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

[Jonathan H]

To Tom

You pay me a big but unearned compliment to bracket my name with Mike and Joe Chetcuti -- let alone R J Palmer -- as some sort of expert on Tumblety.

I am nothing of the kind, in the sense that those fellows do original research into the dusty primary sources. I do not. My opinions, such as they are, are based entirely on reading through secondary sources; on standing, if you like, on the shoulders of others.

I suppose my one contribution to the field, regarding a primary source, is to carefully read in their entirety the -- arguably -- under-appreciated Macnaghten memoirs, which was about as much trouble as flicking on a switch [Nobody agrees with my revisionist interpretation of 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', so I am probably wrong anyhow].

[Supe]

Tom,

And how do we go about subscribing?

Full details at www.casebook.org/examiner

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

And remember, this time round you have to be a subscriber to get in on the fun.

And how do we go about subscribing?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Hi Wolf,

One more thing. Are you assuming the New York Time did not interview the Chief Crowley, or do the full San Francisco articles demonstrate that the NY Times merely copied them? The reason I ask this is because the New York Times articles seems to have additional information than your partail posts of the San Francisco articles.

Thanks,

Mike

[Supe]

Mike, Tom, et al.,

Yes, Examiner is due out on June 15th and yes, Roger J. Palmer's article will provide some strong challenges to the Tumblety myths, or perhaps "anti-myths," as the case may be.

And remember, this time round you have to be a subscriber to get in on the fun.

Don.

[mklhawley]

Thanks Wolf. Now, as I re-read the NY Times article that fact that the Chief of Police instigated the investigation makes sense. I have a question, though. Notice the following:

On Oct. 29 Chief Crowley sent a dispatch to the London detective, informing them that he could furnish specimens of Tumblety’s handwriting, and to-day he received an answer to send the papers at once.

You're take on it is that the New York Times merely got the date of October 29 wrong, and that the Chief of Police never did receive an answer from Scotland yard to send papers at once.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Notice at the time of the writing this article, Tumblety was in custody at Whitechapel and Scotland Yard had contacted San Francisco’s Chief of Police a second time in order to gain handwriting samples of Francis Tumblety… Also, it must have been quite the investigation to discover handwriting samples far off in a location (San Francisco) where Tumblety last visited nearly 20 years prior….

Also notice when Scotland Yard first contacted the Chief of Police in San Francisco, OCTOBER 29. This was well before Tumblety was first arrested on Nov 7, 1888. What is the significance of this? The arguments from those who claim Tumblety was merely arrested on November 7, 1888 for gross indecency, thus, was never considered a serious JTR suspect by Scotland Yard, must now be seriously re-evaluated. Now, one could say that newspaper articles always get their facts wrong, but one must then explain how the reporter came up with so many amazing details.

The problem with the above, Mike, is that the New York Times DID gets its facts wrong in the 23rd November, 1888, article.

Scotland Yard did not contact San Francisco in October or any other month looking for samples of Tumblety’s handwriting and Scotland Yard was not actively soliciting information about Tumblety. This can easily be proved by reading the San Francisco newspapers.

The Frisco papers, which actually interviewed Chief of Police Crowley while the New York Times didn’t, are clear about this point. Here’s a couple of examples:

“When the news of Tumblety's arrest reached this city, Chief of Police Crowley recollected that the suspected man formerly lived here, and he took the necessary steps to learn all about his career in this city.”
the San Francisco Chronicle, 23 November, 1888.

“When the news was received of the arrest of Dr. Tumblety a few days ago on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer, Chief Crowley instituted inquiries regarding his antecedents.”
the San Francisco Daily Report, 23 November, 1888.

The news of Tumblety’s arrest first appeared in print in San Francisco on the 18th of November and it was then that Chief Crowley took it upon himself to investigate Tumblety. Crowley also took it upon himself to contact Scotland Yard and offer samples of Tumblety’s handwriting, it wasn’t the other way around. This is just one of the many myths about Tumblety’s supposed connections to the Whitechapel Murders that keeps going around and around seemingly ad infinitum.

Wolf.

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh! I get it, Mike. I didn't know it was the 15th. Just don't forget to read my meager offering after you're done devouring RJ's.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Tom,

I did mean you. You had recently made a post on a different issue, and it seemed to me I was changing the subject.

According to Don, the Casebook Examiner, second edition, comes out on June 15. I was referring to Roger Palmer's article involving Tumblety.

Mike

[Roy Corduroy]

Am I correct in understanding that James Kelly impresses you because of his history of violence, versus Druitt and Tumblety, who were apparently non-violent?

Yes, Tom that's right. Violent and mentally unhinged. And his anger at catching VD from consorting with prostitutes at a most inopportune time - his courtship to Sarah Brider, the woman he wed, then murdered.

Roy

[Tom_Wescott]

Maybe it was Tully's book, maybe it's the revenge/insanity angle, but James Kelly clicks for me.

