Was Tumblety Proven Innocent of the Whitechapel Murders?

[mklhawley]

I'm glad you broke these up.
we don't really know a great number of homosexual serial killers, especially ones that have the same personality as Tumblety
Actually most of the extremely violent SK's have been gay;John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Wayne Williams, Andrew Cunan. It is not as uncommon as the above comments try to portray. And again they didn't have the personality of Tumblety but all with the exception of Dahmer were extremely narcissitic.
A hetrosexual who kills gays is not as unusual either. That would be centered around racism and be considered a hate crime more than a sexually charged crime. Any redneck or KKK member in the US can attest to this.
What you don't see as far as I know is a homosexual male kill females in a serial killer fashion. Of course I'm sure there have been some homosexuals that have killed women as well as lesbians that have killed men. Aileen Wuornos comes to mind.
Very few killers outside of movies are never as flamboyant as Tumblety was in real life. He was more like Liberace flamboyant then most men of that day and apparently a clothes horse.
I'm not a psychologist and wouldn't claim to be. Since this is really all speculation at best I can say I don't see a narcissist like Tumblety even wanting to associate or visit the lower class of Whitechapel much less hang around and kill 4pence whores for sport.

Yes, I agree that some of your comments are speculation. What is not speculation is that Tumblety lived two separate lives, his flamboyant public life and his private seedy life. When you read all of the comments about his public life, such as entering a city on a horse and with some large dogs, it is in conjunction with his business. He did this for decades and made sometimes $100 per day. Early on he realized this flamboyancy made him lots of money. To say he did not hang out with the lower class just does not fit the evidence. He did not do it during the day, but he certainly did it in the late evening, as evidended by his four separate gross indecency charges in the Whitechapel district (also in NYC and New Orleans). Keep in mind, Tumblety had a store in the poor Whitechapel district. If he did not want to associate at all with the poor, why would he have had a store smack dab in the center of Whitechapel?

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

The picture of Tumblety with the uniform and Keiser Wheilhem hat was taken when he was very young. The one on this website was taken when he was much older and he wore it in the style of the day. In no description that I see has anyone ever described a cloak. Not even Hutchinson. He did describe a much younger man then tumblety. And Tumblety did look late 50's agewise.
The moustache and his size do matter. Now maybe he could surpress the 'stache but when the average male height in WC is 5'7 he would not be able to hide 5 inches plus. Just not possible.
Another reason the moustache is important is that it doesn't match any of the eyewitness descriptions. And we know he wore it long and waxed because the reports in the american papers at the time of his return describe him as a large man with a long, waxed moustache.
As for the tiger example it doesn't apply. A tiger never surprises prey up close, it sneaks up so far and then chases until the prey is tired out or if the tiger can out run it. Most of the time the tiger's prey gets away because the tiger refuses to wear itself out.
So you've made excellent points but they cannot be applied logically, nor can mine but at least if we were gng on a basic average human level I think I'm a little closer.

The problem with your basic average human level argument is your average comes out of the 21st century when few wear these types of mustaches. Any time contemporary investigators argued against Tumblety, never did they comment about his huge mustache being too prominent. Keep in mind, tumblety admits to being in the streets of Whitechapel at the time of the murders, and he "dressed as to not draw attention to himself". What do you think he meant? For some reason, you think it would be impossible for him to dress this way, even though Tumblety admits to doing it.

By the way, which tigers are you talking about? I'm sure there are thousands of humans in India who would disagree with this. Honestly, check it out on the internet.

Mike

[John Winsett]

The problem with your basic average human level argument is your average comes out of the 21st century when few wear these types of mustaches. Any time contemporary investigators argued against Tumblety, never did they comment about his huge mustache being too prominent. Keep in mind, tumblety admits to being in the streets of Whitechapel at the time of the murders, and he "dressed as to not draw attention to himself". What do you think he meant? For some reason, you think it would be impossible for him to dress this way, even though Tumblety admits to doing it.

By the way, which tigers are you talking about? I'm sure there are thousands of humans in India who would disagree with this. Honestly, check it out on the internet.

