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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[Supe]

Tom,

And how do we go about subscribing?

Full details at www.casebook.org/examiner

Don.

[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].

[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

It appears I found some of my answers. Below are reprinted San Francisco press reports found on Casebook. It looks like the San Francisco Chronicle began the Tumblety articles on November 18, but nothing was stated about Chief of Police Crowley offering handwriting samples until November 23. This is the same date as the New York Times article, so it seems that the New York Times and all of the San Francisco newspapers received their information from the same source. The October 19 date could very well be a misprint, because a San Francisco article merely states the 19th,most likely referring to November 19.

What is very clear, though, is even the San Francisco reports state that Scotland Yard certainly did want Tumblety’s handwriting samples, specifically, Henderson. This does support Tumblety being a JTR suspect. If he was not a suspect, there would be no reason for the samples.


San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1888, Pg. 1
GOSSIP OF LONDON.
A Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel.

[THE NEW YORK WORLD CABLE SERVICE; COPYRIGHTED, 1888 - SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE]
LONDON, November 17.
Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.




San Francisco Chronicle, 20 November, 1888, pg. 6
DR. TUMBLETY.
MORE ABOUT THE SUSPECTED WHITECHAPEL FIEND.
Posing in New York as the Friend of English Aristocrats--His Financial Collapse.
Clement R. Bennett, the well-known stenographer of the Circuit Court, knew Dr. Tumblety of New York, who has been arrested in London on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. In conversation yesterday in regard to the case he said…


San Francisco Chronicle, 23 November 1888
DR. TUMBLETY
THE LONDON SUSPECT'S CAREER IN THIS CITY

He Disappeared From Here and Left a Large Sum of Money in the Hibernia Bank.
The general and world-wide interest in the Whitechapel murders is probably exhibited in no greater or less degree in this city than in other places remote from the scene of the crimes, but the fact that Dr. Tumblety, the only man that the London police seem to be able to connect with the dreadful affairs, formerly lived here and that certain information concerning him in the possession of the police authorities may be used in clearing up his connection with the matter, may cause the public interest to be largely increased.
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. He found that Tumblety arrived here in the early part of 1870 and took rooms at the Occidental Hotel. He opened an office at 20 Montgomery Street, but remained in the city only a few months, leaving in September of the same year. While here he opened an account with the Hibernia Bank and left a considerable amount to his credit in that institution when he went away. This account has never been closed and the bank still has the money in its vaults. After he left Tumblety had some correspondence with the bank officials.
As soon as Chief Crowley learned these facts he cabled to the London police that specimens of Tumblety's handwriting could be secured if they wanted them. Yesterday morning the following cablegram was received:
London (England) Thursday November 22 - P. Crowley, Chief of Police San Francisco Ca.: Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety. ANDERSON, Scotland Yard.
The chief will have the correspondence photographed and will send it at once to London together with all the information he has been able to gather concerning Tumblety.



San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, California, U.S.A., 23 November 1888
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER.
Seeking Information in This City Concerning a Man Suspected of the Crimes.
Chief of Police Crowley has lately been in correspondence with the officials of Scotland Yard, London, regarding Dr. Tumblety, who is at present under arrest on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders. On the 19th inst. Chief Crowley sent a dispatch to the London detectives informing them that he could furnish specimens of Tumblety's hand-writing, and yesterday received the following answer from the Scotland Yard detectives:
Thanks. Send writing and all details you can in relation to him. ANDERSON.
Chief Crowley in pursuing his investigations discovered that the Hibernia Bank, which he left there when he disappeared from the city, and which has never been drawn upon since. Mr. Smyth of that institution says that he first met Tumblety 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. Tumblety rented an office at 20 Montgomery street where he remained until September, 1870, and then disappeared as suddenly as he came, and in 1871 the Doctor turned up in New York…


San Francisco Daily Morning Call, California, U.S.A., 23 November 1888
LONDON'S HORROR.
Something About the Antecedents of Dr. F. Tumblety.
A Local Celebrity Arrested in London on Suspicion of Being Connected With the Whitechapel Butcheries.
Since the dispatch from London, announcing that Dr. Tumblety had been arrested on suspicion of being connected with the Whitechapel murders, appeared in the local papers, Chief Crowley has been investigating Tumblety's antecedents.
He has ascertained that Dr. Tumblety arrived here in April, 1870, and stopped at the Occidental Hotel. He then opened an office at 20 Montgomery street and remained here until the following September, when he disappeared.
While he was living in this city he opened an account with the Hibernia Savings Bank and deposited certain sums, which he has not drawn out even to this day. The next heard of Tumblety, after he left here, was from New York in the following year.
WELL KNOWN IN THE BANK.
C.F. Smythe, an employe (sic) of the Hibernia Bank, was very well acquainted with the doctor. He first made his acquaintance in Toronto in 1858. In that city he was looked upon as an oddity. It was his habit to parade about the streets profusely decorated with medals.
Owing to his condemnable habits his practice gradually left him, until finally he was compelled to turn his hand to something else. While in this city it is said that Tumblety's morals were of the lowest order. The practice he enjoyed was confined almost entirely to the disreputable classes.
Specimens of his handwriting are still preserved at the Hibernia Bank. Chief Crowley, deeming that a copy of these specimens might be serviceable to the London detective police, telegraphed on the 19th inst., asking if they desired them. Yesterday he received a dispatch from Henderson, Chief of the London detective force, stating that they would be very thankful for the specimens, and requesting that they be sent.

