-
-
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-4306.html as retrieved on 12 Feb 2008 22:47:07 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=uk
Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: dr tumblety interviewed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Tumblety, Francis > Dr Tumblety Interviewed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDAView Full Version : Dr Tumblety Interviewed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grey Hunter31st May 2007, 08:09 AM
Thread started to discuss Roger Palmer's incredible discovery of an interview with Francis Tumblety that appeared in the New York World of January 29, 1889. The article may be seen in the latest issue of Ripperologist.
Major points in the article are that Tumblety, according to himself, was initially detained as his description fitted one they had of the suspected Whitechapel murderer, but lacking hard evidence they were unable to hold him and reverted to lesser charges (for which they had some evidence) in an attempt to do so. Also he had actually been in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, was dressing in sober clothing and had been followed by the English police in New York on his return.
The importance of this piece, a lengthy interview with a genuine Ripper suspect about his arrest, cannot be overstated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
monty31st May 2007, 08:26 AM
GH,
Yes, this is a wonderful find by RJ. Well done Roger.
For me its the first major piece since the Littlechild letter.
Monty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jdpegg31st May 2007, 09:54 AM
Hi,
great work RJ! Fasinating piece.
I wonder why he would give the interview?
Jenni
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chrisg31st May 2007, 02:47 PM
Thread started to discuss Roger Palmer's incredible discovery of an interview with Francis Tumblety that appeared in the New York World of January 29, 1889. The article may be seen in the latest issue of Ripperologist.
Major points in the article are that Tumblety, according to himself, was initially detained as his description fitted one they had of the suspected Whitechapel murderer, but lacking hard evidence they were unable to hold him and reverted to lesser charges (for which they had some evidence) in an attempt to do so. Also he had actually been in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, was dressing in sober clothing and had been followed by the English police in New York on his return.
The importance of this piece, a lengthy interview with a genuine Ripper suspect about his arrest, cannot be overstated.
Hello GreyHunter
I second your accolades to RJ for turning up this significant article on this major suspect. Very well done, RJ! http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/ima...s/handclap.gif
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aspallek31st May 2007, 03:33 PM
Yes, great find, RJ!
Incredible that this item in a major US newspaper went undiscovered for so long. This find highlights the fact that we are really potentially on the doorstep of other such discoveries. As more and more newspaper archives are being digitized, I believe we can expect many more such "goodies."
Great work, RJ!
Questions:
1. Exactly what does "sober attire" mean? Dressing down? Dressing normally? Dressing formally?
2. Which witness descriptions would Tumblty have resembled?
This is probably discussed in the article but I subscribe to Ripperologist.
ed. - Just noticed the article is aviable here. I'll have a read a bit later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cd31st May 2007, 03:44 PM
I am definitely looking forward to reading more about this discovery. I also think that the phrase "according to himself" has to be evaluated with a critical eye. You would think that he would want to keep as low a profile as possible but then again that was Tumblety.
c.d.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cd31st May 2007, 04:02 PM
I started a thread some time ago (which went nowhere) in which I argued that if any Ripper suspect should have been able to come up with an alibi (assuming that he was innocent), it would have been Tumblety. I would imagine that he was a social whirlwind during his time in London and would be able to produce numerous witnesses who could testify as to his whereabouts on the nights of the murders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
supe -
31st May 2007, 04:16 PM
Jen,
I wonder why he would give the interview?
The man was an incredible publicity hound, pure and simple. and seeing his name in print outweighed any considerations of safety or propriety. As is said today, that the most dangerous place in Washington, D.C., is between New York's senator Chuck Schumer and a TV camera, so I would imagibe back then it was between Tumblety and a reporter. Indeed, I have always felt the best argument against Tumblety as the Ripper is that had he been he would have printed up flyers advertising the fact.
Don.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chrisg31st May 2007, 04:28 PM
Jen,
I wonder why he would give the interview?
The man was an incredible publicity hound, pure and simple. and seeing his name in print outweighed any considerations of safety or propriety. As is said today, that the most dangerous place in Washington, D.C., is between New York's senator Chuck Schumer and a TV camera, so I would imagibe back then it was between Tumblety and a reporter. Indeed, I have always felt the best argument against Tumblety as the Ripper is that had he been he would have printed up flyers advertising the fact.
Don.
Hi Don
As they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity. After all, Tumblety used his arrest in the aftermath of the Lincoln assassination for the same purpose, to drum up business. It should also be mentioned that all of the contemporary newspaper articles that mention Tumblety by name in connection with the Whitechapel murders are American press reports, so it would appear that it was the doctor's own publicity machine that was generating the articles. What a man!!!
All the best
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celee31st May 2007, 04:58 PM
Yes, great find, RJ!
Incredible that this item in a major US newspaper went undiscovered for so long. This find highlights the fact that we are really potentially on the doorstep of other such discoveries. As more and more newspaper archives are being digitized, I believe we can expect many more such "goodies."
Great work, RJ!
Questions:
1. Exactly what does "sober attire" mean? Dressing down? Dressing normally? Dressing formally?
2. Which witness descriptions would Tumblty have resembled?
This is probably discussed in the article but I subscribe to Ripperologist.
ed. - Just noticed the article is aviable here. I'll have a read a bit later.
I found this definition of Sober online, Lacking brightness or color, dull.
I have not read the article, so it is hard to read between the lines but if Tumblety was in jail at the time of the Kelly murder and he could not have committed the crime, then would he not have mentioned this in the article?
Your friend, Brad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PerryMason31st May 2007, 05:07 PM
Hi all,
I agree this is a fascinating find...although I feel from the summary you provided Grey, it would appear there is little new information contained within. We know he was in Whitechapel, have suspicions he was followed based on his profile including his medical knowledge, and we know Scotland Yard followed him to New York. It is interesting however to have his slant on things.
To answer your question Brad, it is entirely possible Tumblety was released the day before Mary's killing with an order to re-appear on the 14th, which he did.....then fled. These charges were for indecency though, not on suspicion of being the Ripper.
My best regards all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grey Hunter31st May 2007, 05:28 PM
Please read the article before commenting on it.
Tumblety did not go to the press with this story. Tumblety was in hiding at the time and it was the press that found him, thus he was unable to avoid an interview. He played it down rather than trying to make a big thing of it. And, despite what he said in the article, he did not repeat any of this in the book he produced later the same year, as Roger observes.