Mike

Well I can see this is a "agree to disagree" scenario. Actually if you read my post closer you would see that I mentioned the mustache being the style of the day. But such a big deal is made of the style of mustache the witnesses claimed they saw on the suspects that a big mustache would definitely be mentioned if it were noticed. We then fall into the argument of what we think Tumblety was thinking. What if "dressing as not to be noticed" to him means wearing a bowler hat and not a top hat? What if it means a fox lined coat instead of a full minx coat? We just can't say with any certainty what that means to him. Tumblety was a clothes horse and I doubt would even want to touch clothes of the style worn in WC. Now I have not read anything about Tumblety admitting to being in WC, only in London. If I missed it please list a source for it.
As far as the india people, that's just too complex an argument to go into here.

[Stewart P Evans]

Whitechapel

...
...We then fall into the argument of what we think Tumblety was thinking. What if "dressing as not to be noticed" to him means wearing a bowler hat and not a top hat? What if it means a fox lined coat instead of a full minx coat? We just can't say with any certainty what that means to him. Tumblety was a clothes horse and I doubt would even want to touch clothes of the style worn in WC. Now I have not read anything about Tumblety admitting to being in WC, only in London. If I missed it please list a source for it.
...

As you will see in the attached from the New York World of 29 January 1889 Tumblety himself admitted to going to Whitechapel where he was arrested. It also shows that he was not dressing flashily in 1888.

[mklhawley]

Hi John,

Notice what the report stated when he interviewed Tumblety in early 1889.

"...His long black mustache has been trimmed close and reaches down in the shape of a thick growth of beard around his chin, which he keeps smooth shaven. His face is ruddy and he has blue eyes. If he ever dressed sensationally in the past, he does not do so now. Yesterday he wore a dark suit which was by no means new, and a little peaked traveling cap. Altogether, he gave the appearance of a prosperous Western farmer. He wore no jewelry."

Notice Tumblety's mustache is contoured close to his face just like the Tim Riordan photo. Also, notice that Tumblety is not in flambouyant dress. He had no reason to so he did not. The way is was dressed would not have drawn attention to himself during the day in NYC in 1889. Tumblety clearly had the faculties to understand how to dress down.

Definately an interesting character either way.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

I'm sorry Stewart. I just jumped on your post.

[John Winsett]

As you will see in the attached from the New York World of 29 January 1889 Tumblety himself admitted to going to Whitechapel where he was arrested. It also shows that he was not dressing flashily in 1888.

[ATTACH]9517[/ATTACH]

Thank you Mr. Evans. I've read this before. Your companion book is excellent by the way. This actually confirms my post. The article says "I was dressed in a way not to attract attention, but it turns out I did"(paraphrasing). So his style of dress always attracted attention and he never melted into the crowd. It also says at the beginning he was a strongly built man at 6'2 in his stockings. It also says he wears his mustache closely shaven, but that was in 1889, not 1888. At the size he would've been very easily identified. I forgot about the WC visit but that was just a visit. One could argue it was to see all the commotion he caused by killing, but that is just speculation. One of the posts says he had a store in the middle of WC, unless I read that wrong. Either way he was an interesting man, but far from Jack the Ripper. I doubt he had the patience to be un-noticed for any length of time.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fairness

Thank you Mr. Evans. I've read this before. Your companion book is excellent by the way. This actually confirms my post. The article says "I was dressed in a way not to attract attention, but it turns out I did"(paraphrasing). So his style of dress always attracted attention and he never melted into the crowd. It also says at the beginning he was a strongly built man at 6'2 in his stockings. It also says he wears his mustache closely shaven, but that was in 1889, not 1888. At the size he would've been very easily identified. I forgot about the WC visit but that was just a visit. One could argue it was to see all the commotion he caused by killing, but that is just speculation. One of the posts says he had a store in the middle of WC, unless I read that wrong. Either way he was an interesting man, but far from Jack the Ripper. I doubt he had the patience to be un-noticed for any length of time.

First off let me say that I do not engage in protracted debates about who might or might not have been 'Jack the Ripper'. The simple answer is that we shall never know and, at best, we are left with suspects named at the time, or later, by those in a position to know who the suspects were.