San Francisco Daily Report (US), San Francisco, California, 23 November 1888
Dr. Tumblety
San Francisco's Knowledge of the
Alleged Whitechapel Fiend

An Offer From Chief Crowley Eagerly
Accepted by Scotland Yard - Persons
In This City Who Knew the Eccentric
Quack Many Years Ago.
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.
Tumblety arrived in this city in the spring of 1870 from Toronto Canada, and practiced medicine for a few months. He opened an account with the Hibernia Bank in the name of Francis Tumblety, and when he left a few months later there was a large balance to his credit. It had never been called for.
His handrwiting was found in the books of the bank and Chief Crowley telegraphed to Scotland Yard asking whether a sample of his handwriting or signature was required. Yesterday he received a reply requesting that the handwriting and all information regarding Tumblety be sent at once. Should the writing not be detachable, a photograph will be taken and sent to London.
Tumblety while here, occupied an office at 20 Montgomery Street, and was noted for his eccentricity and mysterious manners. He kept but little company, dressed in a peculiar fashion, and wandered about the purlieus of the city at all hours of the day and night. His morals were of the most degraded character and his reputation, generally speaking, was that of half crank half scoundrel. His practice was confined to the lower class of the community, but it is believed he made considerable money. In September 1870, he suddenly disappeared, and all trace of him up to his arrest was lost.
C.F. Smythe, an employee of the Hibernia Bank knew Tumblety in Toronto in the year 1858. At that time, Tumblety bore an unenviable reputation. He practiced medicine for a short time, but his habits did not inspire the confidence of his patients, and he was forced to turn to something else. At one time he would appear half-naked and the next would strut forth decked with medals.


Sincerely,

Mike

[ChainzCooper]

Whats up everyone,
I would say from the general JTR books and JTR suspect books I've read the two (don't have a third yet) that intrigue me the most are James Maybrick and James Kelly. I just recently purchased Jack the Ripper:Unmasked and from what I've read on the boards here William Bury seems like a strong suspect,considering the manner he killed and mutilated his wife. Has anyone read this book and what did do you guys think about it?
Jordan

No one has read this book?
Jordan

[Tom_Wescott]

I've read them all. I have the original 1995 edition of Bill Beadle's Bury book (say that three times fast!) as well as his most recent republication. I think the most recent version is overbearing and misguided and more or less sucks. Bury makes a horrible suspect. The Diary has been proved beyond the doubt of most of us to have been a recent hoax, so Maybrick is firmly out of the picture, and we've been discussing Kelly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChainzCooper]

Thats cool I wasn't really asking about The Diary but why do you think Bury is a horrible suspect?
Jordan

[Tom_Wescott]

Horrible might be an overstatement. It's just that there's nothing there to suggest complicity. A million guys killed their wives. He killed his in a manner that strongly suggested he had no skill with a knife. Very unRipper-like.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChainzCooper]

Yeah I think so to me horrible would be someone like Dr. Cream or that whole masonic conspiracy thing. Didn't he stab at her genitals in a similar way to the ripper crimes?
Jordan

[Supe]

Jonathan,

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].

You are too modest. You have added greatly to the literature and i am hopeful you will continue to do so. As for whether anyone agrees, keep in mind the popularity of the Sickert and Royal Conspiracy theories. Acceptance is not always a measure of acumen.

Don.

[Adam Went]

Tom:

So your "inference" is just because Cadosch had recently had surgery and happened to be in his backyard before he went to work, he must have been having toilet issues and was shut in his privy? Isn't that a bit of a leap of faith?

Don't get me wrong, I've got no doubt that he was outside to use the privy, but I doubt he was in there the whole time during which this "no" and bump against the fence happened. That doesn't make much sense. He could have been doing anything out there, having a smoke before going to work, checking something in the backyard before he left (like John Richardson did with the cellar door)...you name it. I don't think he ever specified?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Adam Went]

Checked it out earlier on, and apparently Cadosch heard the whispers of conversation and the "no" as he was heading back inside from his first visit to the yard, and then the bump against the fence on entering the yard again for the second time, 3-4 minutes later. No mention of his being in the dunny at the time of either event. This all fits together neatly, if only Mrs. Long had heard the clock strike 5.15 AM and not 5.30....

Cheers,
Adam.