Tully's book was one of the first Ripper books I read back in the 90's. I haven't read it in full since that time (although I've skimmed it a few times) but remember being very impressed with Tully's detail and passion for the case. Although the book is now outdated, as many of the things he reported are now known to have been errors, it was really good for it's time. Am I correct in understanding that James Kelly impresses you because of his history of violence, versus Druitt and Tumblety, who were apparently non-violent?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

There is no question in my mind that Francis Tumblety, rightly or wrongly, was the chief suspect of Scotland Yard's CID in 1888, and remained so until the arrest of Sadler in 1891 -- which went nowhere.

While I don't believe this represents the general consensus on Tumblety any more, I'm looking forward to RJ Palmer's 2nd part on Andrews in the next Examiner, which might change my mind on a number of points recently brought up in Simon Wood's essay and the book 'Prince of Quacks', which I recently ordered and have only partly read. This and other recent research seems to suggest strongly that Tumblety at no time was a serious suspect in the Ripper murders. But I fully admit that I'm woefully underinformed on Tumblety in comparison to the likes of Hainsworth, Chetcuti, Mike, and others, and would be more than willing to add Tumblety back to my very short list of viable suspects.

This seems very much like an assumption to me, did Cadosch ever say this is what he was doing?

It's not assumption, it's inference. If I remember correctly, Cadosch equated his repeated visits to the backyard with his recent stomach surgery. Assuming the doctor didn't prescribe early morning gardening as a method of recovery, it's safe to assume he was using the privvy.

Excuse me Tom, but I need to address this.

You quoted Gman. Is his name also Tom? I'm assuming this was addressed to me, so let me say that the request for samples of Tumblety's handwriting probably had nothing to do with the Ripper murders, and certainly nothing of the kind is suggested by the article you presented, but anything is possible.

Anyone waiting for June 15!

What's June 15th?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

Oh no! Once again I find myself in Corduroy's 'Court of Roy'!

Ladies and gentlemen, you may be seated.

Tom, I find several of the police suspects suspicious. Not trying to knock them down at all. And get your man in the mix, by all means.

In the case of Kelly, presuming he actually was suspected of the Ripper crimes, he seems no different than the other 1000 men who were dragged in, looked at, and cleared in the year following the Nichols murder.

He was not taken in because they didn't find him.

Maybe it was Tully's book, maybe it's the revenge/insanity angle, but James Kelly clicks for me. And comparing him to suspects who police spoke of is apples and oranges. Aside from one in-house conversation we know of, there is no police talk about him. His name appears in no memorandum, memoir, interview, police letters, nobody dined out on this story. Because it was a very sensitive matter. He was escaped from a Home Office institution. If you get my point. He's not that kind of police suspect for a very good reason.

Actually, the biggest drawback to James Kelly being the Ripper is James Kelly himself. How did he stay on the outside all those years? By going about killing people? I doubt it. He flew under the radar, moving about, working odd jobs, sponging off friends. His worst crime might have been stealing eggs from a chicken house.

Still, to me, he's a contender.

Roy

[Jonathan H]

To Mike

I agree with you completely.

There is no question in my mind that Francis Tumblety, rightly or wrongly, was the chief suspect of Scotland Yard's CID in 1888, and remained so until the arrest of Sadler in 1891 -- which went nowhere. Beyond that, the American Confidence Man is, I believe, significantly behind the myth of the 'Drowned Doctor' in the Edwardian Era.

That is why I was astounded by the 1996 program, 'Secret History: The Whitechapel Murders' because it was not that this major suspect, Tumblety, was appallingly forgotten -- though he was certainly that too -- but because he was, in some ways, so FAMILIAR. That is: a middle-aged, deviant doctor who permanantly slipped through Scotland Yard's hands in 1888, and 'believed' to have taken his own life according to Littlechild.

[Adam Went]

Tom:

He did not look towards the fence and spent the entirety of the time inside the privvy, where he could not see anything but the walls around him. As for Le Grand's height, I'm willing to wager that the Ripper did not mutilate Chapman with his toes while standing up, thus must have been hunched over well below the fence line.

This seems very much like an assumption to me, did Cadosch ever say this is what he was doing? I highly doubt that he would have heard the "no" (unless it was loud enough for others to hear as well, i.e. Amelia Richardson) or been able to judge that the bump that he heard was actually a bump against the fence if he wasn't outside the privy at the time.

As for your last point, that's exactly what I've already said, either the Ripper was less than 5'6 tall or they were having the conversation in a kneeling/crouching/sitting/laying/bending down position. Not the actual mutilations, obviously.

After all, Denis Rader was not named as a BTK suspect until almost 30 years after the murders, but he turned out to be the guy.

Actually, yes he was. He was among a list of people who attended some university or college which the police investigated for the use of their facilities, IIRC they traced one of the communications to it. The details are a bit vague in my memory but he was definitely amongst the police files. It's quite regular that when a killer is caught, their name has already appeared in the police records on the case somewhere.

Cheers,
Adam.