The article contains much new information including an incredible description of Tumblety. Please do Roger the justice of reading the whole piece.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celee31st May 2007, 05:35 PM
Hi,
Can anyone give me a definition of a Slouch hat, please.
Your friend, Brad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grey Hunter31st May 2007, 05:36 PM
The cover art, table of contents and sample article ("Tumblety Talks" by RJ Palmer) are available now at:
http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...t.2007-05.html (http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...t.2007-05.html)
Just want to congratulate RJ on a really, really incredible find - I'm thrilled Ripperologist decided to include his article as this month's sample piece on the Casebook.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tom_wescott31st May 2007, 05:36 PM
Here's a link to the essay in question so everyone can properly follow the discussion on this thread:
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celee31st May 2007, 06:01 PM
Hi,
Thanks for your responce Perry. I have read the article. A great find Mr. Palmer.
For years I have read post that suggest Tumblety was too flamboyant to have been the ripper. He would stick out like a sore thumb. However this would not seem to be the case, Tumblety claims that he was not dressed in a way to attrack attention. I think this is significant, proves Tumblety could blend in with the crowd.
I have read that Tumblety was not considered a suspect by the Yard. However not only does Tumblety claim that he was a suspect, he claims that the London police had no doubt of his guilt and that he was charged with the most horrible crimes. I guess Tumblety could have been overstating his importance. However I do not get that feeling from reading the article.
It is also interesting that Tumblety had on a small peaked cap the night he was interview.
Your friend, Brad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chrisg31st May 2007, 06:12 PM
Hi,
Can anyone give me a definition of a Slouch hat, please.
Your friend, Brad
Hi Brad
Most likely a wide-brimmed hat which might come under the description of a wideawake, Quaker, or cowboy hat. Have a look at the following Google images:
Probably less of an Australian type hat with chin stap than a cowboy hat we have seen in all the films. See also the Wikipedia definition of a "Slouch Hat" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slouch_hat) where a slouch hat worn during the Civil War is shown, which I would think might be similar to what the good doctor wore.
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PerryMason31st May 2007, 06:21 PM
Hello again,
Having been chastised before, I have indeed read the article courtesy of Toms link, thanks Tom.....a very interesting interview of an odd man, to be certain.
Now if only he was younger and shorter, for our purposes here.
My best regards all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aspallek31st May 2007, 06:22 PM
This is what I've always thought of as a "slouch hat:"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celee31st May 2007, 06:31 PM
Hi Brad
Most likely a wide-brimmed hat which might come under the description of a wideawake, Quaker, or cowboy hat. Have a look at the following Google images:
Probably less of an Australian type hat with chin stap than a cowboy hat we have seen in all the films. See also the Wikipedia definition of a "Slouch Hat" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slouch_hat) where a slouch hat worn during the Civil War is shown, which I would think might be similar to what the good doctor wore.
Chris
Hi,
Thanks Chris, didn't the man Sarah Lewis saw watching the court have on a wideawake hat?
Your friend, Brad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Comment
-
31st May 2007, 07:11 PM
Hi,
Thanks Chris, didn't the man Sarah Lewis saw watching the court have on a wideawake hat?
Your friend, Brad
Hi Brad,
He did. But that is the only part of that description of Mr Hutchinson that may have matched Dr T. When I first logged into discussions here I had some suspicions on this fellow myself, but I have to say thanks to some members here, and some of the witness accounts including Mrs Long, Mr Lawende, Mr Schwartz and Ms Lewis...the infamous Dr is far too tall, and far too old for a reasonable match. That is if anyone did actually see the killer before a murder. Which by estimated times of death would probably be Mrs Long, ("Dark" Annie Chapman) and Mr Lawende, (Catherine "Kate" Eddowes).
Not to say this is not very interesting stuff about a man many still consider a likely suspect, just that I wouldnt try too hard in attempting to fit him into any witness descriptions. Opinion of course.
My best regards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cd31st May 2007, 07:22 PM
Hard to believe that any witness would have missed the fact that he stood 6 feet 2 inches in his stocking feet and had a big ass moustache (not on his backside, just a figure of speech). This according to the article.
c.d.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ally31st May 2007, 07:37 PM
Please read the article before commenting on it.
Tumblety did not go to the press with this story. Tumblety was in hiding at the time and it was the press that found him, thus he was unable to avoid an interview. He played it down rather than trying to make a big thing of it.
I have to disagree with you here, GH. Tumblety was entirely able to avoid an interview. All he had to do was say, No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PerryMason31st May 2007, 07:38 PM
Hard to believe that any witness would have missed the fact that he stood 6 feet 2 inches in his stocking feet and had a big ass moustache (not on his backside, just a figure of speech). This according to the article.
c.d.
I agree with that assessment Chris. If any of the witnesses actually saw the Ripper, then its safe to put Dr T back on the shelf I would think.
My best regards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PerryMason31st May 2007, 07:48 PM
I have to disagree with you here, GH. Tumblety was entirely able to avoid an interview. All he had to do was say, No.
I also agree with that comment Alley...it seems Dr T was willing to offer his time and comments, not under arrest or forced to.
The guy had mucho ego, that much is known about him, and despite his claims that he dressed in less than conspicuous clothing in London, he is said to have worn Military uniforms at times....no, not a veteran or with any military training.., and disguised himself as an East Indian, facial coloring and all....so I think its possible that he may have just played down his eccentricities for this interview. He certainly doesnt come clean on why he was arrested either. If he wasnt gay, its only possible that he was bi, because he was caught "flagrante delecto" with 2 other men. Doesnt mean he hated women though.
This man became rich by lying to people...about his medical education, his "snake oil" linaments and his station in life, so how much truth is he really capable of?
My best regards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chrisg31st May 2007, 08:16 PM
Hi Michael, GH, Brad, et al.
From the interview:
"the doctor voluntarily came forward and made his own statement"
So it would appear to me he was not exactly backed into a corner and had to give the interview. Rather, I would say it was on his own terms and that he was orchestrating the situation. I strongly believe Joe Chetcuti's contention that everything Dr. Tumblety did had some intent and motive.
