Critiquing arguments against Tumblety, or Francis the Ripper

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Happy New Year!.

I read your book about Tumblety again today, for the first time in a while. I decided I had not paid enough attention recently to make some of the facts about him stick in my own head. So I refreshed my mind a little.

The points I found, having closed the book afterwards were that this suspect was, and to this day still is, a plausible and reasonable suspect. That doesn't mean, as you say yourself, that Tumblety is JTR. But it does mean that the advance of this suspect helped open up more research areas, both for and against.

It also did something VERY valuable, to my mind. It opened up an alley that we had not previously looked down. Personally, I still have great respect for the book. Having read most of the books previous to it, and the at times dire period from Mr. Knight onwards, where one poor theory after another surfaced, it was actually refreshing to get to grips with a REAL possibility once again. It also gave me a belief that we were getting away from the idiocy, acrimony and in-fighting, that had sadly crept into Ripperology.

I personally believe also, that unseen inspirations were given to others, who later researched and investigated a whole plethora of alleyways occured. And had it not been for the seriously methodical research you and your co-writer used, we may still have been in the dark old days in many ways. It was a refreshingly fine thing to see.

I for one am grateful..nay, very grateful for this contribution. The influences of Rumbelow, Evans, Skinner and Scott, to name but a few, have been shining examples that have inspired the NEXT generation and set standards. That is something you can assuredly and happily hold proud within you. Your contribution through your book about Tumblety, and afterwards, was, and is immense. Thank you.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Happy New Year. Good to see you back on the boards.

Could you please help clear up a detail? I have put this question to a number of people, but to no avail.

I have seen the Court Calendar listing Tumblety's four acts of gross indecency, but what is our source for the actual dates of these offences?

Friday, July 27, 1888 — Albert Fisher
Friday, August 31st 1888 — Arthur Brice
Sunday, October 14 1888 — James Crowley
Friday, November 2nd 1888 — John Doughty

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank You

Hi Phil, thank you for the kind comments and a Happy New Year to you too, and to all here.

I first started reading about the case in 1961 and expanded into serious research during the mid to late '60s. So you may imagine what I felt when I 'found' the Littlechild letter in 1993 and realised that here was a 'new' but genuine suspect. In many ways I would rather have not written a 'suspect book' at all, but given the circumstances, as explained in my book, there was really no way of avoiding it. Such was the genesis of the Tumblety book.

There is no way, of course, that a 'suspect book' can be looked upon as a text book or solid reference work as it will always be too subjective and carry a degree of bias. After all, the requirement is to make the best possible case for a particular individual being Jack the Ripper. And publishers being publishers will always require a degree of sensationalism and strength of argument. This, however, should not include invention or dishonesty.

Through extensive research we were able to include not only a 'new' suspect but also much material that had not been published in a Ripper book before. No matter how good any such book is the author has to expect much criticism and strong attacks upon his theorising - for theory forms an important part of such a book.

For anyone to imagine that a book that provides a case for the identity of a murderer in an unsolved case can be free of personal opinion, interpretation and theory is misguided. As a police officer my whole career revolved around such subjects as legal evidence, witnesses and proof. So I am only too aware of the hopeless task in trying to make out a solid case in the absence of hard evidence. But if we were halted by such constraints then there would be no 'suspect books' and the subject would be, I venture to suggest, very boring.

At the time that I wrote my first book it was very difficult to get a Ripper book published unless it contained a really good new suspect or theory. A rare exception was, of course, the excellent A-Z which was ahead of its time.

The 90s witnessed the dawn of an era of much greater public (and international) interest in the case, fuelled by the Internet. We saw Sugden's valuable contribution (just before our book was published) and by the millenium I was able to publish much more objective reference works such as The Ultimate Sourcebook and Letters From Hell. But, I guess, any author may be judged only by the work he produces.

[Stewart P Evans]

Source

Hi Stewart,
Happy New Year. Good to see you back on the boards.
Could you please help clear up a detail? I have put this question to a number of people, but to no avail.
I have seen the Court Calendar listing Tumblety's four acts of gross indecency, but what is our source for the actual dates of these offences?
Friday, July 27, 1888 — Albert Fisher
Friday, August 31st 1888 — Arthur Brice
Sunday, October 14 1888 — James Crowley
Friday, November 2nd 1888 — John Doughty
Regards,
Simon

The source for the dates, and wording, of these charges is the actual Tumblety charge sheet a copy of which was obtained from the PRO (Chancery Lane) by Andy Aliffe and of which I have a copy. And a Happy New Year to you. I shall not be staying 'back on the boards'.

[c.d.]

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Many thanks for your kind reply.

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.