Was Tumblety Proven Innocent of the Whitechapel Murders?

[miss_anna]

I don't believe that Tumblety is a serious jtr suspect! The newspaper article from the New York Times states he was PROVEN INNOCENT of the Whitechapel murders. I suppose the facts and evidence that prove his innocence where lost somewhere or are buried in some English archive.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...679D94699FD7CF QUOTE:
November 19, 1888, Wednesday

Page 5, 393 words


The Dr. Tumblety who was arrested in London a few days ago on suspicion of complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and who when proved innocent of that charge was held for trial in the Central Criminal Court under the special law covering the offenses disclosed in the late "Modern Babylon" scandal, will ...

Full article here!

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/new_york_times/nyt881119.html

[mklhawley]

Hi miss_anna,

Thanks to this forum, I am less confident of Tumbety being the prime suspect, but a suspect he still is. The only thing we can take out of this article is that the NYT published it, since we cannot see the evidence. There is still the possibility that the source NYT used for this information had a slightly different agenda than the truth. Note what the NYT published one month later:

New York Times
December 4, 1888
"Watching Dr. Tumblety"

"Dr." Francis Tumblety, who left his bondsmen in London in the lurch, arrived by La Bretagne of the Transatlantic Line Sunday. Chief Inspector Byrnes had no charge whatever against him, but he had him followed so as to secure his temporary address, and will keep him in view as a matter of ordinary police precaution. Mr. Byrnes does not believe that he will have to interfere with Tumblety for anything he may have done in Europe, and laughs at the suggestion that he was the Whitechapel murderer or his abettor or accomplice. The man who is supposed to be Tumblety came over on the steamship as "Frank Townsend," and kept in his stateroom, under the plea of sickness.

Note that the source, Chief Inspector Byrnes, claims there were no charges against Tumblety, and he was merely having him followed as a matter of ordinary police precaution by attaining an address. Your article of Nov 19, 1888, claims he was being held for trial under the “Modern Babylon” special law, which requires charges. What is the truth? They certainly considered Tumblety a serious enough issue to have him tailed in the United States. Would they tail a person for mere homosexual activity in the Whitechapel district?

Stewart Evans suggests that since Scotland Yard let a serious suspect slip through their hands, their public agenda was to minimize the importance of Tumblety.

Sincerely,

Mike

[DVV]

Hi Mike,

Evans and Rumbelow say that there was a "large dossier" concerning Tumblety at Scotland Yard, but that a relevant part of these documents comes from the Special Branch, because of his supposed Irish Nationalist sympathies.


Amitiés,
David

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

Evans and Rumbelow say that there was a "large dossier" concerning Tumblety at Scotland Yard, but that a relevant part of these documents comes from the Special Branch, because of his supposed Irish Nationalist sympathies.


Amitiés,
David

Which means David.....(bonjour by the way mon ami, Happy Holidays!!)....that if Dr T was also thought to have had any connection to the Ripper crimes that the relevant materials that suggested that would be Special Branch property and in their investigation files....because first and foremost, he had a known association to an anarchist movement...and was a potentially dangerous man politically.

My best regards David.

[DVV]

Hi Mike,
thanks and happy holidays too.
Yes, the basic interest for Tumblety is political.
Add to this his strange personality, his homosexualiy, his shady medical activity, and finally Baxter's theory, and the words of Gene Hackman in "Unforgiven" come to your mind:

"Innocent? Innocent of what?"

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[mklhawley]

Tumblety himself admitted he hung out in Ireland visiting his uncle.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,
thanks and happy holidays too.
Yes, the basic interest for Tumblety is political.
Add to this his strange personality, his homosexualiy, his shady medical activity, and finally Baxter's theory, and the words of Gene Hackman in "Unforgiven" come to your mind:

"Innocent? Innocent of what?"

Amitiés mon cher,
David

You quoted from my all time favorite movie David, gotta like that!

Hope the Holidays are warm and wonderful for you and yours David.

My best regards

[DVV]

There is a global freezing even in Provence, Mike.
There's no movie I like more than Unforgiven, too. Fine!

[miss_anna]

I don't believe that Tumblety is a serious jtr suspect! The newspaper article from the New York Times states he was PROVEN INNOCENT of the Whitechapel murders. I suppose the facts and evidence that prove his innocence where lost somewhere or are buried in some English archive.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...679D94699FD7CF QUOTE:
November 19, 1888, Wednesday

Page 5, 393 words


The Dr. Tumblety who was arrested in London a few days ago on suspicion of complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and who when proved innocent of that charge was held for trial in the Central Criminal Court under the special law covering the offenses disclosed in the late "Modern Babylon" scandal, will ...

Full article here!
http://www.casebook.org/press_report...nyt881119.html

Hi Detective Mklhawley!
I think the 2 reasons that Tumblety is a popular suspect are two big fact lies. Rumors at best!
1 ) Tumblety is claimed to have had a collection of female uteruses. Perhaps he performed illegal abortions, but this claim of a uterus collection has never been proven.
2 ) The claim he was the Batty Street Lodger in Whitechapel. Apparently he lived or lodged in London's West side somewhere where he was arrested.

[miss_anna]

Hi miss_anna,

Thanks to this forum, I am less confident of Tumbety being the prime suspect, but a suspect he still is. The only thing we can take out of this article is that the NYT published it, since we cannot see the evidence. There is still the possibility that the source NYT used for this information had a slightly different agenda than the truth. Note what the NYT published one month later:

New York Times
December 4, 1888
"Watching Dr. Tumblety"

"Dr." Francis Tumblety, who left his bondsmen in London in the lurch, arrived by La Bretagne of the Transatlantic Line Sunday. Chief Inspector Byrnes had no charge whatever against him, but he had him followed so as to secure his temporary address, and will keep him in view as a matter of ordinary police precaution. Mr. Byrnes does not believe that he will have to interfere with Tumblety for anything he may have done in Europe, and laughs at the suggestion that he was the Whitechapel murderer or his abettor or accomplice. The man who is supposed to be Tumblety came over on the steamship as "Frank Townsend," and kept in his stateroom, under the plea of sickness.

Note that the source, Chief Inspector Byrnes, claims there were no charges against Tumblety, and he was merely having him followed as a matter of ordinary police precaution by attaining an address. Your article of Nov 19, 1888, claims he was being held for trial under the “Modern Babylon” special law, which requires charges. What is the truth? They certainly considered Tumblety a serious enough issue to have him tailed in the United States. Would they tail a person for mere homosexual activity in the Whitechapel district?

Stewart Evans suggests that since Scotland Yard let a serious suspect slip through their hands, their public agenda was to minimize the importance of Tumblety.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Detective Mklhawley!
I think the 2 reasons that Tumblety is a popular suspect are two big fact lies. Rumors at best!
1 ) Tumblety is claimed to have had a collection of female uteruses. Perhaps he performed illegal abortions, but this claim of a uterus collection has never been proven.
2 ) The claim he was the Batty Street Lodger in Whitechapel. Apparently he lived or lodged in London's West side somewhere where he was arrested.

After his release from jail Tumblety went with a lot of other curious sensation seekers to Whitechapel ( probably for the first time ) to view the area and he was followed by the police.

[mklhawley]

Hi Detective Mklhawley!
I think the 2 reasons that Tumblety is a popular suspect are two big fact lies. Rumors at best!
1 ) Tumblety is claimed to have had a collection of female uteruses. Perhaps he performed illegal abortions, but this claim of a uterus collection has never been proven.
2 ) The claim he was the Batty Street Lodger in Whitechapel. Apparently he lived or lodged in London's West side somewhere where he was arrested.

After his release from jail Tumblety went with a lot of other curious sensation seekers to Whitechapel ( probably for the first time ) to view the area and he was followed by the police.

Hi miss_anna,

I agree with you on number 1, although number 2 I disagree with. His popularity started because Scotland Yard considered him a suspect. The guy was there during the murders, and when he jumped bail the murders stopped. I believe he is popular today, because he was such an interesting and elusive character.

Mike

[Chadwick]

Hi miss_anna,

I agree with you on number 1, although number 2 I disagree with. His popularity started because Scotland Yard considered him a suspect. The guy was there during the murders, and when he jumped bail the murders stopped. I believe he is popular today, because he was such an interesting and elusive character.

Mike

There is one other theory. Nothing that can be proven -- which is the essence of a theory, right?

Given that Tumblety was a wealthy man, he could well have kept that 22 Batty Street address, as well as his West London flat. The Batty Street would give him easy cover to clean up. He could also just as easily slip "out of Dodge" by early morning train and get back to his main lodgings before the neighbors knew he was even gone.

As I say, it is a theory...

[nugnug]

Dr T

The things thats never really been explianed is what was tumbelty doing in white chapel in the first place if he was jack the ripper why did he come all the way to london to kill wernt there any prostitutes to kill in newyork.

if he wasnt what was a rich man like himself doing dossing down in the east end

none of it makes any sense

[The Grave Maurice]

Hiya Nug,

It may not make sense because, as far as we know, none of it is true. There is no evidence that he lived in, or even visited, the East End. We know he spent time at the Langham Hotel, and a couple of other places in the West End, but that's it. From what we know of him, at that time of his life, he wouldn't have been caught dead in a place like Batty Street.

[John Savage]

Hi Maurice,

You make an excellent point, the Langham Hotel was one of the very best that London could offer and Tumblety was a man who went to great lengths to keep up appearances. A back street lodging house in the East End would have been the very last place he would want to stay.

Rgds
John