Metropolitan Police view of Tumblety today

[Cap'n Jack]

Gideon
my point remains.
Not one single American news report of 1888 mentioned Tumblety in connection with his homosexual acts against young men in England.
It is all well and good to mention the 'special' amendment to the 'Modern Babylon' legislation, for an English law maker, or giver, would have fully understood the implications, however I would suggest to you that the average American in the streets - or at his newsdesk - wouldn't have had a clue what that meant.
This seems obvious to me as the American press make absolutely no mention of Tumblety's offences against young men.
Ain't that a tad strange?

[Dan Norder]

The strange idea that the man atop Section D would wait at the docks in Southampton for the latest mail boat arrivals, so he could find out from the New York Times who were the suspects in Scotland Yard's own investigation could only be the misguided theory from one of our modern 'Ripperologists.'

Yeah, this is a strange idea. but then you know nobody has actually suggested it. You can't attack what was really said so you choose to invent up something else entirely and attack that instead.

Your argument here assumes Section D had anything to do with the Ripper case to begin with, and that the only way they would have heard anything being talked about in America or the papers was to wait for a mail boat. Littlechild's letter wasn't written until years later, so we have no idea when he heard of the idea of Tumblety as a suspect... and in fact it's clear that he didn't hear very much because, again, he claimed that Tumblety was thought to have committed suicide after leaving France and was never heard from again. Even someone reading a few news reports would know this to be false. Littlechild was obviously way, way out of the loop.

And this following part shows either an inability to read for understanding or a crass attempt to be deceptive:

From Wolf Vanderlinden, Ripper Notes #24

"Chief Crowley himself stated in the S.F. papers that he decided to investigate Tumblety when he first heard from US press reports that he was a Ripper suspect on the 18th of November."

Uh, the US press report that appeared in the S.F. Chronicle on 18 November was a U.S. paper, but it was not instigated in the U.S.

The San Francisco Chronicle report was never offered as the first US report claiming that Tumblety was a Ripper suspect. It was only used to show when Chief Crowley had heard of the Tumblety being mentioned of as possibly connected to the Ripper crimes and proves that Anderson did not contact him first. This has nothing to do with Wolf's statement above, so putting them together with an "Uh," as if it contradicts him is ridiculous.

'Chief Crowley himself' did not say this in the SF papers. He is not quoted; he is not even paraphrased unless by implication. The S.F. Chronicle certainly implied that this is the way it went 'down,' but other papers were more circumspect.

He was directly interviewed and the reporters provided the information. Furthermore the exact same scenario with the explicit steps involved -- Chief Crowley hearing of Tumblety in US press reports and taking it upon himself to contact Anderson -- was also reported in the San Francisco Daily Morning Call. Other area papers give fewer details but also offer up a sequence of events that simply do not fit the idea that Anderson had contacted Crowley first. The only reports that claimed Anderson first contacted Crowley were not from San Francisco but showed up later in New York in abbreviated form reporting on the earlier San Francisco reports but bungling the details. As they did not have direct contact with Crowley or Anderson, it's naive (or perhaps intentionally ignorant to try to keep a suspect theory alive) to expect them to have had better information.

Both Norder and Vanderlinden seem to have become 'fixated' on the difference between the way it was reported in New York and the way it was reported in San Francisco, but have not seemed to consider the likelihood that neither report was particularly accurate.

Or, rather, several people have examined the problems and noted the entirely logical conclusion that small mentions in the press in New York that ran after the other reports are far less likely to be accurate than multiple news reports from journalists who had direct access to the person being quoted. In fact it looks like you, RJ, are the one fixated on trying to prop up any report you can that might look Tumblety look like a more solid suspect despite multiple other more reliable sources giving explicit evidence that you are wrong.

Futher, it is obvious from reading those reports that Chief Crowley didn't even have a clear idea who the hell Tumblety was. He vaguely remembered someone named 'Stanley' and thought he was from Australia. It beggars belief that he would see 'Kumblety' in one paragraph in the paper on Nov 18th and then unilaterally launch an extensive investigation, including finding an abandoned bank account that he couldn't have known existed. It almost never works that way.