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grey Hunter31st May 2007, 08:39 PM
The point I was making was that the press found Tumblety, rather than the other way round. Having been found one presumes he agreed to give his side of the story rather than to refuse and see the press go ahead anyway with their own version.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ally31st May 2007, 09:22 PM
GH,
That's really not my interpretation at all. Tumblety wasn't necessarily in hiding, the press knew where he was and accorrding to the article, the landlady was quite capable of giving the old heave-ho to reporters and anyone else she didn't wish to see the good doctor. But then, Tumblety came forward himself independently of his own volition to be interviewed. In fact, I would say that he did it TO whip up more interest because the article even says that the interview came after he found himself no longer the object of interest and pursuit, hey, now's the time to try to whip them up a bit more, drag out the production as much as possible. If he had consented to be interviewed earlier, the reporters go away, keep them off, work up interest and then when it begins to wane, now's the time to step into the spotlight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
robhouse31st May 2007, 09:23 PM
The fact that Tumblety gave an interview like this, and also the whole tone of the interview suggests (to me anyways) that he was not apparently in hiding anymore. It would seem to me that the London police were no longer interested in him. This is supported in the article by the sentence:
"The police long since ceased to take any interest in the case, as it became evident that the English authorities had no evidence to hold the doctor."
It would seem to me that Tumblety's version of events is probably pretty close to the truth, except that he left out the part about being arrested for the "gross indecency" charges (presumably related to his homosexuality)... whcih I think it is natural he would not have wanted to publicize. I am not clear on why he was a JTR suspect, but his tone in the interview seems to be generally pretty honest. In other words, it does not sound to me like he was guilty, and the author of the article was also of that opinion obviously.
Rob House
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cd31st May 2007, 09:29 PM
I have said it numerous times befoe and will say it again. If Scotland Yard really believed Tumblety to be the Ripper, they would have moved heaven and earth to get him back to England.
c.d.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chrisg31st May 2007, 10:32 PM
The point I was making was that the press found Tumblety, rather than the other way round. Having been found one presumes he agreed to give his side of the story rather than to refuse and see the press go ahead anyway with their own version.
Hi GH
Yes, well, maybe. But having been discovered, Tumblety could have just disappeared again, as he was most adept at doing, as you know. You say that the press could have gone ahead anyway with their own version but the fact is that the story on Tumblety was as black as it could be -- he was accused of being the Whitechapel murderer. How much blacker could they make it?
So for some reason he chose instead to totally blow off the story and make Scotland Yard look inept and contend that the identification was only because he wore a slouch hat. So I would ask you why was that?
Is it possible that Tumblety was not the Whitechapel murderer at all but chose to take advantage of the situation, to inject himself into the Whitechapel murders for his own self-publicizing reasons?
Or is there is a darker story here, something to do with the Fenian movement perhaps, that he actually did commit the Whitechapel murders and that he and his colleagues wished to make the English police look incompetent and to make some sort of statement about the inadequacy of the policies of the British government?
Any thoughts on these divergent hypotheses, GH?
Best regards
Chris George
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PerryMason31st May 2007, 10:56 PM
I have said it numerous times befoe and will say it again. If Scotland Yard really believed Tumblety to be the Ripper, they would have moved heaven and earth to get him back to England.
c.d.
But they did follow him to New York Chris....if not on suspicion of the Ripper crimes, perhaps his alledged Fenian sympathies prompted that, but certainly not his "indecency" charges.
We know his alias that he travelled under, "Townsend", must have been some detective work there as well. I think its clear that they were interested in him...whether for the killings or some other reason worth the expense of sending two detectives on the Whitechapel Murder investigation to follow him overseas. Is there any other suspect we have that prompted an international chase?
I dont think he has a chance of being the Ripper anymore, but I do wonder why he was so interesting to them.
My best regards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie SevernComment
-
31st May 2007, 11:14 PM
I have only just read about RJ"s splendid find.My first impression is that Tumblety was being "set up" possibly, for the Whitechapel murders.If that so
then it could be some link we know nothing yet of to do with mercenary work possibly.
He talks rather similarly to Sir Edward Jenkinson,the Spy Master general of Dublin Castle who latterly appears to have had sympathy for Home Rule and Parnell.Jenkinson, fell out bitterly with James Monro over having "extra-legal"
informers-people taken from pubs to watch out for fenians["barmaids,pavement artists and bigamists" wasMonro"s expression].Jenkinson worked closely for the government and was more the traditional spy master and the other,Monro, was a Police Chief invoved in Irish surveillance work.
For years after they fell out in 1886, Jenkinson was bad mouthing Monro, and the police in general and he seems to have had friends in high places such as Matthews and Earl Spencer.He wrote to friends that the London police were corrupt,immoral,big drinkers,womanisers and accepting of bribes[not one would
refuse money and after the Ripper crimes he wrote that it was outrageous that they hadnt caught THe Ripper---etc etc .And some people seemed to believe it to have been close to the truth.One particular senior policeman seems to have spent a great deal of his time in a brothel whose "madame" was a police informer.
Its puzzling but in line with what some believed at the time.
Myself I dont see why Tumblety could not have committed the crimes.He was still going strong years later.He seems to have been strong.However
if he did it would appear he did the murders for money-a paid assassin.Cant see it somehow.
Thanks for a great article RJ
Natalie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tom_wescott31st May 2007, 11:15 PM
Hi all,
Just wanna chime in with my tuppence. Congrats on a great find, RJ and for having the smarts to get it out with your name on it before someone else found it. Of course this is an important find and I'd say valuable information is to be gleaned from it, not just from what the Tumster said but also from what he didn't say.
RJ seems to be convinced that the arrest Tumblety is referring to is his Nov. 7th arrest. I don't think this is necessarily so. In the wake of the 'Dear Boss' letter and Matthew Packer's nonsense, the public and no doubt the beat cops considered Americans to be rather suspicious. So the arrest he's referring to possibly occurred in October. Tumblety claims to have been 'dressed down' but also claims he was wearing diamonds that the police wanted to get their hands on, so I'd say no matter what he was wearing he'd naturally draw attention to himself.
It's not crazy at all that his hat and accent got him pulled in for questioning. The newspapers are full of this stuff. But it is ridiculous to think he'd be held for two or three days under such circumstances.
In the interview, Tumblety is talking about his arrest under suspicion of being the Ripper and Tumblety's November arrest was for gross indecency. I believe he was referring to an arrest that occurred in October.
So, the 'two or three days' he mentioned being under arrest does not in itself have any bearing on whether he was free to kill Mary Kelly or not. I would say the most important factor is this - Tumblety gave the interview to clear his name with the public as the Ripper (and promote his book of course). What would be a better way to clear your name than by pointing out you were in jail when a Ripper victim was killed? Tumblety didn't do this and that's probably because he was NOT in jail when Kelly was killed.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cd31st May 2007, 11:18 PM
Hi Michael,
If they followed him to New York (and that is debatable, the argument being that it was a cover story for a Fenian investigation, if I am correct) it was probably to cover themselves in case they turned up evidence that he was a strong Ripper suspect. Again, had they had real suspicions, they would not have let a New York City police captain stand in their way. My opinion.
c.d.
