Name your top 3 suspects with top 3 reasons why you think so...

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

I am still confused. The Casebook suspect page says that "Tumblety was then charged on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders on the 12th." I guess I am confused as to whether he was arrested just one time or was it two separate occasions. In other words, was he arrested (but not charged) on suspicion of being the Ripper, let go for lack of evidence, and then arrested again and charged with gross indecency?

c.d.

[mklhawley]

Also, Jonathan makes a valid point. We first need to separate the possibility of Tumblety being JTR with Scotland Yard considering him a serious suspect.

I believe the root cause to this particular controversy (Francis Tumblety being a serious JTR suspect in the eyes of Scotland Yard or not) for the last decade has been the brilliant writings of Wolf Vanderlinden. Before you think I am just sucking up, let me explain. For months I could not put my finger on why Wolf’s fact-based arguments did not convert me until Roger Palmer stated it so clearly. Wolf violated one of the tenets of the scientific process, the principle of parsimony (Ockham’s Razor), yet he crafted his arguments so well within the available evidence that it did not appear so. In other words, Ockham’s Razor means the simplest logical argument is most often the truth. Wolf clearly used primary sources to support his arguments, but in this case I believe parsimony was the missing piece.

Case in point on the principle of parsimony properly used in ripperology (by Wolf himself): The site of the ripper-like murder of New York City prostitute Carrie Brown (on the night of April 23/24, 1889) is smack dab in the middle of Francis Tumblety’s two places of residence and walking distance to both. At the same time of the murder, Tumblety was living in Brooklyn near the newly built Brooklyn Bridge (1883). Just on the other side of the bridge in New York City (.9 miles walking distance away) is Carrie Brown’s murder site. If one continues the northwesterly walk another 2.1 miles to Tumblety’s NYC residence, you’d be walking through the poor Whitechapel-type district of NYC (in 1889). All three locations are less than three miles walking distance from end to end! Even though Tumblety was in Hot Springs, Arkansas, about five days prior, he had ample time to take a train back to New York to commit the murder. With all of these surprising series of coincidences and even taking into account that Tumblety was also in the Whitechapel district during the murders, I am still convinced Tumblety did not kill Carrie Brown. Why? -because of Wolf Vanderlinden’s writings on Carrie Brown. In this case, not only are his arguments logical and fact-based with primary sources, he also followed the principle of parsimony. His arguments are the simplest.

In the case of Tumblety being considered a serious JTR suspect by Scotland Yard, specifically, did Dr. Anderson contact American Chief’s of Police to investigate Tumblety, notice what Roger Palmer states,

“Rather than an American police chief [Crowley] being ‘inspired’ by contemporary news reports of Tumblety’s London arrest, there is a far more simple explanation. Tumblety was ‘among the suspects’ in the Whitechapel murder case, so obviously there would have been a police investigation by the authorities in London.”

I never understood why a busy man like San Francisco Police Chief Crowley would voluntarily waste valuable resources on an idea he personally did not believe.

If someone does not understand the truth-searching power of the principle of parsimony, it is the filtering process in science when faced with multiple objective fact-based claims. Does it work? Proof is in the pudding. Notice the exponential rise in scientific discoveries within the last century.

If you have not read Palmer’s article, you need to. It is not a case of who’s right or who’s wrong, because this way of thinking misdirects the search to personal agendas of merely winning. It is a case of discovering the truth, and if Scotland Yard seriously considered Francis Tumblety as a JTR suspect, this is the path we need to follow regardless if he was JTR or not just as Jonathan was pointing out.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

I am completely confused here. It was my understanding that the only evidence for Tumblety being charged as a Ripper suspect came from a statement that he made to that effect. But I just looked at the suspect page and it said that he was charged and let out on bail before he fled the country. If that was the case, how could he have ever been let out on bail and most certainly he would have been followed would he not? And why did the New York police say that they couldn't extradite him because of the nature of his offense (which I take to mean the indecency charges)?

Somebody please help me out here.

c.d.

c.d.,

I think you are confuse with being arrested and being charged. Notice the following Article:

Rochester Democrat and Republican
3 December 1888
Special to the New York World.
LONDON, Dec. 1.--The last seen of Dr. Tumblety was at Havre, and it is taken for granted that he has sailed for New York. It will be remembered that the doctor, who is known in this country for his eccentricities, was arrested some time ago in London on suspicion of being concerned in the perpetration of the Whitechapel murders. The police, being unable to procure the necessary evidence against him in connection therewith, decided to hold him for trial for another offense against a statute which was passed shortly after the publication in the Pall Mall Gazette
TUMBLETY'S CAREER.


