Critiquing arguments against Tumblety, or Francis the Ripper

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[c.d.]

Couldn't Tumblety's alleged hatred of women simply been a ruse to explain why he was not seen in their company thus covering up the real reason?

c.d.

[Natalie Severn]

Couldn't Tumblety's alleged hatred of women simply been a ruse to explain why he was not seen in their company thus covering up the real reason?

c.d.

I think you may be right c.d. I imagine that in Victorian London a gay man was seen as a woman hater whether he was or not----just as gay women are still seen by some ,automatically, as men haters.
Best
Norma

[perrymason]

I think you may be right c.d. I imagine that in Victorian London a gay man was seen as a woman hater whether he was or not----just as gay women are still seen by some ,automatically, as men haters.
Best
Norma

I would also doubt that a bisexual would be seen as anything other than a homosexual in that era Nats. Open and frank discussions on Human Sexuality were not viable topics in the Victorian era.

My best regards

[Archaic]

My Two Cents

Hi, Stewart, how are you?

I just wanted to say that agree with what you've said over the course of the preceding pages, and appreciate you going into detail for us regarding your opinions and experiences.

Everybody with any common sense knows that you are one of the pioneers of Ripperology, and that for all your years of hard work,
important discoveries, and dedicated endeavor the rest of us are in your debt.

It's unfortunate that certain individuals on online forums can exhibit a tendency to descend into petty competition, shallow egotism,
and blatant rudeness. Besides being unpleasant and rather boring, it's a loss for all of us if it so aggravates others that they avoid participating.

But of course, curtailing the participation of others is exactly what some people hope to achieve- maybe because deep inside they know that they themselves have failed to achieve something more worthwhile?

There are dysfunctional people whose egos so crave attention that if they can't inspire interested attention and positive feedback they settle for stirring up strife & negative attention, then pat themselves on the back and pretend that it's some sort of personal achievement.

I have no idea who they think they're fooling other than themselves, but I think it's sad to see such jealousy evinced in public.
It's also tedious.

I hope you won't stop participating, Stewart; the vast majority of us are here on Casebook because we want to learn and to share ideas,
and we look forward to your posts.

Sincerely,
Archaic

[Archaic]

Tumblety 'Arrested For Complicity in the Whitechapel Murders' December 1888

Hi Stewart, Mike & all.

This is the article that Mike referred to earlier; it states that Tumblety was "arrested in London for complicity in the Whitechapel murders."

Mike had specific questions about this article relating to Scotland Yard and Colonel Durham which I really couldn't answer,
so perhaps others here can help him? Thanks.

This article comes from the December 1888 edition of an American medical journal called 'The Medical Standard'.

Here's a link to the 'Misc. Tumblety Articles' thread where Mike asked his question, posts # 4 and #7:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3749

Thanks & best regards, Archaic

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that if Tumbelty had actually been officially arrested as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders. It would have been mentioned in the british press if not his name at least there would have been a mention of a suspect being in custody. After all it was a very high profile case, and at that time they had made no real arrests save for Pfizer.

In the absence of this i would suggest that all of these report are made up and an exageration of the indeceny arrest. No one other than Littlechild seems to have mentioned him and he only gave an opinion.

Perhpaps Stewart could clarify the issue with regard to when he was arrested and officially bailed. There seems to be confusion on this aspect as well.

"The Truth is stil out there"

[Natalie Severn]

It also has to be remembered that dozens and dozens of people were brought in for questioning-some were arrested and then released as may have happened with Tumblety.
Not only that the police had their hands full with the daily queues of crack pots stating they were Jack the Ripper etc and Macnaghten tells us that police mail bags overflowed at this time with another group of disturbed people sending them an assortment of bizarre letters claiming to be JtR or that he was their dad etc.

[mklhawley]

I think that if Tumbelty had actually been officially arrested as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders. It would have been mentioned in the british press if not his name at least there would have been a mention of a suspect being in custody. After all it was a very high profile case, and at that time they had made no real arrests save for Pfizer.

