Critiquing arguments against Tumblety, or Francis the Ripper

[Stewart P Evans]

Sanford Conover

...
The goal of adamantly rejecting potential disinformation overshadows the goal of discovering the truth. Let me explain. Just because a piece of evidence has the potential of being misinformation does not necessarily mean it is. Colonel Dunham’s eyewitness testimony is a perfect example. Just because he is quack and most likely made the story up does not mean Tumblety being a collector of uterus specimens and a woman-hater is incorrect. Just recently, Archaic discovered a document that most likely predates the Dunham interview, and yet it discusses Tumblety accused of being a woman-hater. This confirms that Dunham did not make up the woman-hater claim. If one adamantly rejects any potential evidence, then this claim will be ignored, and the search for truth will be affected.
...
Sincerely,
Mike

You are quite correct Mike. I shall, if I am not discouraged from doing so, post a bit about Charles Dunham (Sanford Conover) and his allegations later. Although his past history does not necessarily negate the story of his meeting with Tumblety in Washington and the wombs in glass jars, it certainly does cast a cloud of doubt over it. As regards the hatred of women surely Littlechild's words about this independently confirm this aspect of Tumblety's nature. After all, Littlechild was certainly unaware of these claims made in the American press and Dunham was not the only source for this.

[Stewart P Evans]

Watching Brief

Hi Stewart,
I know you hate speculating but...how much of an actual obstacle was the non-extradition problem? I have always felt that if Scotland Yard had very strong suspicions against Tumblety that they could have used their influence to bypass the strict requirements of the non-extradition treaty. Is that simply nonsense or a possibility? Also, if they had actually charged Tumblety with murder could he brought back to London based simply on the charge or would they have to present their evidence to the U.S. authorities? I would imagine that Tumblety would fight extradition and threaten a libel suit.
c.d.

In a press interview dated 4 December 1888 Inspector Byrnes, chief of the New York detective force, stated that although he had a watching brief on Tumblety "...he cannot be arrested for there is no proof of his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he was under bond in London is not extraditable."

So the non-extradition was a great obstacle, in fact an insurmountable one, and, as Byrnes points out, there was no proof of his complicity in the murders. These were important points of law and could not be simply ignored or avoided. If Tumblety had been charged with the murders he would not have been on bail and would not have escaped. A charge of murder is and was very serious and extradition would have been readily granted.

As to the strength of the suspicion held in respect of Tumblety for the murders, this would not have been universally held by the London Police and others may have felt different suspects to be stronger. Although Littlechild thought him to be 'a very likely one', no doubt Anderson and Macnaghten preferred their own suspects. Some may have been more pleased to see him back in America and no longer a problem for them.

[mklhawley]

Good evening, SPE, and I thank you for your well articulated replies to my errant meanderings.
My first point would be that I fear a sinking ship cannot take much on board, but I have a little leeway before the plimsoll sinks below the waterline.
We have had many protracted and lucid debates over the issues you raise for many years now; and I would be the first person on this planet to accept what you say today, if you had said the same thing yesterday... but instead you have fought tooth and nail to keep Inspector Andrews in New York chasing Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders, and that despite the recent information available through electronic research that Inspector Andrews did not go within a hundred miles of New York; and you have appeared to ignore the salient fact that Inspector Andrews had absolutely nothing to do with any form of serious crime apart from what we would call today the 'Serious Fraud Squad'.
I well remember your attitude when I prudently bumped RJP on his world exclusive interview with Tumblety, as I turned his banger to a damp squib; and I do remember my dear old drunken ramblings being banned from various sites because I dared to question the authority of the Littlechild letter, of which you are so fond... but I not.
As I said to you at that time, and many other times, I do not question your authority, not at all, but I do question your information and sources, and I do that without let or hindrance for, or from human conflict or emotion.
It is information and disinformation I concern myself with, not individuals.
And I'm afraid your volume is guilty of a fair let of disinformation when it comes to Tumblety, and you have defended that since.

I was waiting for a response from Cap’n Jack and other ripperologists who emphasize strictly hard evidence and focus primarily upon eliminating disinformation. In one respect, this is great for ripperology peer review, but there is a downside. The goal of adamantly rejecting potential disinformation overshadows the goal of discovering the truth. Let me explain. Just because a piece of evidence has the potential of being misinformation does not necessarily mean it is. Colonel Dunham’s eyewitness testimony is a perfect example. Just because he is quack and most likely made the story up does not mean Tumblety being a collector of uterus specimens and a woman-hater is incorrect. Just recently, Archaic discovered a document that most likely predates the Dunham interview, and yet it discusses Tumblety accused of being a woman-hater. This confirms that Dunham did not make up the woman-hater claim. If one adamantly rejects any potential evidence, then this claim will be ignored, and the search for truth will be affected.