Under the rule of law, if someone pays bail set by a judge, officials are legally bound to let him go. The judge thought he was serious enough of a problem to set bail at $1,500, four years wages of a police inspector. Sadly, Tumblety was rich enough to work the system and pay the $300. Keep in mind, Tumblety had been honing his skills on getting out of tight legal corners for decades. Remember what Roger Palmer comments upon, American officials did not consider him a serious JTR suspect. Do we know that Scotland Yard did not try to extradite him on the gross indencency? Also, would that have been a public embarassment to spend the $25,000 (todays money) to extradite someone back to England?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

What 'mess'?

Dr Tumblety was the major contemporaneous Ripper suspect. That does not of course mean he was actually the murderer.

What R J Palmer has shown in his brilliant articles is that a strong, historical argument can be mounted that Anderson was anxious to investigate this suspect through various channels [why wouldn't he be?] and that the American Quack was arrested as a Whitechapel suspect, but charged with gross indecency.

Palmer's excellent point is to drop the word 'pursue' in favour of 'investigate' just as the British police did with Dr Cream. They are therefore not 'chasing' Tumblety, but trying to get information to understand him and see if it leads to further conclusions about him as 'Jack'?

Plus, is it really just a coincidence that the Edwardian image of the Ripper matches Tumblety in key features: a medical man, a 'deviant', one chased by police in 1888?

This is the whole point of the Littlechild Letter of 1913.

It is rudely stripping Sims' 'Drowned Doctor' of itss [un-named] Druitt-encrustations to reveal the real figure behind the mythos of the super-efficient police dragnet chasing the fiend who topped himself [two suspects fused together, one major and one minor; one believed to have suicided but definitely gone abroad, with one who was rumoured to have gone abroad but definitely suicided].

Arguably, Dt T has been there in front of us all along.

But maybe for not much longer !!

[Jonathan H]

What 'mess'?

Dr Tumblety was the major contemporaneous Ripper suspect. That does not of course mean he was actually the murderer.

What R J Palmer has shown in his brilliant articles is that a strong, historical argument can be mounted that Anderson was anxious to investigate this suspect through various channels [why wouldn't he be?] and that the American Quack was arrested as a Whitechapel suspect, but charged with gross indecency.

Palmer's excellent point is to drop the word 'pursue' in favour of 'investigate' just as the British police did with Dr Cream. They are therefore not 'chasing' Tumblety, but trying to get information to understand him and see if it leads to further conclusions about him as 'Jack'?

Plus, is it really just a coincidence that the Edwardian image of the Ripper matches Tumblety in key features: a medical man, a 'deviant', one chased by police in 1888?

This is the whole point of the Littlechild Letter of 1913.

It is rudely stripping Sims' 'Drowned Doctor' of itss [un-named] Druitt-encrustations to reveal the real figure behind the mythos of the super-efficient police dragnet chasing the fiend who topped himself [two suspects fused together, one major and one minor; one believed to have suicided but definitely gone abroad, with one who was rumoured to have gone abroad but definitely suicided].

Arguably, Dt T has been there in front of us all along.

[c.d.]

I should have added did the American papers get their story screwed up?

c.d.

[c.d.]

I am completely confused here. It was my understanding that the only evidence for Tumblety being charged as a Ripper suspect came from a statement that he made to that effect. But I just looked at the suspect page and it said that he was charged and let out on bail before he fled the country. If that was the case, how could he have ever been let out on bail and most certainly he would have been followed would he not? And why did the New York police say that they couldn't extradite him because of the nature of his offense (which I take to mean the indecency charges)?

Somebody please help me out here.

c.d.

[mklhawley]

...Ripper mentioned by name?

San Francisco Examiner
December 4, 1888

When arrested in London the English authorities telegraphed to San Francisco for samples of Tumblety's handwriting to compare them with the supposed writings of "Jack the Ripper."


That is where the Ripper was mentioned by name. Here comes another one:


Brooklyn Citizen
November 23, 1888

Is He The Ripper?

...Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison, he has boasted of how he succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police (Anderson) to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. (Brooklyn's Police Chief.)


Now, be absolutely honest. Did Anderson contact Campbell because Tumblety was facing a misdemeanor charge of gross indecency? Or did Anderson contact Campbell because Tumblety was a Ripper suspect? For those who need more time to think, just read the Nov 23rd Brooklyn Citizen report once again.

Gratitude goes out to Roger Palmer for informing us of these two news items in his latest article on the Casebook Examiner. Roger did not present his material as a "mess." I for one, understood his writing perfectly.


Sincerely,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe that wire was on Nov 22, which means it was a response to Crowley's Nov 19 wire, a probable response to Scotland Yard's request, at the same time they requested info from Brooklyn.