And if you had bothered to read the reports from San Francisco you would know that it did NOT work that way (but then you probably did read them and do know but choose to invent up yet another straw man to attack instead of what anybody actually claimed). Earlier reports in San Francisco reporting New York speculation that "Tumblety" (not "Kumblety") had been arrested on suspicion of the Ripper murders (likely confusion with the homosexual charges we know he had been arrested on) showed that people recalled that Tumblety had lived in the area, some others remembered rumors that he was "Stanley", and so forth. It was Crowley who said Tumblety was not the same person as Stanley, so trying to claim Crowley was the one confused is highly deceptive. The bank, having also heard of Tumblety in the news, volunteered the fact that they still had an account of his. So, no, Crowley didn't just investigate for no reason, he heard people talking in town that Tumblety had lived there and, quite professionally, got to the bottom of it and volunteered the information he uncovered to his professional colleagues in London. There's no evidence that London had been looking for anything of the sort, but, hey, if someone volunteers something, no matter how tenuous, that might possibly be useful, Anderson would have been a fool to turn it down, even if he didn't put any stock in it.

Frankly, RJ, it seems impossible to me that someone could have actually read these reports and then seriously offer up the scenarios you tried to present to everyone here. Did you just not read them and then fantasized up your own preferred version of events to fit your preconceived ideas, or did you read them and knowingly ignore what they said for your post here to try to confuse other people into thinking your summary was accurate?

Anyone who wants to check these reports can go look at the old thread that links to them or just look through the San Francisco papers in the Press Reports section. They can go see just how inaccurate your version of events is. And I encourage everyone to do so, because the easiest way to refute your claims is to, as always, just look at the facts instead of your very warped description of them. I know when people looked into your claims that Tumblety was arrested in France on suspicion of the Ripper charges but had to be released showed them to be the nonsense that they are, and when Tim and Wolf looked into your claims that Colonel Dunham's (not a even a real colonel) crazy uteri in jars story was accurate because it accurately listed where Tumblety lived at the time they found proof he wasn't living where Dunham and you claimed he had.

Time and time again your claims are shown to be false, and yet you keep repeating them even knowing so. That's either remarkable stubbornness or a clumsy attempt at deceiving others at work.

[Gideon Fell]

Gideon
my point remains.
Not one single American news report of 1888 mentioned Tumblety in connection with his homosexual acts against young men in England.
It is all well and good to mention the 'special' amendment to the 'Modern Babylon' legislation, for an English law maker, or giver, would have fully understood the implications, however I would suggest to you that the average American in the streets - or at his newsdesk - wouldn't have had a clue what that meant.
This seems obvious to me as the American press make absolutely no mention of Tumblety's offences against young men.
Ain't that a tad strange?

Arrr Cap'n Jack I quiver under the gaping barrels of yur hot cannon. I cringe at the flash of the cold steel of yur cutlass. I cower at the glare from the parrot on yur shoulder. Ah Jim lad he's a fearsome one. Look at the wisps of smoke curlin' from the smoulderin' fuses under his hat. A vision of hell ter be sure. I hardly dare address him at all; but I will.

Cap'n Jack Sur, yur honor, yur majesty, Yur and yur shipmates wur sayin as how that there Tumblety did alert the Yankee press to the fact that he wuz arrested as a Ripper suspect himself (by that there new-fangled cablegram I durst say. Be that the case well why then, good sur, would he even have to mention to them that he wuz also dealt with fur the Modern Babylon stuff (even mentionin' the special amendment and that), compromisin' to him as yur say it wuz. It's all too much fur me poor head to comprehend sur. Please be gentle with me good Cap'n; fearsome as yur are and all that like, a standin' thur on the poop of the good ship Queen Anne's Revenge.

[Cap'n Jack]

Well, Gideon, if I think I understood your post correctly, you are claiming that I claimed Tumblety might have cabled the American press himself?
If that is the case then I'm sorry to tell you that it was you who came up with that little gem, all I said was that this entire tale could have been invented by Tumblety to detract from his real offences.
This is what you said:

' Or was Tumblety bailed on the 16th and the next day cabled the American press and 'made up the fine old tale' that he had been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel murders...'

The only part belonging to my good self is 'made up the fine old tale'.
So shiver your own timbers, me ol' ship mate.

As I think you know, the term 'Modern Babylon' was employed by the American press - and people - to describe the East End of London in 1888, and all its social ills; and thus it would have been read by almost any American in 1888.

Studying the copyrighted telegraphic traffic that was coming into the San Francisco press offices from London during November of 1888 there is really nothing to report, apart from a minor blip on the 10th November 1888 when it was reported that:
'One arrest on account of the latest Whitechapel Murders has been made'.

This made me sit up, on account of why, I mean why should the San Francisco Press pick out one single arrest on that date, when there had been dozens of arrests previously, which they never had mentioned?
Because it was perhaps an American?
With previous connections to San Francisco?