All I seek is fairness and accuracy in assessing what we are left with. If you check all the sources giving Tumblety's height they range from 5 feet 10 inches to 6 feet 2 inches. Newspapers tended to exaggerate their estimates to sensationalise and witnesses often got (and get) their estimates of height wildly wrong, especially when remembered from sightings in less than ideal conditions. If you check contemporary sources heights of men around six feet tall were not as uncommon as some try to make out.

As regards clothing, the argument that Tumblety did attract attention when he was arrested was actually not down to flashy dress but to the fact that he was an American and wearing a slouch hat. There are other reports of similarly dressed Americans being arrested at that time. The date of the interview given above was a mere eight weeks after he returned from England so it is misleading for you to say "That was in 1889, not 1888."

We also have a description of his dress when he landed in New York, in early December 1888, on fleeing from England given as, 'He wore a dark blue ulster [overcoat], with the belt buttoned. He carried under his arm two canes and an umbrella fastened together with a strap.' Although he stated that he visited Whitechapel at the time of the murders because of the attention the murders were attracting he would hardly admit he was there to commit murders (if such was his reason). Also Tumblety stated that he had been coming to London for years (he claimed he had an office there) and was familiar with all parts of the City.

If any suspect is being rejected on the grounds of descriptions given by witnesses I should be interested to know which witness(es) actually saw the murderer and furnished an accurate description of him. Variously arguments have been made against all the witnesses seeing the actual murderer.

The East End in 1888, very much as now, was very cosmopolitan and full of native Londoners, Jews, foreigners of all nationalities, soldiers from the nearby Tower, sailors, merchant seamen from the nearby docks, people dressed in all styles from doctors from the London Hospital to the very poor in rags. In fact it would be difficult for anyone to stand out from the crowd in the melting pot that was the East End.

Another thing that amuses me is how Tumblety is dismissed out of hand by modern armchair detectives whilst Chief Inspector Littlechild, a vastly experienced and respected senior detective there at Scotland Yard at the time, regarded him as a 'very likely' suspect.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

I'm intrigued to know why you are so certain that we shall never get to the bottom of the Ripper mystery. Do you simply mean that a solution is impossible based on the facts currently at our disposal, or do you believe that even in the foreseeable future the requisite information will never come to light?

I trust you're well.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Evidence

Hi Stewart,
I'm intrigued to know why you are so certain that we shall never get to the bottom of the Ripper mystery. Do you simply mean that a solution is impossible based on the facts currently at our disposal, or do you believe that even in the foreseeable future the requisite information will never come to light?
I trust you're well.
Regards,
Simon

I'm fine thanks Simon, and hope you are too.

Once a policeman always a policeman - and I did the job for over twenty seven years. Evidence, and the nature of it, was my bread and butter, so I understand it quite well. We are not talking 'information' here, we are talking evidence. From what we do have in the sense of official records indicates that there was no hard evidence against any suspect and that they were merely that - suspects.

The evidence did not exist at the time and it certainly won't be found at this remove in time. So find all the letters, lost files, purloined documents, tangential references and 'secret papers' that you like. All they will ever reveal, if anything, are suspects and suspicions.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

The evidence did not exist at the time and it certainly won't be found at this remove in time. So find all the letters, lost files, purloined documents, tangential references and 'secret papers' that you like. All they will ever reveal, if anything, are suspects and suspicions.

Hello Stewart,

I too thank you for this explanation. The only thing I would possibly add is that without the "letters, lost files, purloined documents, tangential references and secret papers" you refer to, we have less chance of understanding why the police, imparticular, acted in the way they did, both as a collective force and as individuals. That is probably the most galling of the things about all of this, the inability to be able to comprehend what all this was about, not the "who was JTR?" problem.

There is little doubt, in my own mind, that we have not been privy, nor in some cases, allowed to be privy to, exactly that. If we should ever actually be in the position of all documentation NOT purloined being available and openly presented, then the purloiners would have no reason to keep their material longer, for it would be an open situation, an "official" "secret" (I use the words lightly) no more. Nothing witheld, in other words.