It's that 'probable' part that makes me wonder. We know Scotland Yard's response, and we know it was to an offer of information, but there's no proof of Scotland Yard initiating this. The Brooklyn link certainly supports your conclusion, so let's talk about that more. What is our evidence that Scotland Yard initiated contact with Brooklyn and requested info on Tumblety. And where, in all this mess, is the Ripper mentioned or hinted at?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

You might be right, but I'm not sure that's "clear'. The newspapers Roger quoted from state that there had been heavy correspondence - a statement he seems to take as fact, even though he demonstrates that the cable system was very slow and that in the space of only three days, heavy communication would have been impossible. Roger makes sense of this by suggesting the correspondence must have predated Nov. 19th by some time, although he offers no evidence of this. What he doesn't seem to consider is that the newspaper was wrong in how heavy the correspondence was. Three days was certainly enough time for Crowley to cable Anderson and for Anderson to respond, or vice versa. Seeing as how Anderson's wire was clearly a response, one might conclude that Crowley initiated the correspondence offering Tumblety's handwriting and info, and Anderson naturally accepted. Just a thought.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I believe that wire was on Nov 22, which means it was a response to Crowley's Nov 19 wire, a probable response to Scotland Yard's request, at the same time they requested info from Brooklyn.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, after reviewing the newly discovered evidence expertly presented by Roger Palmer in part two of his article, it is now clear that Scotland Yard (at the highest levels) initiated the request to San Francisco's Police Chief Crowley for handwriting samples of Francis Tumblety and not the other way around.

Conclusion: Francis Tumblety was a serious Jack the Ripper suspect in the eyes of Scotland Yard at the apex of the JTR investigation.

You might be right, but I'm not sure that's "clear'. The newspapers Roger quoted from state that there had been heavy correspondence - a statement he seems to take as fact, even though he demonstrates that the cable system was very slow and that in the space of only three days, heavy communication would have been impossible. Roger makes sense of this by suggesting the correspondence must have predated Nov. 19th by some time, although he offers no evidence of this. What he doesn't seem to consider is that the newspaper was wrong in how heavy the correspondence was. Three days was certainly enough time for Crowley to cable Anderson and for Anderson to respond, or vice versa. Seeing as how Anderson's wire was clearly a response, one might conclude that Crowley initiated the correspondence offering Tumblety's handwriting and info, and Anderson naturally accepted. Just a thought.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Well, after reviewing the newly discovered evidence expertly presented by Roger Palmer in part two of his article, it is now clear that Scotland Yard (at the highest levels) initiated the request to San Francisco's Police Chief Crowley for handwriting samples of Francis Tumblety and not the other way around.

Conclusion: Francis Tumblety was a serious Jack the Ripper suspect in the eyes of Scotland Yard at the apex of the JTR investigation.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Greetings all,

Part Two of Roger Palmer's latest article told of a San Francisco newspaper report that had never been posted before on the Internet. Joe Chetcuti has now provided us with that report:


San Francisco Examiner
December 4, 1888
Front Page


SHADOWED BY THE POLICE

Arrival in New York of the Notorious Dr. Tumblety.

(Special to the Examiner.) New York, December 3. - Dr. Francis Tumblety, who was suspected of having something to do with the Whitechapel murders, arrived in New York on Sunday. The doctor was held in $1,500 bail by the London authorities under a special law passed after the exposure of the Pall Mall Gazette. He jumped his bail, went to France and took passage on the La Bretagne at Havre.

Although he shipped under a false name, Chief Inspector Byrnes knew of his coming, and on the arrival of the French vessel the doctor was watched. A detective from England is also shadowing him.

Tumblety traveled a great deal in Europe. When arrested in London the English authorities telegraphed to San Francisco for samples of his handwriting to compare them with the supposed writings of "Jack the Ripper." He had always manifested a great dislike for women.

Inspector Byrnes said to-day that there was no charge upon which he could arrest Tumblety, but he wanted to know simply his whereabouts.



Joe mentioned to me that this newspaper report revealed the reason why Tumblety's handwriting was requested by the English authorities. To determine whether the correspondence was initiated by Crowley or Anderson, Joe recommends that people read Part Two of Roger's article. We will see that Crowley was not the only Police Chief in America who Anderson was in contact with during November 1888.


Sincerely,

Mike

[Adam Went]

Poor Hutchy. If he had never bothered to come forward on his own accord, almost certainly nobody would have ever known he even existed. Because he tries to do the right thing and come forward and offer his assistance, he's been villified for it for ever since.....like Druitt, I genuinely feel sorry for the man. No wonder more witnesses didn't come forward, if this is the sort of treatment they knew they were going to get....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Rubyretro]

ps -I just read the thread on Jtr's accent -I think that Hutch would have been used to being around 'posh' people, as a groom, and although he was working class, he could have got out a bit of accent/vocab which sounded a class above your average Whitechapel working class...maybe one thing which helped convince both those prostitutes & Abberline that he was OK