As you walk your plank, Gideon, contemplate what I said concerning my success in putting Tumblety into an English court of law where he could have faced charges of manslaughter, or even murder, and then contemplate your own failure to do so.
I would say the barque had once again brought a man 'o war into troubled water.
I await your silver.

[rjpalmer]

When I read Dan Norder's inane and incompetent posts, I realize why Sir Walter Raleigh eventually threw his hands in the air, gave up writing history, and took up women and smoking.


Norder is not even aware of the arguments published in his own magazine.

Sigh.

Here we go again:

From Wolf Vanderlinden, Ripper Notes #24

"Chief Crowley himself stated in the S.F. papers that he decided to investigate Tumblety when he first heard from US press reports that he was a Ripper suspect on the 18th of November."

All of you can read that once; I recommend Norder reading it twenty times and then trying to understand what it says and why Vanderlinden wrote it.

The chronology is simple.

On November 18th, Crowley read the US press report.

Why does Vanderlinden state November 18th??

Two reasons.

Reason one: that was the date the first article appeared. (reprinted below)

Reason two: Crowley's telegram about the obtaining Tumblety's handwriting was sent on November 19th (as reported in every account). You have the chronology wrong and are bringing in later reports published after November 19th. Amazingly, you stupidly invited the public to check out the press archives when the archives prove you have it backwards.

Here is the exact article alluded to by Vanderlinden, that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18th.

Judge for yourselves, folks. Am I lying or is Norder acting like an idiot again?


San Francisco Chronicle
18 November 1888
Pg. 1

GOSSIP OF LONDON.
_____
A Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel.
_____

A Score of Prisoners, but No Clew.
_____

Rothschild Offers a Reward for the Murderer

[THE NEW YORK WORLD CABLE SERVICE; COPYRIGHTED, 1888 - SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE]

LONDON, November 17.--Just to think of one of the Prince of Wales' own exclusive set, a member of the household cavalry, and one of the best known of the many swells about town, who glory in the glamour of the Guelph going into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of clubdom tonight. Just now it is a fashionable fad to "slum it" in Whitechapel. Every night scores of young men, who never have beeni n the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders, talking with frightened women and pushing their way into overcrowded lodging-houses. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves the police do not interfere with them, but if a man goes alone and tries to lure a woman of the street into a secluded street to talk to her, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.

That was the case with Sir George Arthur of the Price of Wales set. He put on an old shooting coat and a slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the popular description of Jack the Ripper. They watched him, and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested, expostulated and threatened them with the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End club to prove his identity, and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspapers, but the jolly young Barnets at Brookes Club consider the joke too good to keep quiet.

Sir George is quite a figure in London. He is a son of the late Sir Frederick N. Arthur, who was an influential man in his day. Sir George was conspicuous on the turf a few years ago and intimately associated with the Duchess of Montrose. Then he turned his attention to the theaters, and when Bancroft produced "Theodora" he let Sir George appear as the corpse. The report is to-night that he is going to Monte Carlo for a few weeks.

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

A score of other men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion of being the murderer, but the right man still roams at large. Everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim. The large sums offered as private rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail. Leon Rothschild has offered an income of £2 a week for life to the man who gives information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.


Note that, just as I said:

1. The article is from a London Correspondent. To see this, you'll have to get off your backside and chase down the New York World for the same date. The San Francisco Chronicle had an agreement with Pulitzer's paper. The World forwarded them this article, but it has a London by-line. Since Norder hasn't done any research beyond what is on his computer screen, he didn't know this.

2. The article refers to 'Kumblety.' Based on this article, Vanderlinden argues that Crowley telegraphed London the next day (November 19th).

As for the famed uteri collection, once again Norder is lying. Please show me any post EVER where I stated this collection existed, Dan.

You won't because I didn't, and that was never my argument. In the coming days, I will accept your inability to link to a specific post where I said this as an admission that you are lying. RP

[rjpalmer]

San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin
California, U.S.A.
23 November 1888

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER.
Seeking Information in This City Concerning a Man Suspected of the Crimes.

Chief of Police Crowley has lately been in correspondence with the officials of Scotland Yard, London, regarding Dr. Tumblety, who is at present under arrest on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders. On the 19th inst. Chief Crowley sent a dispatch to the London detectives informing them that he could furnish specimens of Tumblety's hand-writing, and yesterday received the following answer from the Scotland Yard detectives:


Thanks. Send writing and all details you can in relation to him. ANDERSON.

Chief Crowley in pursuing his investigations discovered that the Hibernia Bank, which he left there when he disappeared from the city, and which has never been drawn upon since. Mr. Smyth of that institution says that he first met Tumblety in Toronto, where he was practicing medicine in July, 1858. He next met him in this city at the Occidental Hotel in March or April, 1870. Tumblety rented an office at 20 Montgomery street where he remained until September, 1870, and then disappeared as suddenly as he came, and in 1871 the Doctor turned up in New York.


****Please note that Crowley sent the telegram on November 19th, the day after the Chronicle piece naming 'Kumblety' appeared. The response from Anderson was received on November 22nd. The delay was due to the fact that it was a multi-staged transmission, a seperate cablegram having to be sent across the Atlantic at Halifax.

Norder probably doesn't have access to it, but an article appeared in The World correcting the name "Kumblety." There is no doubt whatsoever the original dispatch came from London and Norder has repeated this error for several years now

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

It's all very confusing.

According to this account—NYT 23rd November 1888—Crowley sent his telegram to "the London detectives" on October 29th and received his reply on November 22nd.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

While not wanting to join in with any of the disputation here,I am nevertheless very intrigued to read about the flurry of interest in Dr Tumblety at this particular moment in time-November 1888.So if you can please forgive my intrusion and a quick reminder of the anti fenian "back drop " to it all..........
Robert Anderson, it will be remembered, had re-employed Inspector James Thompson "on some inquiry" .Thompson ,as a result went with his wife Martha to Boulogne to meet the "anti fenian " British secret agent Millen in 1887 and later worked for Anderson on anti fenian work in New York as well as negotiating with The Times to testify at The Special Commission on Parnell 1888/89 .
Interesting too that Millen, as well as his British Secret Service work,worked as a correspondent for The New York Herald.Yet another newspaper man.
It was under Anderson"s orders that Melville was sent to Boulogne to "spy on spies" ie the meeting between the British spy Millen and the Anderson appointed British spy Thompson .
Melville ,in 1888 was keeping" Port watch" in Bologne-its so very likely he knew about all Tumblety"s November movements since Tumblety was not only a known sympathiser of "fenianism" but had also managed to jump bail.So the question could be -might Tumblety have "jumped bail" with the help of the CID?
Clearly Anderson had grave doubts about Millen suspecting him no doubt of being a "double agent".He may have been right too since Millen when he died a few months later was given an "Irish" patriots funeral.We will never know.His body was secretly disinterred and re-intered with Masonic ritual "in a better plot.One wonders whether Tumblety himself might have been a double agent of some kind!
Natalie

[Cap'n Jack]

RJP, I can't believe it!
You agree with everything I say, but hey, no need to repost stuff that I posted three years ago.
Tumblety, or even Kumblety, was arrested in November of 1888 for offences unrelated to the Whitechapel Murders.
Chief Crowly made the first exchange in the telegraphic exchange between San Francisco and London.
(I have the actual cable somewhere).
After the cable exchange it was obvious that neither the chief of police of San Francisco or New York thought that Tumblety was involved in the Whitechapel Murders.
I won't even put the plank out for you, just throw you off the port side.

[rjpalmer]

AP -- When you got twenty minutes I’ll tell you a story. Two stories.

A couple of nights ago there was an Irish poet and essayist on the Radio by the name of David Whyte. One of the stories he told was about the Tuatha Dé Dannan of Ireland who were once confronted by a warrior tribe from Iberia. Just as the two tribes were about to clash, the Tuatha Dé Dannan turned sideways and vanished. They disappeared utterly. The moral of the tale, according to Whyte, was “not to engage in confrontations that make you too small for yourself.”

Whenever I respond to a certain strange and aggressive contributor at this site (a figure to remain unnamed) I always feel afterwards that I’ve ignored that moral. I’ve made myself smaller by responding in kind. I have done him no good, and I do myself even less. So, in the spirit of repentence, I’m going to turn sideways and vanish. That's story number one. What follows is number two; it is my last gasp, so enjoy it.

When I first posted on ths site, sometime around 1999, one of my first contributions concerned how improbable Francis Tumblety was as a suspect. I wrote something along the lines that he was a horseback riding quack and the furthest thing in the world from Jack the Ripper. Classic deep thought. I then turned my attentions back to M.J. Druitt, a bloke I first plumped for after taking a walk around East London with a man named Rumbelow in the mid-90s.

