Originally posted by Gman992
View Post
Excuse me Tom, but I need to address this.
I transcribed this from the New York Times November 23, 1888
SOMETHING ABOUT DR. TUMBLETY.
SAN FRANCISCO, NOV. 22. – Chief of Police Crowly has lately been in correspondence with officials of Scotland Yard, London, regarding Dr. Tumblety, who is at present under arrest on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders. The Chief, in pursuing his investigations, discovered that the doctor still had quite a balance in the Hibernia Bank, which he left there when he disappeared from this city, and which has never been drawn upon. Mr. Smythe of that institution says that he first met the doctor in Toronto, where he was practicing medicine in July, 1858. He next met him in this city, at the Occidental Hotel, in March or April, 1870, and then disappeared as suddenly as he came. In 1871 the doctor turned up in New-York. 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.
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. It certainly looks to me they considered him a serious enough suspect to attempt a handwriting comparison (From Hell letter?). 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. Were they merely making a case for gross indecency? Hardly.
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.
It is also interesting that many ripper enthusiasts 120-plus years later consider it a ridiculous notion for Tumblety to have been considered a serous suspect, when Scotland Yard certainly did. I place my credibility with Scotland Yard.
Anyone waiting for June 15!
Sincerely,
Mike
I hear what you're saying about Koz and Chapman, and as a matter of fact, just a few weeks ago, I was saying to Adam Went that Chapman was not a police suspect, but based on his points, and a re-reading of Sugden's section, I decided to change my mind. 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. Don't get me wrong, there's virtually no chance that Chapman was the Ripper, but the suspicion against him was firmer and came from the man who headed the Ripper investigations at the street level. 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. One of the factors that intrigues me about Le Grand is that he seems to have first fallen under suspicion in late 1888 or early 1889 and remained under suspicion and investigation for many years. 
Leave a comment: