Metropolitan Police view of Tumblety today

[Sam Flynn]

Bring me my tub of burning broth, then top it of
with loads of scotch, bring me my arrows tipped with gin and let me wallow in your sin, and did I cringe, from even more gin when England's spleen and pleasant gland were so bland, and did I fear from more beer, no, I took it all on the chin, had more gin and when in trouble took a double in England's spleen and pleasant gland.

Cap'n Jack - twinned with Rain Man

You seem uncommon merry, sir!

[Graham]

Blimey, maybe I should put water in me brandy, for you squabs see a splendid galleon whilst I see a sinking ship.
Bring me my tub of burning broth, then top it of
with loads of scotch, bring me my arrows tipped with gin
and let me wallow in your sin, and did I cringe, from even more gin when England's spleen and pleasant gland were so bland, and did I fear from more beer, no, I took it all on the chin, had more gin and when in trouble took a double in England's spleen and pleasant gland.

Avast!

Listen, shipmate, I'm the better for a bottle of Blossom Hill (rum's all gone) as I write this, but at least I can till salk stence.

Haul away!

Graham

[Cap'n Jack]

Blimey, maybe I should put water in me brandy, for you squabs see a splendid galleon whilst I see a sinking ship.
Bring me my tub of burning broth, then top it of
with loads of scotch, bring me my arrows tipped with gin
and let me wallow in your sin, and did I cringe, from even more gin when England's spleen and pleasant gland were so bland, and did I fear from more beer, no, I took it all on the chin, had more gin and when in trouble took a double in England's spleen and pleasant gland.

[Graham]

Hang on, folks.

Correct me if I'm wrong (form an orderly queue...), but isn't the Littlechild Letter the ONLY known, extant reference to Dr T made by anyone associated with the police? And as Littlechild was the head of the Secret Department (Special Branch) at the time of the Ripper killings, I'd have thought that Dr T's identity would have come to him via his official interest in the Fenians rather than the Whitechapel Murders. I've often wondered if, in his famous letter to G R Sims, Littlechild might just have been extrapolating his knowledge of, and interest in, Dr T. Who, let's face it, was a real weird-o.

Just my speculation.

Cheers,

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Well chaps, it is the official web-site of the Metropolitan Police Force of London who investigated the murders in 1888, and they appear to feel that their own senior officers of the time were blowing hot air out of their asp to even imagine that these characters could be serious candidates for the Whitechapel Murders

Not at all, CJ. They're just saying that no hard evidence to their being the culprit has ever been found. That's not the same as denigrating their predecessors' judgment, except inasmuch as Macnaghten's judgment in respect of Ostrog clearly comes into question, albeit as something of a non-sequitur. In this article, at least, Littlechild escapes such criticism entirely.

[Dan Norder]

they appear to feel that their own senior officers of the time were blowing hot air out of their asp to even imagine that these characters could be serious candidates for the Whitechapel Murders...

Wow, AP, there's yet another example of how you manage to completely misread things to suit your own mindset. Absolutely nothing that you quoted off the website is at all similar to how you just now tried to portray it.

Hell, frankly, the way I read it is that the person who wrote that page thinks those four people are the only possible candidates with any merit ("genuine suspects" are the words he/she uses), even though evidence to prove anything is lacking.

It's odd how an author who wrote a book naming Cutbush as the Ripper, a person explicitly denied as a real suspect by the police, can try to portray a modern police web page naming four suspects who aren't Cutbush as if it supported his views somehow.

[Cap'n Jack]

Well chaps, it is the official web-site of the Metropolitan Police Force of London who investigated the murders in 1888, and they appear to feel that their own senior officers of the time were blowing hot air out of their asp to even imagine that these characters could be serious candidates for the Whitechapel Murders... but I know, retired police officers like Trevor know better. I humbly bow to your superior views.
Yeah... like I would put water in my brandy.

[Chris George]

Hi Cap'n Jack

I think you are going to far holding this up as the official "Metropolitan Police view of Tumblety today" -- rather whomever wrote this was just reflecting the research on different suspects rather than what the Met officially thinks about anything.

Chris

[Dan Norder]

Between the snarky tone of the original post and the subject line I was expecting a much more devastating attempted argument against Tumblety than just that there is no "uniform confidence" in him or anyone else. Oooh, harsh.

[Sam Flynn]

I can't say that the Met frowns on Littlechild's suspect any more than Macnaghten's, CJ. All they say is that Littlechild said that Tumblety was amongst the suspects, and to his mind "a very likely one" - well, we know that already, don't we?

They certainly don't tar the Littlechild letter with the "odd errors" they mention in respect of the Macnaghten memorandum. Equally, whilst they specifically state that no evidence of contemporary police suspicion exists against the "Macnaghten Three", they make no such refutation in the case of Tumblety.

They don't so much as allude to any "suspicions" in respect of Tumblety, or Littlechild for that matter, over and above a generic statement that covers all four suspects, saying that no hard evidence exists of any of them being the Ripper.

[Cap'n Jack]

With so much hype and tripe around about Tumblety, the Littlechild Letter, the Macnaghten Memo and so on, I was pleasantly agreed to find that the Metropolitan Police Force of London share my suspicions in this regard.
From their official web-site:

'Suspects
Suffice to say genuine suspects are far fewer than the prolific authors of the genre would have us believe. In fact, to reduce them to only those with a genuine claim having been nominated by contemporary police officers, we are left with a mere four. They are:



Kosminski, a poor Polish Jew resident in Whitechapel;
Montague John Druitt, a 31 year old barrister and school teacher who committed suicide in December 1888;
Michael Ostrog, a Russian-born multi-pseudonymous thief and confidence trickster, believed to be 55 years old in 1888, and detained in asylums on several occasions;
Dr Francis J. Tumblety, 56 Years old, an American 'quack' doctor, who was arrested in November 1888 for offences of gross indecency, and fled the country later the same month, having obtained bail at a very high price.
The first three of these suspects were nominated by Sir Melville Macnaghten, who joined the Metropolitan Police as Assistant Chief Constable, second in command of the Criminal Investigation Deptment (C.I.D.) at Scotland Yard in June 1889. They were named in a report dated 23 February 1894, although there is no evidence of contemporary police suspicion against the three at the time of the murders. Indeed, Macnaghten's report contains several odd factual errors.

Kosminski was certainly favoured by the head of the C.I.D. Dr. Robert Anderson, and the officer in charge of the case, Chief Inspector Donald Swanson. Druitt appears to have been Macnaghten's preferred candidate, whilst the fact that Ostrog was arrested and incarcerated before the report was compiled leaves the historian puzzling why he was included as a viable suspect in the first place.

The fourth suspect, Tumblety, was stated to have been "amongst the suspects" at the time of the murders and "to my mind a very likely one," by the ex-head of the Special Branch at Scotland Yard in 1888, ex-Detective Chief lspector John George Littlechild. He confided his thoughts in a letter dated 23 September, 1913, to the criminological journalist and author George R Sims.

For a list of viable suspects they have not inspired any uniform confidence in the minds of those well-versed in the case.

Indeed, arguments can be made against all of them being the culprit, and no hard evidence exists against any of them.'