A year or so later I became interested in Tumblety and read ‘The Lodger.’ I became so intrigued by this strange man that I went to the library (I live on the west coast, USA) and started looking through the San Francisco newspapers, of which there was a small collection at my university. This didn’t satisfy my curiousity and I ended up driving a very long drive to Sacramento where the California State Library is located. Lovely place surrounded by palm trees and one hell of a collection of exotic plants. I read every paper I could find, and despite Norder admonishing me to “read the San Francisco papers," the fact is is that I had these press reports before they ever made their way to the internet. Not a boast, but only to explain what happened next. I’ll post one you haven’t seen in a moment. The man you need to thank for these reports you are quoting is Joe Chetcuti who sent them to Stephen Ryder three or four years ago.

It may have come across as a 'low blow' when I stated above that Vanderlinden was not being precise about his statement in Ripper Notes. This is evidently what got Mr. N spitting blood and me responding in an equally idiotic manner. But my point is that as historians, we must be very careful about stating only what we really know. Such as the fact that, despite your statements, we don’t really know that Tumbley was charged with anything on Nov. 7, as the document only states that he was ‘received into custody.” Nothing about being charged until later. In short, in determining what went in that Autumn of Terror, it IS inaccurate to write or imply that “Crowley himself’ said anything about how it went down, because we have no direct quote and we do not have access to the official documentation. All we have is a paraphrase in the San Francsico Chronicle from an unknown reporter. (more in a moment)

Getting back to my little voyage. As I spent time in the State Library, I became very intrigued with San Francisco history--particularly the 1850s 60s and 70s. Frisco in this era was a bizarre place, full of opium dens, gunslingers, Irish ‘muldoons’ and the shanghai racket. (One historian suggested Chief Crowley may have once played a role in the latter). When I returned home, I started reading quite a bit about San Fran history and trolled through the papers when I had the time, and, eventually, I believe I got a pretty good ‘feel’ for the different papers and their respective reliability.

One thing that is worth noting. The story of Cheif Crowley’s connection to the Whtiechapel Murder investigation was first reported on November 23rd. Please note that it appeared in all the San Francisco newspapers on that same date. The Chronicle, the Morning Call, the Bulletin, etc. all reported basically this same story on November 23rd.

What does this tell us?

It tells us that the story “broke” on November 22nd.

Why did it ‘break’ on November 22nd?

Because that was the date of Dr. Robert Anderson’s telegram to San Francisco. That cablegram you are looking for and can’t find.

This is interesting and important. Note that we know for certain that Chief Crowley sent Anderson a telegram on November 19th. But also note that that communication was not reported in the local press on November 19, 20, 21, or 22nd. Crowley wasn’t spreading the love, as it were. What does that tell you?

It tells you that the local press did not know about Crowley’s investigation until the telegram arrived from Scotland Yard “hit the fan” on November 22nd. Bear that in mind. Crowley had kept them in the dark.

Here’s what I think happened.

In the 1870s and 80s one of the chief hang-outs for journalists in San Francisco was the saloon of the Russ House Hotel. I think that sometime on November 22nd, a journalist's ‘snout’ (probably a telegram boy) told a reporter about the arrival of a weird telegram from London. It was certainly a mysterious one. It was addressed to Crowley and said something to the effect of ‘find out all you can about him. thanks.” The San Fran version of Fleet Street smelled blood.

In the 19th Century, the police often communicated by what was called the ‘police telegraph.’ In other words, they had to send their telegrams over the same wires like everyone else, but they sent them in a cypher that had to be decrypted; the idea being that journalists couldn't pick up on them. Anderson’s telegram WASN”T sent in cypher. We know this because three different papers gave its contents verbatum the next day and no way in hell an Ameircan police chief is going to willingly hand over private correspondence to the press.

Once the journalists had this telegram they started on the hunt. They chased down Crowley and asked him about it. And since the Kumblety/Twomblety/Tumblety story was already in the news, and some vaguely recalled the old quack, it didn’t take too many brains to guess what it was all about.;

I imagine the conversation went something like this:

Journalists: Chief. Are you investigating something for Scotland Yard?

Crowley; Who told you that?

J: The return date on the telegram states you sent something to Scotland Yard on the 19th. This is about that Tumblety business that ‘s been in the papers, isn’t it? Have you started your own investigation?

C: Gawd almighty, boys, don’t you have something better to do? I’m just poking around a bit.

J: Mr. Smythe at the bank said you photographed some documents. This Tumblety, he was the chp who was here in 1870--the bloke with the grey hounds and military outfits, wasn’t he?