The games would finish. That is a goal for us all, be we for/against one suspect or nay. Honesty costs nothing, be it from SY or an anonymous individual. That honesty is a gift.... for us all. It isn't wrong to expect that gift either.

I don't really think anyone actually cares if Tumblety or Kosminski or Druitt or whoever was involved in the murders... the only thing that would suffer are egos. So what if Kosminski isn't a murderer... Kosminskiites can just say, "well, before all was laid before us, we thought so."
Whoopee...that isn't very hard to say. Same goes for Tumblety, Druitt, Ostrog et al. 120 odd years of piddling around should finish. Money has been made, fortunes made, fortunes lost, deceit, lies, forgeries, and games played.

No Stewart, we may never have "the" evidence, as you say, but I would rather play with a clean board than a dirty one. From all sides.

Did the ball cross the line or not? We have the ability to have goal-line technology, yet some still refuse to let us use the obvious to makes things clearer. Time for an open game, I say.

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Not

Hello Stewart,
...
No Stewart, we may never have "the" evidence, as you say, but I would rather play with a clean board than a dirty one. From all sides.
...
best wishes

Phil

Hey, it's not a perfect world - so what's new?

[John Winsett]

First off let me say that I do not engage in protracted debates about who might or might not have been 'Jack the Ripper'. The simple answer is that we shall never know and, at best, we are left with suspects named at the time, or later, by those in a position to know who the suspects were.

All I seek is fairness and accuracy in assessing what we are left with. If you check all the sources giving Tumblety's height they range from 5 feet 10 inches to 6 feet 2 inches. Newspapers tended to exaggerate their estimates to sensationalise and witnesses often got (and get) their estimates of height wildly wrong, especially when remembered from sightings in less than ideal conditions. If you check contemporary sources heights of men around six feet tall were not as uncommon as some try to make out.

As regards clothing, the argument that Tumblety did attract attention when he was arrested was actually not down to flashy dress but to the fact that he was an American and wearing a slouch hat. There are other reports of similarly dressed Americans being arrested at that time. The date of the interview given above was a mere eight weeks after he returned from England so it is misleading for you to say "That was in 1889, not 1888."

We also have a description of his dress when he landed in New York, in early December 1888, on fleeing from England given as, 'He wore a dark blue ulster [overcoat], with the belt buttoned. He carried under his arm two canes and an umbrella fastened together with a strap.' Although he stated that he visited Whitechapel at the time of the murders because of the attention the murders were attracting he would hardly admit he was there to commit murders (if such was his reason). Also Tumblety stated that he had been coming to London for years (he claimed he had an office there) and was familiar with all parts of the City.

If any suspect is being rejected on the grounds of descriptions given by witnesses I should be interested to know which witness(es) actually saw the murderer and furnished an accurate description of him. Variously arguments have been made against all the witnesses seeing the actual murderer.

The East End in 1888, very much as now, was very cosmopolitan and full of native Londoners, Jews, foreigners of all nationalities, soldiers from the nearby Tower, sailors, merchant seamen from the nearby docks, people dressed in all styles from doctors from the London Hospital to the very poor in rags. In fact it would be difficult for anyone to stand out from the crowd in the melting pot that was the East End.

Another thing that amuses me is how Tumblety is dismissed out of hand by modern armchair detectives whilst Chief Inspector Littlechild, a vastly experienced and respected senior detective there at Scotland Yard at the time, regarded him as a 'very likely' suspect.

I agree with you with the exception of the following:
There is no doubt Tumblety was a big man. All accounts so far have eluded to the fact that he was at least 5'10 and strongly built. But I'm of the opinion that he was larger than that. No news reporter then or now would have any reason to add 7 inches to his size. That makes no sense.

No Witness has described anyone of this nature. Now I would agree that eyewitness accounts are not really reliable but if that is true we have to discount the Stride murder all together because that murder suspect was not only seen but heard and he looked nothing like Tumblety.

