonathan H]

The argument that Tumblety was not a Ripper suspect at all, that it is just some tabloid beat-up in the States that somehow was absorbed by -- of all people -- Jack Littlechild, is terminally weak.

Plus, Tumblety is alluded to in the British press, just not by name. They had much more draconian libel laws to be wary of.

I subscribe to the theory that Tumblety was not only a Ripper police suspect in 1888, but the contemporaneous suspect.

In the Edwardian Era, a semi-fictionalised account of Tumblety's identity and Ripper status was widely propagated by the aristocratic George Sims, a celebrity jack-of-all-literary-trades: journalist, novelist, poet, playwright, left-wing activist, and amateur 'criminologist'.

This was, allegedly, 'the one and only Jack', and it consolidated the pop image of the fiend as an affluent, middle-aged, Gentile physician, though Sims' role in this mythos slipped into obscurity for decades.

In 1913, Littlechild was writing to Sims to make it clear that certain key details (eg. the suspect had been arrested, not was about to be arrested, as in Sims) were wrong in this profile. (Sims had claimed in 1907 that the alternate theory at the Yard was not the Polish Jew, but that of an American medico, but he had been young at the time of the murders and was alive long after, whilst the English physician suspect was older and instantly dead -- a surrealistic mutation of Druitt's and Tumblety's profiles.)

But what Littelchild does not challenge is the status of Sims' suspect, nor that he was a deviant medico, nor that he probably committed suicide after the Kelly murder. In fact, Littlechild seems to think that what Sims has been misled to believe is some pathetic, idiosincratic attempt by a conceited Anderson to dress up a CID debacle.

But Littlechild does not write that Tumblety was cleared, or was nothing special, or was just an eccentric footnote.

And he would need to, because Littlechild is writing not just to any journo, but to his social superior who is also the leading propagandist for the tale that the police were about to arrest the mad medico but he killed himself, the bloody swine!

That either Anderson, via Griffiths, has latched onto another medical man suspect -- some obscure nobody: 'Dr D' -- or it is a garbled version of Tumbelty, because 'T' and 'D' are phonic cousins (Littlechild was mistaken; Sims' lone source was Macnaghten, both via Griffiths, and via his affable self supplying further Tumbletyesque details from 1902).

It makes you wonder (or at least makes me wonder) that if Littlchild could mistake the 'Drowned Doctor' for Tumblety, then why not Anderson too?

[Stewart P Evans]

Irish Patriot

From the New York Daily Tribune -

[Stewart P Evans]

Of course...

Of course one must not forget that Tumblety was arrested and charged with three offences of gross indeceny with a male person. The court records show that these were not all on the same day and looks as though it was as a result of a lenghty police operation which led to his arrest.
...

Of course one must not forget that various newspapers and Tumblety himself stated that he was initially arrested as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders.

Of course one also must not forget that having arrested Tumblety for one alleged offence of gross indecency, the subsequent investigation may have led to the identification of the three further 'victims' and offences as opposed to being the result of 'a lengthy police operation which led to his arrest'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Tumblety on Ireland

It has been an assumption by Ripperologists that Tumblety may have been investigated for Fenian connections; based largely on Littlechild having knowledge of him and Inspector Andrews' trip to America in late 1888. These may be unfounded assumptions. I'm no expert on Tumblety, but my impression of the man is that the only cause he ever advocated was himself.

Tumblety on Ireland from "Kidnapping" of Dr. Tumblety, Cincinnati, 1866.

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree, you are no expert on Tumblety. I suggest you read Roger Palmer's three part article. To say that that Littlechild himself stating Tumblety had a large dossier may be unfounded is not truly understanding Littlechild's role at the time of the murders.

"...I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects,and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard."


Littlechild did not say 'dossier' he said 'large dossier'. Would a man suffering from a memory lapse say this? I think not.

Of course one must not forget that Tumblety was arrested and charged with three offences of gross indeceny with a male person. The court records show that these were not all on the same day and looks as though it was as a result of a lenghty police operation which led to his arrest.

This is where I would suggest the large dossier comes into play and not a large dossier relating to The Whitechapel Murders. having regard to all of this and Tumbletys liking to males, another reason to question his viablity and the accuracy of Littlechilds comments.

[mklhawley]

I did read Roger's three part essay and do believe Littlechild's assertion that there was a large dossier on Tumblety at Scotland Yard. As extensive as the ledgers are and with what was seen being in a redacted form it is certainly possible that any reference to Tumblety could have been missed. But, considering what is known about Tumblety and his activities, that could have been enough for Scotland Yard to acquire a considerable amount of information on him. He could have been a 'person of interest' for a variety of reasons.

But, as I stated and you readily agreed, Mike, I'm no expert on Tumblety and will, henceforth, leave that subject to those who are.

My point is a Chief Inspector in Special Branch at the time of the murders would not remember any person of interest for mere gross indecency charges a quarter of a century later. There is more to it.

By the way, I sounded condescending in my earlier reply to you. I apologize for that. I should know better.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Hunter]

I did read Roger's three part essay and do believe Littlechild's assertion that there was a large dossier on Tumblety at Scotland Yard. As extensive as the ledgers are and with what was seen being in a redacted form it is certainly possible that any reference to Tumblety could have been missed. But, considering what is known about Tumblety and his activities, that could have been enough for Scotland Yard to acquire a considerable amount of information on him. He could have been a 'person of interest' for a variety of reasons.

But, as I stated and you readily agreed, Mike, I'm no expert on Tumblety and will, henceforth, leave that subject to those who are.

[mklhawley]

It has been an assumption by Ripperologists that Tumblety may have been investigated for Fenian connections; based largely on Littlechild having knowledge of him and Inspector Andrews' trip to America in late 1888. These may be unfounded assumptions. I'm no expert on Tumblety, but my impression of the man is that the only cause he ever advocated was himself.

I agree, you are no expert on Tumblety. I suggest you read Roger Palmer's three part article. To say that that Littlechild himself stating Tumblety had a large dossier may be unfounded is not truly understanding Littlechild's role at the time of the murders.

"...I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects,and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard."


Littlechild did not say 'dossier' he said 'large dossier'. Would a man suffering from a memory lapse say this? I think not.