C: No, No, Boys, Nothing like that. Tumblety was someone else entirely. I think you have him confused with ‘Stanley,’ the Australian who used to lounge around the Snug Saloon. He had the dogs and the loud suits. You are mistaken, boys. Now if you’ll exuse me...

That was the extent of it.

The following day, November 23, all the local papers printed generally the same story with slight variations.

1. San Francisco Daily Morning Call


"Since the dispatch from London, announcing that Dr. Tumblety had been arrested on suspicion of being connected with the Whitechapel murders, appeared in the local papers, Chief Crowley has been investigating Tumblety's antecedents.

He has ascertained that Dr. Tumblety arrived here in April, 1870, and stopped at the Occidental Hotel. He then opened an office at 20 Montgomery street and remained here until the following September,
when he disappeared." (truncated)


2. San Francisco Chronicle

"... When the news of Tumblety's arrest reached this city, Chief of Police Crowley recollected that the suspected man formerly lived here, and he took the necessary steps to learn all about his career in this city. He found that Tumblety arrived here in the early part of 1870 and took rooms at the Occidental Hotel. He opened an office at 20 Montgomery Street, but remained in the city only a few months, leaving in September of the same year. While here he opened an account with the Hibernia Bank and left a considerable amount to his credit in that institution when he went away." (truncated)


3. San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin

"Chief of Police Crowley has lately been in correspondence with the officials of Scotland Yard, London, regarding Dr. Tumblety, who is at present under arrest on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechapel murders. On the 19th inst. Chief Crowley sent a dispatch to the London detectives informing them that he could furnish specimens of Tumblety's hand-writing, and yesterday received the following answer from the Scotland Yard detectives:

Thanks. Send writing and all details you can in relation to him. ANDERSON."

(truncated)


Comments:

1. only #2, ( the San Francisco Chronicle) insistst that Crowley initiated the investigation. Once again, it doesn’t quote him. It's not in Crowley's words, it is merely what the reporter believed. Nor do we have any ‘official’ documentation confirming this. The Morning Call states that Crowley’s investigation dates to the time of the initial dispatch but is more vague about whether or not this means he intitated it. #3 states nothing whatsoever about who initiated the investigatin, but merely states that Crolwely has ‘been in correspondence.’


Now recall that the argument is based on the apparent fact that Crowley read the ‘Kumblety’ report on Nov. 18th and unilaterally launched his investigation, thus quickly telegraphing results to Anderson on the following day, Nov. 19th.

Is there really any room for me to doubt how it ‘went down?'

I say yes:

1. I don’t have the official documentation, and am squemish about the press reports, particulalry as they dont’ all agree, and dont’ directly quote the Chief.

2. Then there is the NY Times piece giving a different date. I would agree with Vanderlinden that this is almost certainly an error, but all telegrams to San Francisco from London apparently came by way of New York, which could mean the NYT piece corrected an error that it noted in the reports from SF. Unlikely, but possible.

3. The only statement allegedly coming from Crowley that describes Tumbety is exceedingly odd. Here is Crowley, the Police Chief in a rollicking city of over 150,000 but we are supposed to believe that he dropped everything to unilaterally launch an extenisve investigation for a gross indecency case on the other side of the Atlantic? (And why handwriting samples in a gross indecency case? Did Dr. T write graffit ion the rent boy’s backside?) This doesn't have the ring of truth.

Here is the passage attibuted to Crowley (Morning Call, Nov. 23rd):

"In one of the dispatches received concerning Tumblety, it was stated that he was in the habit of walking about the streets clad in odd attire. A prominent feature of his dress was his high-top boots. A few yards behind him, it was usual for him to have a colored boy, in livery, conducting two huge greyhounds.

Chief Crowley says that this is a mistake. The person who was in the habit of performing such freaks was a Dr. Stanley, who had an office at 634 Washington street. Stanley was a ponderous Englishman, 6 feet 2 inches in height, who conducted himself on the street in the manner attributed to Tumblety. Stanley finally left here and went to Honolulu."


Whoa. Slow down, AP. Read that again, slowly.

We know bloody well that Tumblety DID walk around in the streets in ‘odd attire,’ that he was rough 6’ -6’ 2”, that he did have a thing for greyhounds and livery boys. What the hell is going on? Are you telling me this is the guy you are setting up for Sherlock Holmes of the Bay City?

Either A) Crowley doesn’t have a clear recollection of who Tumblety was. or B) This is the residual of Crowley deliberately playing ‘dumb’ ’ when being quizzed by the reporters because he didn’t want to duscuss his investigation.