Ripper Buffs will always debate suspects but just because Littlechild said he was a likely suspect years after the murders is a weak argument for consideration to the rogue gallery. That would mean all suspects named by police would have to be seriously considered when it has pretty much been decided that most of them probably didn't. I mean does anyone really believe Chapman went from mutilator to poisoner? Did Druitt spend only two nights a month chasing down 4pence prostitutes even 5 hours before a cricket match? The only reason any popular police suspect is even considered is because they were in a letter or biography etc. Is there any report that Druitt, Ostrog, Chapman, et all were ever interviewed or mentioned in an official report?

Tumblety was never charged for the murders. The only official documentation is his arrest record for the indecency charges. Were there any official interviews or reports that mention he was the ripper? Littlechild never says why he was a suspect. He mentions his hatred for women and I think a few small things but that's certainly not enough to put Tumblety at the top of the list.

Tumblety helped a prostitute to try and get an abortion. Pretty strange thing for a woman hater who's wife was a prostitute while he was married to do before he goes to WhiteChapel and starts cutting up prostitutes there.

The only person he's ever been accused of killing was a male.

No other JtR style murders occured in France when Tumblety fled. No other JtR stye Murders occurred in the states when Tumblety got back. Carrie Brown was not a ripper style murder. Abdominal mutilations were not that uncommon.

Tumblety may very well have been a killer. Was he JtR? Possibly but as you said in a documentary a few years ago, the case against him is weak.

On a side note it's funny that policemen who actually worked the case say it was a person named Kosminski and put that name in their biographies and whatnot. No one has ever mentioned Tumblety at all. Not even in passing except for Littlechild and that is most likely because he thought Tumblety was an irish terrorist of some sort.

Tumblety is just as likely a suspect as the rest. But there is also no more proof against him then the rest either.

On another side note have you considered a book on your experiences on the police force? I would love to read one from you and Mr. Rumblelow. I bet you've got some great stories to tell.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Mike.

…as evidended by his four separate gross indecency charges in the Whitechapel district (also in NYC and New Orleans)….

I have noticed that you have made this claim several times in the past and I wonder exactly where you get your information that Tumblety’s four indecency charges were for offences that occurred in Whitechapel? This would be brand new information, if you can substantiate it, since, although we know the names of the four men and the dates of the offences, we do not know the particulars including where they took place.

Keep in mind, Tumblety had a store in the poor Whitechapel district. If he did not want to associate at all with the poor, why would he have had a store smack dab in the center of Whitechapel?

This little bit of information comes from only one report that appeared in an American paper but we don’t know if it is true or not. You, apparently, want to believe it is true based on your biased view of Tumblety’s guilt and, therefore, post it as if it were established fact (much like the first quote), which it isn’t.

We don’t know where Tumblety was living or even if he was living in London the entire time of the Whitechapel murders. Tumblety himself states “…I happened to be there (London) when these Whitechapel murders attracted the attention of the whole world, and, in the company with thousands of other people, I went down to the Whitechapel district….” (the New York World, 29 January, 1889.) This suggests, therefore, that Tumblety wasn’t living in Whitechapel.

There is also the fact that Tumblety appeared at the Marlborough Street Police Court, which is not in the East End, and that he probably, therefore, was not arrested on his gross indecency charges in the East End. This fact might, therefore, corroborate this little bit of information:

“The Star publishes a lady’s story as to the past life of Dr. Twomblety who is suspected of the Whitechapel murders. She is a friend of the Doctor’s…
According to her story the Doctor was living very quietly in Charring Cross, doing quite an excellent business with his ‘pimple eradicator.’… When the English detectives had been baffled on every hand, and could not find anyone to answer the description of ‘Jack the Ripper,’ they finally swooped down on quack surgeons and cranks in every walk of life. It was in one of these general hauls that Dr. Twomblety was arrested, but he was not held by the authorities, for he easily proved that he was not a surgeon….”
(the Wheeling Register, 8 December, 1888.)

This doesn’t prove that Tumblety was living in Charring Cross, which is in the West End, but it does fit what little facts we do have better than the “herb shop in Whitechapel.”

Wolf.