In the absence of this i would suggest that all of these report are made up and an exageration of the indeceny arrest. No one other than Littlechild seems to have mentioned him and he only gave an opinion.

Perhpaps Stewart could clarify the issue with regard to when he was arrested and officially bailed. There seems to be confusion on this aspect as well.

"The Truth is stil out there"

Trevor, here's my counter argument which pertains to your question. I'm not sure if you read it, considering your comment.

"Argument 4: There is no concrete evidence that Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a serious suspect.
To me, Evans & Gainey’s arguments are convincing enough to answer this argument, but even if you do not, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. This is especially true with such a cold case as JTR where concrete physical evidence is all but absent. According to Donald Rumbelow, Scotland Yard officials were directed to exclude the press on the JTR investigation entirely. In view of this, how can one conclude Tumblety’d JTR suspect status by what Scotland Yard said or what they told the press? No wonder the UK press was so silent about Tumblety. With this kind of policy, in order to discover their true motives, one should not consider what Scotland Yard said but consider what they did. They certainly followed Tumblety to the U.S., and in following known Scotland Yard policy, claimed he was not being investigated for the Whitechapel murders.
Tumblety himself admitted to a reporter in January 1889 that Whitechapel authorities not only arrested him for the Whitechapel murders but also charged him with the murders. Tumblety stated, “I happened to be there when these Whitechapel murders…I was not dressed in a way to attract attention… I had simply been guilty of wearing a slouch hat, and for that I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded.” I believe it is foolhardy to reject Tumblety’s truthfulness in this particular part of the interview. He had nothing to gain by admitting to this, especially in light of his chosen profession. Tumblety would be more convincing to begin with facts already known to the public (being arrested and charged in connection with his type of hat), and then twist the story from there into a plausible yet deceptive story.
Interestingly, Tumblety claimed he was going to prepare a pamphlet to refute all charges against him, which never happened. This is reminiscent of what OJ Simpson claimed and then failed to do (recall that he claimed he was going to search tirelessly for the true killers on Nicole Brown Simpson once he was found innocent)."

Donald Rumbelow seems to give a reason why the UK press was silent, and I'm not sure if they cared what the US press was saying. Rumbelow commented upon how some press members had special favors with Scotland Yard officials. I bet it went both ways. Recall, Scotland Yard officials told US papers Tumblety was not a suspect, yet we now know they did consider him a suspect. It confirms they practiced deception in order to lead the press away from their actions. It certainly supports the idea they told their own press connections to be silent.

What do you think?

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=mklhawley;115228]Trevor, here's my counter argument which pertains to your question. I'm not sure if you read it, considering your comment.

"Argument 4: There is no concrete evidence that Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a serious suspect.
To me, Evans & Gainey’s arguments are convincing enough to answer this argument, but even if you do not, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. This is especially true with such a cold case as JTR where concrete physical evidence is all but absent. According to Donald Rumbelow, Scotland Yard officials were directed to exclude the press on the JTR investigation entirely. In view of this, how can one conclude Tumblety’d JTR suspect status by what Scotland Yard said or what they told the press? No wonder the UK press was so silent about Tumblety. With this kind of policy, in order to discover their true motives, one should not consider what Scotland Yard said but consider what they did. They certainly followed Tumblety to the U.S., and in following known Scotland Yard policy, claimed he was not being investigated for the Whitechapel murders.
Tumblety himself admitted to a reporter in January 1889 that Whitechapel authorities not only arrested him for the Whitechapel murders but also charged him with the murders. Tumblety stated, “I happened to be there when these Whitechapel murders…I was not dressed in a way to attract attention… I had simply been guilty of wearing a slouch hat, and for that I was charged with a series of the most horrible crimes ever recorded.” I believe it is foolhardy to reject Tumblety’s truthfulness in this particular part of the interview. He had nothing to gain by admitting to this, especially in light of his chosen profession. Tumblety would be more convincing to begin with facts already known to the public (being arrested and charged in connection with his type of hat), and then twist the story from there into a plausible yet deceptive story.
Interestingly, Tumblety claimed he was going to prepare a pamphlet to refute all charges against him, which never happened. This is reminiscent of what OJ Simpson claimed and then failed to do (recall that he claimed he was going to search tirelessly for the true killers on Nicole Brown Simpson once he was found innocent)."