In the first instance, it raises great doubt as to whether Crowley’s memory was good enouogh to pick ‘Kumblety' out of a brief paragraph in the paper on Nov. 18th and start this massive investgition. If the latter, it suggests deliberate reticence on the chief’s part, and perhaps he was even throwing the reporters off the track as to how he first came to investigate Tumblety . Loose lips sink ships, and the 19th Century police took a dim view of reporters.

4. Finally, the last argument. Here is a report you won’t find on this website. My parting gift to you in lieu of a case of turtle wax. It comes from my faviorite of the San Francisco papers the Daily Alta-california. It’s a non-nonsense paper--more along the lines of the Morning Adveriser than the Star or the Pall Mall Gazette. Same date as the others. November 23.

DOCTOR TUMBLETY

Chief Crowley’s Account of His Career in San Francisco

Chief Crowley has exchanged considerable correspondence with Scotland Yard officials in refernce to “Dr. Tumblety,” who is under arrest on suspicion of being implicated in the Whitechaapel Murders. Chief Crowley sent a telegram on the 19th inst. to the London ddetectives, informing them that he could furnish specimens of Tumblety’s handwriting, and yesterday received teh following answer from the Chief of Scotlandy Yard detectives: “Thanks. send hand-writing and all details you can in relation to him.--Anderson.”

My money is on this being the most accurate report and the most accurate version of the telegram.

It sounds, AP, like a guy pretty fricking interested in finding out who Tumblety was. And the head of the C.I.D. no less.

But the most interesting line is the first one. “Crowley has exchanged considerable correspondence with Scotland Yard officials in reference to “Dr. Tumblety.” This is published on November 23rd in regards to informatin obtained on November 22.


Chew that over slowly, old bean, because someday it will bite you back. The only telegram we know of took three days to go full circle. I already explained to you why that was: it required an independent and relatively expensive cablegram to be sent by way of Halifax. Crowley on the 19th. Anderson response makes it back on the 22. = 3 days.

So as a parting shot--all in good fun. Let you, Norder, and Vanderlinden put your heads together and tell me how this ‘considerable correspondence’ was exchanged by November 22, if Crowley didn’t start his investigation until the afternoon of the 18th. If this report is accurate, that ‘considerable correspondence’ would have been technologically impossible in 1888. Something doesn't jive.

That my friend, is why there is considerable doubt about how it ‘went down’ and I don’t think that it should be flippantly insisted that ‘Chief Crowley himself' said this ‘unambigously’ I think there is considerable ambiguity and doubt, and I’d prefer to see the telegrams before I made that insistance.

Good-bye, AP. See you on the other side. And to Dan N--worry no more, mate, I'm putting you on permanent ignore until the Second Coming. We have no future. Farewell.

P.S. To Natalie: there is an obscure reason Scotland Yard might have been interested in an Irishman with San Francisco connections in 1888. The London Bridge bombing in 1884. The dynamite came from the 'City by the Bay' and some of it turned up again later. Littlechild called the former case the most spectacular investigation of his career.

[Cap'n Jack]