P.S. You seem to have me confused with Chris. Chris I ain't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PerryMason31st May 2007, 11:32 PM
Hi Michael,
If they followed him to New York (and that is debatable, the argument being that it was a cover story for a Fenian investigation, if I am correct) it was probably to cover themselves in case they turned up evidence that he was a strong Ripper suspect. Again, had they had real suspicions, they would not have let a New York City police captain stand in their way. My opinion.
c.d.
P.S. You seem to have me confused with Chris. Chris I ain't.
Hi Cd,
Thanks for your feedback, and sorry on the Chris tag. I think Tom makes a very good point too when he mentions the arrest for the charges in October...it seems reasonable that he was talking about that incident, not November.
Just as an aside, everyone is aware that he was accused of poisoning someone in Nova Scotia before that Fall trip? Add that to the Lincoln assasination rumours and we may have a nut capable of murder or of planning one. Could he have played some other role there? Not as the buyer of organs neccesarily, but might he have provided information to the killer, maybe inadvertantly, that assisted the killers knowledge of anatomy? Like a hospital clerk asking him questions, or someone asking his opinion on the killings and how or why they were done?
Just thinkin aloud.
My best all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ally31st May 2007, 11:48 PM
Totally random thought, but does anyone else, like me, read descriptions such as "he stood six feet two in his stockings" and wonder, How do they know that? Did they ask him to take off his shoes and measure him?
Anyway, feel free to pass this post right on by, I am just having a field day going through some of these articles with my metaphorical red pen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tom_wescott1st June 2007, 12:03 AM
I think Tom makes a very good point too when he mentions the arrest for the charges in October...
I want to clarify that I'm speculating as to an October arrest. As I mentioned before, Tumblety's November arrest was not about the Ripper murders yet he states he was arrested in suspicion of those murders though he doesn't say when. The most likely time for this to have occurred for the reasons he states is in October following the double event. Not only do you have Matthew Packer describing a man with an American hat and accent but you have Schwartz talking about a fair-haired man about 6ft tall. The police were taking in LOTS of guys on very little suspicion and there's no question that Tumblety draws attention to himself. His idea of dressing down for the ghetto is to wear diamonds for Christ's sake! But reading RJ's article I found myself thinking of the mid-October Lardy incident again.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cgp1001st June 2007, 12:20 AM
But it is ridiculous to think he'd be held for two or three days under such circumstances.
I must say when I read "Two or three days; but I don't care to talk about it" my immediate impression was that he might be exaggerating. Maybe it's a false impression, but if he was playing the martyr it must be a possibility.
I would say the most important factor is this - Tumblety gave the interview to clear his name with the public as the Ripper (and promote his book of course). What would be a better way to clear your name than by pointing out you were in jail when a Ripper victim was killed? Tumblety didn't do this and that's probably because he was NOT in jail when Kelly was killed.
I think this is spot on. We can't take Tumblety's statements at face value, but it's reasonable to assume he wouldn't make up lies that defeated his own purpose, and he wouldn't omit to mention crucial facts that supported it.
He was obviously concerned to proclaim his innocence, and also to ridicule the English police. What better way than to point out he had been in custody at the time of the final Ripper murder, if that had been the case?
Chris Phillips
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chrisgComment
-
1st June 2007, 12:46 AM
. . . Myself I dont see why Tumblety could not have committed the crimes.He was still going strong years later.He seems to have been strong.However
if he did it would appear he did the murders for money-a paid assassin.Cant see it somehow.
Thanks for a great article RJ
Natalie
Hi Natalie
Then the question is, did Tumblety commit the murders for some political motive, as you appear to think, or was he an honest to God serial killer?
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grey Hunter1st June 2007, 10:19 AM
It is nice to see the input here, some of it well thought out. However, a few fallacies and misinterpretations still seem to creep through.
First off, there was no need for Tumblety to be in hiding any more as Inspector Andrews had returned to England by this time. Also, as the piece states the American police had 'long since ceased to take any interest in the case.' Well, of course they would, as it was only the English police who had an interest in detaining him. And with no hard evidence for the murders against him added to the fact that he could not be extradited from the USA for the misdemeanour offences for which he had estreated his bail, there was nothing the New York Police could do. And, as I say, I am sure that Inspector Byrnes, as an Irish-American like Tumblety, wouldn't be too interested anyway. As Don Rumbelow originally pointed out, I am sure that initially the idea of the Scotland Yard men was that if Tumblety could be found in Canada, or tricked into going there, they could have arrested him as British law applied there. I am sure that Tumblety would have been too clever and would not have let this happen. It was not a question of 'a New York City police captain standing in the way' of the London police. What stood in their way was the fact they had no hard evidence for murder against him and thus no legal power to detain him - unless of course they could get him in Canada.
I think that Tumblety's words are most interesting and they require the closest examination. It is incredible to think that he admitted being in Whitechapel at the time of the murders - this alone is amazing. The fact that Tumblety claimed he had been arrested just because he was an American and wore a slouch hat is a strong indicator that his description was a large part of why he was detained. And, of course, it is par for the course for Tumblety to derogate the London Police - he did this with any who crossed him.
I am asked to speculate further on various ideas such as the Fenians, but I am not going to get drawn into hypothetical debates. I would only say that all the material should be examined and the individual should draw his own conclusions. I am not making the argument for him being the Ripper (he may have been, who knows?) all I am making the argument for is the fact that he was a genuine contemporary suspect - which is something others have gainsaid.
There can be no doubt, I would have thought, that Littlechild's initial interest in, and knowledge of, Tumblety would have been his suspected Fenian sympathies, and that his interest in Tumblety pre-dated 1888 by many years. This was Littelchild's specialised area of interest. Likewise, from surviving records and press reports, there can be little doubt that the main interest in following him to New York was that he was suspected in connection with the murders.
There is no evidence that Tumblety was arrested before 7 November, and no reason to think he was. There is nothing at all to indicate such an arrest. I am sure that the police detention that Tumblety speaks of is that in November, and as Roger ably describes what is indicated in other sources bears this out, for instance the issue of a warrant for him on 14 November, and his subsequent appearance at the 16 November police court.