Donald Rumbelow seems to give a reason why the UK press was silent, and I'm not sure if they cared what the US press was saying. Rumbelow commented upon how some press members had special favors with Scotland Yard officials. I bet it went both ways. Recall, Scotland Yard officials told US papers Tumblety was not a suspect, yet we now know they did consider him a suspect. It confirms they practiced deception in order to lead the press away from their actions. It certainly supports the idea they told their own press connections to be silent.

What do you think?
I think that Stewart and Paul Gainey did and excellent job in investigating Tumblety based on what Littlechild had suggested and it was right and proper that he should have been investigated. However in reality Littlechild only voiced an opinion some 20 odd years later suggesting that Tumblety "could" have been JTR.

I think that the combination of Tumblety being classed as a Doctor and the suggestion at the time that a medical man could have been JTR together with his arrest at the time of the murders and his absconding fuelled wild speculation in the press.

Littlechild states that there were files on him at Scotland yard. Up until now none have ever come to light. If that were the case how come Mcnaghten did not mention him in his memo which I beleive was prepared from information and other files scotland yard had built up over a period of time in relation to the murders.

Furthermore Littlechild makes no mention of Tumblety in his book which was published in 1894 the same year Macnaghten produced the memo.

In addittion James Monro who was superior to Littlechild has never mentioned Tumblety in any interview. Nor was any mention made of him in Monros unpublished memoirs which were found in the 90`s

Finally if Coles or Mckenzie are to be considered as Ripper victims then this also rules him out as we know he was not here then.

All in all take away Littlechilds opinion and what is left to work on "nothing" I dont consider an opinion to be classed as "scotland yard suspected"

Tumblety has been investigated and I personally do not think he was JTR and certainly should not be regarded as a "prime suspect" as some suggest. He liked the attention and by him saying he had been arrested for the murders would have given him that attention which we know it did.

As far as the officer supposedly following him i dont belive this to be correct and i think it is documemted that the officer went there on an unrelated matter. Looking at this sensibly. Scotland yard didnt know he was going to abscond. When Tumblety decided to leave no one knew where he was going so how could he have been followed. Had the police known he was about to abscond then he could have been re arrested before being able to do so. He then turns up in The USA sometime later, its a bit late to follow him then would you not think, and in any event what would be the point as has been said previous extradition wasnt an option.

Buy hey ho you asked what i thought but i am sure there are many on here who will not share the same views. But thank you for inviting me to add some input.

"The truth is still out there"

[mklhawley]

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for all of your assumptions and opinions, however, your claim that Tumblety being a suspect is based solely upon assumptions and opinions suggests there is no pattern of evidence, and that is simply false. The pattern could be wrong, but there certainly is one. I also feel a bit of anger/frustration in your response, something I’ve noticed in quite often in ripperology. In science, all too often the experts draw lines in the sand based not upon the evidence but upon ego and pride (ex. Multiregionalists v. Out of Africa proponents, plate tectonics, etc.), and it does nothing to serve the search for truth. It takes a full generation to filter out the invalid. I honestly do not mean to anger anyone.
I would like to repeat myself: absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Suggesting Monro would have commented upon Tumblety is mere assumption (a claim you are charging me with).
When you suggest Tumblety liked the attention, his resulting behavior does not fit. He truly attempted to disappear. As I stated earlier, his pattern of attention getting matches a narcissistic pattern of financial gain. Every eccentric thing he did points to this.
I would love someone to respond to the Irish contraction connection in the From Hell letter. I see another pattern and I’ve yet to hear a counter argument. Anyone up to the challenge?

Sincerely,

Mike