Cap’n Jack, because your MO is to challenge information to the extreme (as you admit), your conclusions must now be questioned. You may be correct, but your belief that you are the most unbiased ripperology just may have biased your results. Remember, on another thread, you admitted to rejecting Tumblety because of his age, and then you discovered someone much older doing some similar things as JTR.

Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

Hi Stewart,

I know you hate speculating but...how much of an actual obstacle was the non-extradition problem? I have always felt that if Scotland Yard had very strong suspicions against Tumblety that they could have used their influence to bypass the strict requirements of the non-extradition treaty. Is that simply nonsense or a possibility? Also, if they had actually charged Tumblety with murder could he brought back to London based simply on the charge or would they have to present their evidence to the U.S. authorities? I would imagine that Tumblety would fight extradition and threaten a libel suit.

c.d.

Ive always found the man to be fascinating regardless of any suspect based perspective, although he is certainly not without contemporary interest, and I thank you Stewart for adding this intriguing gent to the body of materials available on the crimes, times, and the personalities.

Ive considered his Fenian associations in all likelihood a large part of any investigative interest they had in him, and any "chase" that may have ensued back to America, particularly when we have Senior Investigative comments suggesting that at least at some point earlier in the Investigations themselves, someone saw a possible Fenian link with the crimes. I would think that Macnaghten must have read something about that suggestion when he assumed his position in 89 to have based his comments regarding the Lord Balfour plot upon.

I truly hope that you will stay a regular poster Stewart, but if not, we would always welcome your input and knowledge here, whenever you feel so motivated.

My best regards Mr Evans.

[Stewart P Evans]

Newspaper Reports

Here are newspaper reports that we were working from in 1994, one from December 1888 showing Andrews to be on his way to New York and the other from 1903 stating that Tumblety had been followed back to the USA by Scotland Yard men. There was nothing found at that time to indicate the contrary and this is the material we used. The information to contradict these report has been found only over recent years, mainly with computerised search facilities.

[Stewart P Evans]

Misleading

...
I would be the first person on this planet to accept what you say today, if you had said the same thing yesterday... but instead you have fought tooth and nail to keep Inspector Andrews in New York chasing Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders, and that despite the recent information available through electronic research that Inspector Andrews did not go within a hundred miles of New York; and you have appeared to ignore the salient fact that Inspector Andrews had absolutely nothing to do with any form of serious crime apart from what we would call today the 'Serious Fraud Squad'.
... I dared to question the authority of the Littlechild letter, of which you are so fond... but I not.
As I said to you at that time, and many other times, I do not question your authority, not at all, but I do question your information and sources, and I do that without let or hindrance for, or from human conflict or emotion.
It is information and disinformation I concern myself with, not individuals.
And I'm afraid your volume is guilty of a fair let of disinformation when it comes to Tumblety, and you have defended that since.

This is a totally misleading statement. My active research on Tumblety ceased after the publication of the second edition in 1996. I am, and always have been (and do), accept new information when it comes along.

I have not 'fought tooth and nail to keep Inspector Andrews in New York chasing Tumblety...' and perhaps you could point out where I have. What I have pointed out are the sources at our disposal back in 1994, when we wrote the book, that did indicate that Andrews went to New York. These are contemporary reports (and Logan's book as you have seen) and they are what we had at the time. At that time it was the general belief, as witness the entry on Andrews in the A-Z. And all I have done here is to point out those sources here in justification of what we wrote back then. Since new information has become available on Tumblety I have not written about his alleged visit to New York.

The Littlechild letter says nothing about the police going to New York. My book did not contain disinformation - all sources are quoted and form the only information that we had at the time of writing. Obviously this has to now be examined in the light of what has emerged over the intervening years such as the character of Sanford Conover casting doubt on the veracity of his report about Tumblety and the tale of the collection of wombs in the New York World in 1888. This information emerged in Ripperworld around 2000 and was discussed on these boards.

I suggest that you should concern yourself a little more with some of the nonsense you have written in the past. I shall not concern myself further with nonsensical posts.

[Cap'n Jack]

Good evening, SPE, and I thank you for your well articulated replies to my errant meanderings.
My first point would be that I fear a sinking ship cannot take much on board, but I have a little leeway before the plimsoll sinks below the waterline.
We have had many protracted and lucid debates over the issues you raise for many years now; and I would be the first person on this planet to accept what you say today, if you had said the same thing yesterday... but instead you have fought tooth and nail to keep Inspector Andrews in New York chasing Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders, and that despite the recent information available through electronic research that Inspector Andrews did not go within a hundred miles of New York; and you have appeared to ignore the salient fact that Inspector Andrews had absolutely nothing to do with any form of serious crime apart from what we would call today the 'Serious Fraud Squad'.
I well remember your attitude when I prudently bumped RJP on his world exclusive interview with Tumblety, as I turned his banger to a damp squib; and I do remember my dear old drunken ramblings being banned from various sites because I dared to question the authority of the Littlechild letter, of which you are so fond... but I not.
As I said to you at that time, and many other times, I do not question your authority, not at all, but I do question your information and sources, and I do that without let or hindrance for, or from human conflict or emotion.
It is information and disinformation I concern myself with, not individuals.
And I'm afraid your volume is guilty of a fair let of disinformation when it comes to Tumblety, and you have defended that since.