The problem we have here, as with other theories, is that much of the argument is speculative. It often boils down to what is most likely and the simplest interpretation. I see Tom Wescott has now got Tumblety 'wearing diamonds in the ghetto' which is something Tom appears to have decided is a fact in his own mind. In the interview Tumblety produced the diamonds 'from an inside pocket', and they were just single diamonds not items of jewellery that could be worn. Even the diamond cluster ring with them was from his pocket. So he wasn't even wearing them in NY. I am sure that the London Police would have discovered these items in his pocket, if they were there, on his detention.
What I find more interesting is the fact that Tumblety stresses that, "There was absolutely not one single scintilla of evidence against me." This must be the reason for the police being unable to back up their suspicions with evidence. Initially they were probably sanguine of some sort of admission or identification, but there is no way that Tumblety would ever admit anything he didn't want to. His statement, however, makes it clear that the London Police had accused him of the murders, he said, "...I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded." Of course Tumblety was not actually charged with the murders, the words he should have used are 'accused of'.
Other aspects of Tumblety remain fascinating, and for those who would seek to make him 'Jack the Ripper' they are useful. These aspects were his known hatred of certain women and his alleged fascination with the womb, of which, I believe, Roger has found further evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Severn1st June 2007, 11:44 AM
Hi Natalie
Then the question is, did Tumblety commit the murders for some political motive, as you appear to think, or was he an honest to God serial killer?
Chris
Hi Chris,
I cant for the life of me think why,just sort of "out of the blue" he would kill five innocent London women who
were so down and out anyway as to be little threat to anyone.
There is the possibility ,as has been hinted at for many years now,off and on,that Kate Eddowes,Mary Kelly and even Elizabeth Stride,could have been police "informers"----just such as Sir Edward Jenkinson was accused by James Monro of employing.Monro"s phrase was,"Jenkinson"s circus of barmaids and bigamists".
And Jenkinson appears to have kept up some "spying/intelligence work after he was sacked in 1886/7.He also became pro Home Rule, pro -Parnell after that-possibly to spite Monro and Anderson!
Its possible too,that a man such as Tumblety who liked mixing with very grand aristcratic "toffs" such as Jenkinson had done some "work" for him-and continued to.
Its also possible that some of the five victims had "kept an eye out" for Fenians in pubs,which was what the work mostly entailed.
And boy did Sir Edward Jenkinson keep his cards close to his chest.This was the root cause of the hatred and mistrust between Monro and Jenkinson---so its entirely possible Tumblety may have done a bit of something for Jenkinson along the way without anyone knowing.
So lets suppose he had and it was discovered that one or two of the "barmaids" had passed information over to the wrong side?Had even started to blab publicly,when in their cups?Its a possibility I would think.
Its worth noting too that during his "war" with Monro,Sir Edward Jenkinson lost out and was sacked and became chock full of hatred towards Monro and Anderson---for example in Paris on October 20th 1888,he informed Michael Davitt of exactly who were Sir Robert Anderson"s spies,particularly the role Piggott had played in the forged letters to the Times.This on the eve of the Special Commission on Parnell that saw Piggott "outed" and committing suicide.
Jenkinson after his "sacking", not unlike Tumblety, also began to behave rather oddly- to don disguises.He went around in a wig and wore a false beard etc[see Fenian Fire].causing astonishment at his Gentlemen"s Clubs.
He was definitely unscrupulous, he proposed to a British ambassador in Washington that one the alleged Fenian assassin/conspirators ,Peter Sheridan ,should be "paid" to give information.Sheridan had fled to America after the Phoenix Park murders.
But in the end Chris,I cant help being persuaded that the Ripper was above all probably a serial killer who stole organs to relive the perverse pleasure he got from killing.
So if Tumblety might be proven to fit this profile then could it have been him,"acting out" his "extra legal spying" with something even more "extra-legal"-almost as a side kick ?
Natalie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Comment
-
1st June 2007, 11:58 AM
Grey Hunter,
The fact that Tumblety admitted being in Whitechapel is astonishing and really really important here.
Natalie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
caz1st June 2007, 12:23 PM
I think that Tumblety's words are most interesting and they require the closest examination. It is incredible to think that he admitted being in Whitechapel at the time of the murders - this alone is amazing. The fact that Tumblety claimed he had been arrested just because he was an American and wore a slouch hat is a strong indicator that his description was a large part of why he was detained.
What I find more interesting is the fact that Tumblety stresses that, "There was absolutely not one single scintilla of evidence against me." This must be the reason for the police being unable to back up their suspicions with evidence. Initially they were probably sanguine of some sort of admission or identification, but there is no way that Tumblety would ever admit anything he didn't want to. His statement, however, makes it clear that the London Police had accused him of the murders, he said, "...I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded." Of course Tumblety was not actually charged with the murders, the words he should have used are 'accused of'.
So for some reason, Tumblety must have wanted to admit that he was 'in Whitechapel' at the time of the murders, and to claim that he was actually 'charged with' them (as opposed to being 'accused'). This strategy certainly shows off his eccentric side, if his primary intent was to distance himself from the ripper crimes.
The effect of the word 'charged', intentional or otherwise, could only have made the police look even more incompetent, for actually charging a man with these horrific murders, only to have him slip through their fingers and put two fingers of his own up to them.
I suppose he must have thought honesty - up to a point - was the best policy. But I'm rather glad we don't only have this man's word to rely on for his status as a suspect, ripper or not.
Have a great weekend all, and very well done RJ!
Love,
Caz
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosey O'Ryan1st June 2007, 12:45 PM
Hi all,
I do believe that RJ is working on a sequel. It will deal with the finances of Dr T. and his financiers in Great Britain and the United States. Gosh, it should be exciting stuff.
Rosey :-))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
monty1st June 2007, 01:02 PM
Nats, Caz,
The fact that Tumblety admitted being in Whitechapel is astonishing and really really important here
So for some reason, Tumblety must have wanted to admit that he was 'in Whitechapel'
This, to me at least, indicates that Tumblety felt the Police knew that he had been in Whitechapel. That they had evidence. They may not have, but did he know this?
Monty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben1st June 2007, 01:22 PM
...Unless Tumblety considered himself so obviously in the clear at the time of the interview that he felt (knew?) than an admission to having followed the curiosity-seekers to Whitechapel wouldn't have incriminated him in the slightest?
Congratulations to Roger P. on an excellent find!