Nice post, RJP, thanks for taking the time to craft it, and I do take on board everything you say.
But as ever I do not see the same things as you do; and I think you'll agree that I'm as well read as you are in regard to press reports from SF & NY in November of 1888, perhaps even better as I don't restrict myself to purely material about the Whitechapel Murders and Tumblety.
What this reveals is that Chief Crowly did not drop everything in his pursuit of Tumblety, in fact he carried on with his normal policing duties in that period 18th November through to the 23rd November 1888; but in addition to that took the trouble to get hold of samples of Tumblety's handwriting, and other material to send by wire to Scotland Yard which he began to do on the 19th November, unbidden by Scotland Yard or anyone else for that matter.
He was purely using his initiative, a not unusual ploy often employed by senior police officers.
Obviously the documents he was transmitting would have been of a cumbersome nature and this would have taken some time to transmit... let's say ten or twenty minutes, not five days eh, RJP?
And as regards your contention that such documents would have been normally sent in a police cypher code, I'd like to hear your explanation of just how Crowly was going to do this with samples of Tumblety's handwriting?
The local San Francisco press did not fly into some kind of frenzy when they learnt of the cable exchange between the SFPD and SY, in fact their response was reasonable and measured, and it is obvious that they were running the story on first hand information from Crowly, rather than having tapped it from the cable. You over excite your imagination, RJP.
You know the reporting in the SF press of cable exchanges between different police departments was the norm, not the unusual at all; just look at the exchange between Crowly and the Chicago police on the 17th November 1888as reported in the DEB of the same date.
No great shakes there, and there were no great shakes with the Tumblety exchange either, with Crowly rapidly losing interest when he realised he had a dead duck on his hands.
So nothing has changed in Tumbleville, RJP, but a good post nontheless.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes, RJ, it certainly appears the case that the various news reporters and their editors were having difficulty reading between the lines of the Anderson/Chief Crowley telegraph correspondence-two heads of CID no less.It beggars belief that either of these men would have been be loose tongued to reporters over a man suspected of being either the Whitechapel murderer or ,even worse in their eyes, a Fenian sympathiser possibly involved in the smuggling a cache of dynamite used in the London Bridge bombing fiasco.
And yes RJ, it was found to have been produced by the Safety Nitro Company of San Francisco.The cache was found in the vacated Harrow Road lodging house of William Mackey Lomasney, a member of Clan na Gael,and the leader of the dynamite plot, who atomised himself, his brother and John Flemming in the explosion under London Bridge in 1884.
Interestingly Jenkinson-dubbed "spy master general" -had had "prior warning" from Philadelphia of this little ol" London Bridge plot which was why he had ordered the gratings to be installed the previous March [1884].
Now Jenkinson depended for his information on an "illegal network of spies" ------so I cant help wondering in the light of your information, who precisely that "spy " was in this specific case,-this person with inside information on Clan na Gael activities, reporting to him from "Philadelphia", in March 1884? It could be well worth us trying to find out his name---or his alias!
I have always been a bit bewildered as to why Jenkinson"s "network" of "extra legal" spies,drawn often from pubs and the like, caused such outrage on behalf of Monro and Anderson and led to him being sacked.Was it just a sense of outraged "punctiliousness" on Anderson and Monro"s part or was it partly that they knew that underneath, Jenkinson was quite a dark horse -a supporter of Home Rule no less ,which they both regarded as a complete anathema they needed to prevent at all costs?
Anyway-----who was Jenkinson"s clan "informer" in Philadelphia in March 1884?
Best
Natalie

[Natalie Severn]

post script re identity of Jenkinson"s informer

It looks as though a certain John P Hayes was actually Jenkinson"s man in Philadelphia and probably gave warning of the London Bridge attack in 1884.
However, if any one man really got about in those days it was certainly Tumblety.He went to and fro across the Atlantic in 1883/4 more times than I"ve had hot dinners.He had gone to Paris in the 1870"s.He lived in and and presumably got to know San Francisco where the dynamite for the London Bridge attack came from.He also had one of his "Herbal remedy" shops almost opposite the Clan"s Philadelphia headquarters .Its believed by some he even had such a Herbal shop in the East End at one point,on the Whitechapel Road near the Polly Nichol"s murder .You get dizzy tracing his movements and trouble with the law---he did business deals in New Orleans,Washington,Canada ,Birmingham,Liverpool----.And to what purpose were they--especially those crossings from Europe to America and back again in the mid 1880"s?
Natalie

[Cap'n Jack]

And Natalie, some reports I have read appear to indicate that Tumblety was related to Hayes.

[Cap'n Jack]

Like this one, Nats, and please remember that Tumblety left some of his loot to this lot:

'Vallejo Chronicle
California, U.S.A.
Tuesday, 20 November 1888

VALLEJO STILL AHEAD.
A Former Resident Held for the Whitechapel Murder.

Vallejo never takes a back seat while notoriety is going around, and after nearly every character that becomes distinguished before the world could be written in truth, "formerly of Vallejo." There have been heirs to European thrones working on Mare Island, the captain of a Vallejo Military company is claiming the great Tichnorne estate in England, a former Vallejoite is the latest brigand of Southern California, and another narrowly escaped lynching for the most heinous murder of the year. The greatest men of modern history and the most consummate rascals of the time have all dwelt more or less in our city. But the latest glory that Vallejo has achieved is an applicant for the position of principal in the greatest horror of modern times, the Whitechapel murders in England.

Francis Tumblety, who, according to a cable dispatch, was arrested in London on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders lived in Vallejo about thirteen years ago and was an uncle of the late John Hayes. He made John a present of a black horse with a white face that John used to travel about with very much. Many old residents remember him well and say that he answers exactly to the description given by the London papers of him, "about fifty-five years old, tall and rather heavy, and looks as if he painted his cheeks and dyed his hair. He has a heavy mustache and side whiskers."