[mklhawley]

I gave up active research on Tumblety many years ago and there are others in a better position to research him than I.

However, I really do recommend Riordan's book and you will find much new information on him there. He did have occasions when he was aggressive and even assaulted someone.

I agree in his public life, he displayed some courdice actions. One interesting thought is that people who lead double lives sometimes express the opposite in their private seedy life. For example, a coward just might enjoy the serial killer motivation of power over people. He certainly did it to these middle-aged prostitutes, a frightened public, and even a befuttled Scotland Yard. Tumblety's aggressiveness was definately recorded with his private homosexual activities. Just a thought.

There were also a number of other arguments against Tumblety, such as his age, size, and mustache. Any thoughts?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Gave Up

Hi Mike,
I seem to recall that Tumblety had a reputation for physical cowardice and that his typical reaction was to flee when there was any type of imminent threat against him. That doesn't seem to fit with the type of individual you are describing.
c.d.

I gave up active research on Tumblety many years ago and there are others in a better position to research him than I.

However, I really do recommend Riordan's book and you will find much new information on him there. He did have occasions when he was aggressive and even assaulted someone.

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

I seem to recall that Tumblety had a reputation for physical cowardice and that his typical reaction was to flee when there was any type of imminent threat against him. That doesn't seem to fit with the type of individual you are describing.

c.d.

[mklhawley]

Hi Stewart,

I only have about fifty more questions for you but since I can hear you kicking and screaming as you are being dragged into speculation, I will simply say thanks and let the rest slide.

c.d.

C.D, I would love to speculative, so...

I believe your assumption is that Tumblety would now be afraid to do anything like normal people would be. He did not think normally. This type of action could very well fit an aggressive narcissistic Tumblety (this guy fits each element of aggressive narcissism like a glove. Recall, the From Hell letter was quite the taunting letter of a confident JTR (if indeed it came from JTR). As I stated at the beginning, one motivation for serial killers is the thrill, as per the psychology experts. Taunting authorities seems to have been one of his goals, which supports this type of motivation (It may not have been his initial/dominant motivation, but it certainly conforms to other serial killers). Just as a friend of mine loves to jump off buildings, the greater the thrill the better. This would be the perfect time to completely embarrass the authorities, cause additional fear with the public, and gain the greatest thrill. He not only knew the authorities were now in full force, but they also suspected him. Scotland Yard arrested him again quite possibly for the murders, so it seems they were concerned enough. Additional support comes form Mary Kelly's murder location. It was relatively safe, so he was not entirely stupid, just pathological.

This is certainly plausible enough to consider Tumblety as a serious suspect.

Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

Hi Stewart,

I only have about fifty more questions for you but since I can hear you kicking and screaming as you are being dragged into speculation, I will simply say thanks and let the rest slide.

c.d.

[Stewart P Evans]

Hypothesis

Hi Stewart,
Thank you for that very substantial answer to my question. One more if you please. If Tumblety was indeed picked up and questioned on suspicion of being the Ripper and then released, is it not reasonable to believe that he would be aware that he was being watched and that in all likelihood that observation would continue even after his release? If so, why would he then take the chance of murdering Mary Kelly? That would either take major league cojones or major stupidity.
c.d.

I sense that I am being dragged into speculation here and I am reluctant to do this. However, I will probably be accused of avoiding the issue if I do not provide an answer on the given hypothesis. Assuming the above stated scenario to be the case an answer could be that Tumblety had been used to being watched for much of his life and was just as used to successfully avoiding such observation. It was something of a joke in the 1888 media that officers trying to engage in covert observation were so obvious that everyone spotted them. There was even a cartoon in Punch to that effect.

But the subject is a lot more complex and involved than that. I have always been intrigued by the contemporary wording regarding Tumblety 'on suspicion of complicity in the Whitechapel murders (New York Times 19 Nov 1888); 'being concerned in the perpetration of the Whitechapel murders' (New York World 2 December 1888); and 'having had something to do with the Whitechapel murders' (New York World 26 November 1888). It is also interesting to note that in a report in the New York World of 2 December 1888 a William P. Burr stated that "My own idea of this case [the Whitechapel murders] is that it would be just such a thing that Tumblety would be concerned in, but he might get one of his victims to do the work, for once he had a young man under his control he seemed to be able to do anything with the victim." Given that, why not get someone else to do a murder whilst he himself was under observation and thus clear himself as a murder had been committed that he could not be responsible for?

Yes, it's all speculation, theorising and guesswork, but when working on a suspect that's usually all you have.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Many thanks for your kind reply.

Regards,

Simon