Ben
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Severn1st June 2007, 01:59 PM
Hi Monty,
Agreed.The police would appear to have known this information-he was no fool.
We dont know whether he was in Whitechapel when Polly Nichols was killed do we? That would be very helpful to know.
Natalie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cappuccina1st June 2007, 02:45 PM
After reading it, I have two very conflicting thoughts:
1. Either Tumblety moves to the "top" of the JtR suspect list; or
2. He was someone with a personality very much like John Mark Karr (the recent "faux" suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey case), and craved the attention the press and others were giving him vis a vis his being a possible suspect (and thus kept them "dangling on a string" so to speak)...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PerryMason1st June 2007, 02:47 PM
After reading it, I have two very conflicting thoughts:
1. Either Tumblety moves to the "top" of the JtR suspect list; or
2. He was someone with a personality very much like John Mark Karr (the recent "faux" suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey case), and craved the attention the press and others were giving him vis a vis his being a possible suspect (and thus kept them "dangling on a string" so to speak)...
Nice post Caps, and my vote goes for #2.
My best regards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CeleeComment
-
1st June 2007, 04:48 PM
Hi Brad,
I wouldnt try too hard in attempting to fit him into any witness descriptions. Opinion of course.
My best regards.
Hi Perry,
I agree Tumblety does not match many of the descriptions physically. However I agree with Grey Hunter, Tumblety must have been detained because of a description that was given led the police to suspect him. I would assume that the police would not have picked up Tumblety just because he wore a slouch hat. The description had to have more substance. I also think that the description had to have been given by someone who described a man, that led the police to suspect Tumblety, that he or she saw the night Kelly was murdered. I do not believe they would have brought him in because of a hat style or if they had not been able to place a man who they thought might have been Tumblety in the area or with Kelly the night she was murdered.
I am not real big on trying to read between the lines and we have to take what Tumblety said with a grain of salt. However he does make an effort to point out that he was dressing drab so not to draw attention. Maybe, here I go Perry reading between the lines, the description that led the police to Tumblety was that of a man who was dressed up a bit, who looked out of place. Tumblety pointing out the fact that he was dressing down may have been his way of defending himself against the description that was given.
Unless there was a witness that I do not know about I feel that any description that led the police to Tumblety would have been based on style of dress rather then physical charactoristics. He simply does not match any witnesses description. He was way to tall and wide. I wonder if Tumblety was wearing the same cloths that he had on when he was brought in on the 7th the night of the 8th?
I want to thank Mr. Palmer for his efforts. His find has got my mind thinking. I know that my friend Malta Joe probably is rolling his eyes that I am back on the case but it is fun.
Your friend, Brad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Rackstraw1st June 2007, 04:52 PM
Nats, Caz,
This, to me at least, indicates that Tumblety felt the Police knew that he had been in Whitechapel. That they had evidence. They may not have, but did he know this?
Monty
Yes,good point and isn't this rather similar to Hutchinson's seemingly odd confession that he was loitering outside Millers court for 45 minutes?
I suspect each had a similar motive.
Mick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PerryMason1st June 2007, 04:58 PM
Hey Brad,
Some sound thinking on your part , but as I recall there are some accounts of his wearing clothing, and face make-up, to "create" an impression. Like military garb, or dressed as an East Indian, complete with facial make-up and if Im n ot mistaken, a turban. I think if this guy looked "normal" at that time, or anytime, he intended to look that way. Which might raise the question why would he "down" dress?
My best regards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tom_wescott1st June 2007, 06:59 PM
I see Tom Wescott has now got Tumblety 'wearing diamonds in the ghetto' which is something Tom appears to have decided is a fact in his own mind.
Actually, I don't know that a single word of this interview is 'fact', but going off what it says then yes I suggest he was wearing jewelry in public.
In the interview Tumblety produced the diamonds 'from an inside pocket', and they were just single diamonds not items of jewellery that could be worn. Even the diamond cluster ring with them was from his pocket. So he wasn't even wearing them in NY. I am sure that the London Police would have discovered these items in his pocket, if they were there, on his detention.
Perhaps he wasn't wearing them in New York, but here's what Tumblety had to say regarding his London arrest: 'The doctor produced from an inside pocket two magnificent diamonds, one thirteen carats and the other nine carats, both of the purest quality, and a superb cluster ring set in diamonds. He said that, in his opinion, his arrest was due, in a measure, to the police desiring his diamonds and thinking they could force him to give them up.'
This states rather plainly that (in Tumblety's mind) the police approached and arrested him partly because of his diamonds. Assuming for a moment that one of the arresting officers was not the dope-smoking psychic Abberline of 'From Hell' fame who could see through clothes I take this to mean that diamonds were visible on his person. In fact, that is the only interpretation I see possible from this statement. If the diamonds were only discovered after his detainment, as you suggest, then how could they have been a factor in his arrest, as Tumbleyt himself states?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tom_wescott1st June 2007, 07:30 PM
There is no evidence that Tumblety was arrested before 7 November, and no reason to think he was. There is nothing at all to indicate such an arrest.
At the time I posted my idea that Tumblety was referring to an earlier arrest I was doing so out of what I considered to be reasonable speculation but, as you pointed out, had nothing to support it. However, I just noticed a press report quoted by AP Wolf over at Howard's site that does support my suggestion that Tumblety had been arrested prior to Nov. 7th for the Ripper crimes:
Williamsport Sunday Grit Dec. 9th, 1888
'After his arrest in London he was released on the Whitechapel charge for lack of evidence, but rearrested and held for trial for another charge.'
This clearly refers to two arrests, the first being for the Ripper crimes and the second his Nov. 7th arrest for indecency. As Tumblety in his interview is speaking of an arrest under suspicion of the Ripper murders for which he was released for lack of evidence, I'd again say that he's referring to an arrest that occurred earlier than Nov. 7th and most likely in October. Perhaps he was the Lardy suspect as discussed in Evans/Gainey's 'The Lodger'?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Flynn1st June 2007, 08:17 PM
'After his arrest in London he was released on the Whitechapel charge for lack of evidence, but rearrested and held for trial for another charge.'
This clearly refers to two arrests, the first being for the Ripper crimes and the second his Nov. 7th arrest for indecency.
Hi Tom,
Is it not possible to be technically "released" on one charge but held on another without leaving the station? In other words, it could be that even though these two arrests were for separate crimes, they weren't carried out at separate times.
