Tweet
Greetings all,
The following article was in The New York World on 4 December, 1888, just a couple of days after Francis Tumblety finally arrived in New York after jumping bail. It goes into great detail about the English detective waiting for him to arrive, and then staying for a period of time asking the locals about Tumblety.
…It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. He was a little man with enormous red side whiskers and a smoothly shaven chin. He was dressed in an English tweed suit and wore an enormous pair of boots with soles an inch thick. He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective. If he had been put on a stage just as he paraded up and down Fourth avenue and Tenth street yesterday he would have been called a caricature.
First he would assume his heavy villain appearance. Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm. Then his mood changed. His hat was pushed back in a devil-may-care way and he marched to No. 79 with a swagger, whistling gayly, convinced that his disguise was complete and that no one could possibly recognize him.
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying:"He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothink at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it."
When night came the English detective became more and more enterprising. At one time he stood for fifteen minutes with his coat collar turned up and his hat pulled down, behind the lamp-post on the corner, staring fixedly at No. 79. Then he changed his base of operations to the stoop of No. 81 and looked sharply into the faces of every one who passed. He almost went into a spasm of excitement when a man went into the basement of No. 79 and when a lame servant girl limped out of No. 81 he followed her a block, regarding her most suspiciously. At a late hour he was standing in front of the house directly opposite No. 79 looking steadily and ernestly.
…Even in the saloons where he often went to drink he was spoken of with loathing and contempt. He must have kept himself very quiet on the La Bretagne, for a number of passengers who were interviewed could not remember having seen any one answering his description. It will be remembered that he fled from London to Paris to escape being prosecuted under the new "Fall of Babylon" act.
Inspector Byrnes was asked what his object in shadowing Twomblety. "I simply wanted to put a tag on him." he replied, "so that we can tell where he is. Of course, he cannot be arrested,for there is no proof in his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he was under bond in London is not extraditable."
It interesting that this article goes into so much detail about an English detective in New York for the purpose of investigating/watching Francis Tumblety soon after the murders. Not only this, it is also interesting that Inspector Byrnes knew Scotland Yard had no direct evidence on Tumblety for the murders, had arrested him for a misdemeanor charge not extraditable, and had known these things so soon after him jumping bail.
Now, I understand that for the last decade the prevailing belief has been that Scotland Yard did not consider Tumblety a serious JTR suspect, so how does this article conform to that belief? It seems the only way this can be is that the article was a complete fabrication, because it is too detailed to be a subtle mistake. Is there evidence that The New York World made this up?
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Mike
The following article was in The New York World on 4 December, 1888, just a couple of days after Francis Tumblety finally arrived in New York after jumping bail. It goes into great detail about the English detective waiting for him to arrive, and then staying for a period of time asking the locals about Tumblety.
…It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. He was a little man with enormous red side whiskers and a smoothly shaven chin. He was dressed in an English tweed suit and wore an enormous pair of boots with soles an inch thick. He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective. If he had been put on a stage just as he paraded up and down Fourth avenue and Tenth street yesterday he would have been called a caricature.
First he would assume his heavy villain appearance. Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm. Then his mood changed. His hat was pushed back in a devil-may-care way and he marched to No. 79 with a swagger, whistling gayly, convinced that his disguise was complete and that no one could possibly recognize him.
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying:"He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothink at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it."
When night came the English detective became more and more enterprising. At one time he stood for fifteen minutes with his coat collar turned up and his hat pulled down, behind the lamp-post on the corner, staring fixedly at No. 79. Then he changed his base of operations to the stoop of No. 81 and looked sharply into the faces of every one who passed. He almost went into a spasm of excitement when a man went into the basement of No. 79 and when a lame servant girl limped out of No. 81 he followed her a block, regarding her most suspiciously. At a late hour he was standing in front of the house directly opposite No. 79 looking steadily and ernestly.
…Even in the saloons where he often went to drink he was spoken of with loathing and contempt. He must have kept himself very quiet on the La Bretagne, for a number of passengers who were interviewed could not remember having seen any one answering his description. It will be remembered that he fled from London to Paris to escape being prosecuted under the new "Fall of Babylon" act.
Inspector Byrnes was asked what his object in shadowing Twomblety. "I simply wanted to put a tag on him." he replied, "so that we can tell where he is. Of course, he cannot be arrested,for there is no proof in his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he was under bond in London is not extraditable."
It interesting that this article goes into so much detail about an English detective in New York for the purpose of investigating/watching Francis Tumblety soon after the murders. Not only this, it is also interesting that Inspector Byrnes knew Scotland Yard had no direct evidence on Tumblety for the murders, had arrested him for a misdemeanor charge not extraditable, and had known these things so soon after him jumping bail.
Now, I understand that for the last decade the prevailing belief has been that Scotland Yard did not consider Tumblety a serious JTR suspect, so how does this article conform to that belief? It seems the only way this can be is that the article was a complete fabrication, because it is too detailed to be a subtle mistake. Is there evidence that The New York World made this up?
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Mike
Comment