Assuming the story in the Williamsport Sunday Grit (every house should have one!) was accurate in the first place, of course.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tom_wescottComment
-
1st June 2007, 08:28 PM
Sam,
That's a good point. What you're suggesting is that he was arrested on Nov. 7th for the Ripper crimes and then at some point freed of that charge and immediately re-arrested for the indecency charge?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Flynn1st June 2007, 08:40 PM
That's a good point. What you're suggesting is that he was arrested on Nov. 7th for the Ripper crimes and then at some point freed of that charge and immediately re-arrested for the indecency charge?
I'm almost certain that it would be possible, Tom. If Grey Hunter drops by he'll be able to confirm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baron1st June 2007, 08:46 PM
A few personal (but not legally binding) observations:
1. The Tumblety Interview reads very much like one of those 'true' Old West interviews with guys like Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson that weren't true, and probably weren't even interviews. I'm not saying it didn't happen. It just has that appearance to me of being made up.
2. If the interview is accurate, how can we even believe anything Tumblety says? He was a known charlatan who seems to have BSed his way across America and throughout Canada. His statement about being in London during the Whitechapel Murders sounds as if he is making a connection between them and himself to garner more notoriety.
3. To Tom's point re: the diamonds. If Tumblety's story is a real interview, and it is the truth, Tom's argument only makes sense. If the interview is created or Tumblety's story is false, then the diamonds are a moot point.
Cheers,
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tom_wescott1st June 2007, 09:09 PM
Baron von Mike,
Thanks for that. However, I see no reason to doubt that the interview was a real interview. Tumblety was in NY at that time and was a topic of sensation, so it's only natural reporters would seek him out. Also, the statements sound like vintage Tumblety, what with the promotion of his pamphlet and the showing of jewels and the fact that everyone but himself is to blame for his troubles. Also, being a consumate liar, Tumblety would know to build his fantasies around a foundation of truth, so there's certainly some truth to be found in what he told the reporter, but there's no telling which parts are lies or how much he left out. I think it's safe to say that if Tumblety is placing himself in Whitechapel at the time of the murders then we're safe at accepting that at face value.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baron1st June 2007, 09:27 PM
Tom,
I don't know about accepting Tumblety's being in Whitechapel at face value. He could have been anywhere in London during the murders. It appears to me that he was showing off in the interview. It is as if he is saying, "Yeah, I was there, but the stupid cops had nothing on me." I don't know the extent of the truth of his statements, but I know a bullsh**ter when I hear one.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celee1st June 2007, 10:30 PM
Hi,
I believe that Tumblety was a suspect and was in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. Littlechild names Tumblety as amongst the suspect. We have the interview were Tumblety puts himself in Whitchapel and then we have all the press coverage.
I see know advantage for Tumblety to make up a story were he is claiming to be a suspect and not only a suspect but a major suspect in the ripper murders. Tumblety claims that the police had no doubt about his guilt. I do not believe that to be true because I do not think that Anderson, Swanson and Abberline were convinced of Tumblety's guilt. However why make up a story, for notoriety?
Tumblety was a man who carried around testimonials to his charactor and yet we are suposed to believe that he deliberatly involved himself in the ripper murders. He was not claiming to have known the identity of the ripper. No, he was claiming to be the prime suspect. Why? He seemed to me to be upset about the backlash from is supposed invovment, no one has had a good word for me, he told the reporter.The interview reads to me like a man giving an excuse for being suspected and laying down an alibi.
Your friend, Brad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rjpalmer3rd June 2007, 12:41 AM
Thanks for the comments.
I like Chris George, and don't mean to single him out; indeed, I consider him one of the more amiable and reasonable blokes in Ripperology, but what Chris George and others evidently want us to believe is that Tumbelty somehow ‘injecting himself’ in the investigation for ‘publicity’ and thus became a ‘suspect.’ It is a somewhat uneasy theory, for elsewhere the profiling gurus tells us that ‘injecting oneself’ into an investigation is a major indicator of guilt! CG’s ‘publicity hound’ answer is simple, easy, and I dare say, post-modern. But ultimately is it really very well considered?
It is not an exagerration to say that John Littlechild was quite possibly the most important figure in Scotland Yard during the 1880s--certainly at the Inspector or Chief inspector level. He was involved in the investigation of the Phoenix Park Murders (undercover work) The Jubilee plot, the arrest of the dynamiter Gallagher, etc. etc., as well as many ‘normal’ criminal investigations. More importantly, he was a Chief Inspector with all the prerequisites that went along with that position. Because he had to testify in court, he needed a great working knowledge of the legal system, the rules of evidence, etc. The record shows that he was a highly efficient and intelligent officer, with a dim veiw of the press.
The contemporary news reports of the Whitechapel Murders are filled with examples of men wandering into London and being detained. They are filled with men battering women on the pavements of Whitechapel and Spitalfields. They are filled with examples of men speaking foolishly in pubs and being question by the police. They are even filled with ‘confessions’ of various men, including Dave O' Flaherty’s interesting fellow from Birmingham. The point is, none of these men went on to became serious police suspects, and indeed, the record shows they were invariably and quickly sniffed out and released from suspicion. None of these fellows went on to be named in a private letter by a Chief Inspector as a ‘very likely’ suspect. There’s the rub. Mr. George, if he is going to promote the ‘publicity hound’ theory would, in the very least, need to explain how this most intelligent and efficient officer Littlechild--head of Section D, nonetheless, -- came to focus on Tumblety as a ‘very likely suspect’ if it was nothing more than a man engaging in behavior that many other men engaged in. Ultimately, I think it is painfully obvious that there was something else yanking Littlechild’s chain. The idea that it can all be written off a ‘publciity’ stunt magically orchestrated by the Great Tumblety is not a credible explanation. It seems more akin to what one would expect to hear in an Agatha Christie novel than in a genuine police investigation. How many examples can anyone give of a physican going to the extraordinary and dangerous length of convincing the police of his involvement in a capitol offense? Is it really a credible explanationin in lieu of the obvious police interest in him, the exchange of telegraphs to the United States by the very Head of the CID (Robert Anderson) etc.? Perhaps, but I suspect otherwise.
To me, Tumblety is an interesting suspect because he flies in the face of all the standard truisms of so-called “sexual serial murder.” If he were to turn out to be the Ripper, 50% of what we have heard from Scotland Yard’s top brass must have been bollocks. 75% of what we know of the case is irrelevant (Lawende, etc.) and, finally, 95% of what the ‘profilers’ and psychologists are telling us must also be bollocks. To most, this is far too radical to entertain for even one moment. A six-foot-plus homosexual Irishman from the other side of the Atlantic that is pushing 60? Couldn’t be. And surely, we all know what we are talking about, don’t we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam FlynnComment
-
3rd June 2007, 01:46 PM
finally, 95% of what the ‘profilers’ and psychologists are telling us must also be bollocks.
Not strictly true, RJ - that's like saying "Well, great uncle Bert smoked 80 cigarettes a day and he lived to a healthy, ripe old age. Therefore 95% of what the Chief Medical Adviser told us was bollocks". That one individual (be he Uncle Bert or Tumblety) ends up at the thin end of the probability curve distribution doesn't render an entire theory invalid.
I enjoyed your post, by the way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cd3rd June 2007, 04:43 PM
It certainly appears that Scotland Yard gave up the chase with regards to Tumblety as opposed to finding a means to extradite him back to England. If he were that strong a suspect, I would expect Littlechild to say something along the lines of "he was pursued to America but because of legalities we were unable to bring him to justice." Jack the Ripper escaping to America and thus avoiding English justice doesn't seem like something that Littlechild would simply forget.c.d.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
caz4th June 2007, 05:11 PM
Hi c.d,
But of course, it wasn't something that Littlechild was in a position to forget, at least not in 1913: he didn't know whether Tumblety was pursued to America or not; he didn't even know that he had gone to America.
As far as he knew, Tumblety had managed to get as far as Boulogne and was never heard of again after that. He said that it was believed he had committed suicide in the wake of the final ripper murder - a pretty final way of avoiding English justice, I'd have to say, whether you choose to top yourself in the heart of Whitechapel or flee to Timbuctoo first.
In short, his intelligence (in both senses) told him that any pursuit of this particular suspect must have ended in failure, with the subject disappearing without further trace after reaching Boulogne, presumed destroyed by his own hand.
Love,
Caz
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
caz4th June 2007, 06:24 PM
To me, Tumblety is an interesting suspect because he flies in the face of all the standard truisms of so-called “sexual serial murder.” If he were to turn out to be the Ripper, 50% of what we have heard from Scotland Yard’s top brass must have been bollocks. 75% of what we know of the case is irrelevant (Lawende, etc.) and, finally, 95% of what the ‘profilers’ and psychologists are telling us must also be bollocks. To most, this is far too radical to entertain for even one moment. A six-foot-plus homosexual Irishman from the other side of the Atlantic that is pushing 60? Couldn’t be. And surely, we all know what we are talking about, don’t we?
I have to agree with Sam’s point, RJ.
In addition, it’s a bit naughty of you to go from a conditional: ‘if Tumblety were to turn out to be the Ripper’ (if a believable written confession were found, for example)… to saying that most of what we know of the case ‘is irrelevant’, and that 95% of profiling ‘must be’ the b word. You should have followed the rules and said 'would be'.
While I certainly can’t blame you for being over-enthusiastic, after waiting so long to publish this exciting material, it is surely no more than wishful thinking to suggest that Tumblety is capable - yet - of sending ‘standard truisms’ about murder tumbling. Isn’t he just as likely to be reinforcing a few standard truisms about attention grabbers, and be no more Jack the Ripper than any other bum bandit who managed not to attract the worst kind of attention to himself at the worst possible time?
Love,
Caz
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cd4th June 2007, 07:01 PM
"bum bandit"...is that a reference to...uh..never mind.
c.d.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Bug5th June 2007, 04:59 AM
Hi Brad
Most likely a wide-brimmed hat which might come under the description of a wideawake, Quaker, or cowboy hat. Have a look at the following Google images:
Probably less of an Australian type hat with chin stap than a cowboy hat we have seen in all the films. See also the Wikipedia definition of a "Slouch Hat" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slouch_hat) where a slouch hat worn during the Civil War is shown, which I would think might be similar to what the good doctor wore.
Chris
A 'slouch' hat for gentlemen at this time was simply any kind of soft hat with a wide brim, which could be turned down to cover the face. (As opposed to the hard-felted, structured hats all with shallow brims in the late 1880s). A trilby, for example, was a soft hat and considered very daring for gentlemen to wear - raffish. A slouch hat was synonmous with self-concealment. Sometimes with slumming among the lower social orders. And with 'bohemian' get-up. The width of the brim is difficult in Tumblety's case - because an American 'slouch' hat would be notoriously wider-brimmed than its English counterpart. Which was he wearing? American or English! There was a difference. You'll find many a reference in Henry James, Edith Wharton and so on to the easy identification of Americans abroad simply by the breadth of the male hat-brim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chris26th August 2007, 07:12 PM
This is a version of the original article:
Janesville Daily Gazette
14 March 1889
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham26th August 2007, 09:09 PM
Hi Chris.
Dr T comes across as a total nutter! So the police hunting the Ripper spent their time eating pies and guzzling free beer, did they? Certainly, more than one copper got fired for being drunk on duty around the time of the Ripper crimes, but the whole damn lot? Don't think so...
I kind of get the drift that Dr T operated on the time-honoured basis that 'any publicity is good publicity', and cashed in on it.
I assume that the 'stupid' Scotland Yard man who Dr T said followed him to New York was Inspector Andrews. So 'stupid' was Andrews that as soon as Dr T had wind of his arrival in New York he, Dr T, scarpered out of town. Notwithstanding the possibility (as I read somewhere but cannot remember where) that Andrews was in America regarding Fenian activities.
And is it just me, or does that sketch of Dr T resemble Frank Zappa???
Cheers,
Graham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Wood26th August 2007, 10:26 PM
Hi Chris,
A fascinating interview. Thanks for posting it.
Tumblety isn't on my list of suspects. I have only one. I've never had any interest in him, so it came as a surprise to learn that he had actually been charged with the WM.
Most interesting to me was his slant on London's Finest—dyspeptic, wooly-headed, full of potpies, beef and beer.
Sour grapes or an accurate depiction? Alas we shall probably never know.
Thanks again.
Simon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hawkes28th November 2007, 08:59 PM
"The pictures that have been published of Dr. Tumbley in London and New York give a very good idea of him."
have these pictures ever been found?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hawkes29th November 2007, 10:30 PM
http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics...er/19b.jpgjust found this picture of him.
he seems to look quite different in every picture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JMenges29th November 2007, 10:57 PM
That's his Walter Sickert disguise.
JM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Comment
Tweet
Comment