Tumblety and Pinkerton

[mklhawley]

Thomas Hall Caine was indeed a member of the Beefsteak Club, but as his relationship with Tumblety ended years previously it has no bearing on matters.

Oh, contraire. His love life with Caine may have ended in 1876, but there is no evidence to suggest his London trips up to 1888 did not involve social visits with Caine, especially when Tumblety stated he visited the Beefsteak Club and its associated Lyceum theater. There is even evidence for Tumblety thoroughly enjoying the theater. Notice the following New York World article (5 December 1888)

TUMBLETY'S PROTEGE TALKS.
HE LIVED WITH THE DOCTOR AND WAS HIS CONSTANT COMPANION.
(Martin H. McGarry) ...Usually he went up to the Morton House, where he pointed out the actors to me and told me who they were and what they did. Sometimes in the afternoons we would drop in to the matinees...


McGarry may have been duped by Tumblety's lies, but this is a first-hand account immune to Tumblety's deception. Notice how Tumblety knew all of the actors by name and their backgrounds. Tumblety seemed to have a passion for theater and London's Beefsteak Club with an old boyfriend having excellent connections with Henry Irving himself, would have been the perfect choice for him. Again, Tumblety claimed to frequent it. This conflicts with your Sir George Arthur story.

By the way, isn't it interesting that the only year records for the Beefsteak Club attendance to go missing is 1888. It certianly sounds like someone in Pall Mall does not want this information out.


Notice the following articles:

Daily Examiner (San Francisco, CA)
Tuesday, 20 November 1888
DR. TUMBLETY.
San Francisco Lets in Light on the Whitechapel Murders.
...A dispatch from London[notice it does not say from New York], published in the EXAMINER yesterday, announced the fact that Dr. Francis Tumblety had been arrested and held on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. He is held on some charge which has been placed against him in order to secure his detention. The dispatch gave his peculiarities and stated that he was well known in New York, Pittsburg and San Francisco...

Daily Examiner (San Francisco, CA)
Friday, 23 November 1888
DR. TUMBLETY.
The London Detectives Ask Chief Crowley About Him [Notice London initiated this].
...Dr. Francis Tumblety, the suspect arrested at London in connection with the Whitechapel murders, is still held by the police of that city, and a good deal of importance seems to be attached to his apprehension. All facts in relation to the suspected "doctor" are being carefully collected, and, as Tumblety was once in this city, there has been considerable telegraphing between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London...


The New York World (4 December, 1888)

…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."


...and you're telling me London did not consider Tumblety a serious JTR suspect when they clearly initiated communitcation with San Francisco and New York and they had a Scotland Yard detective watching Tumblety.

It is clear that Scotland Yard officials were told to never speak about it, and just as Norma posted, no official would have spoken about it for fear of losing their pension.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Many people named Dew are nicknamed "Foggy". My school science master most certainly was. However, the speculation I was referring to was SPE's suggestion that Dew may have had a memory of Andrews carrying out a Ripper connected inquiry in America.

Thomas Hall Caine was indeed a member of the Beefsteak Club, but as his relationship with Tumblety ended years previously it has no bearing on matters.

The Sir George Arthur story is not on the wrong thread, for its similarities in detail call into question the very foundations of Tumblety's claim to have been arrested as a Ripper suspect. For as we know, Tumblety wasn't shy when it came to lifting other people's stories, and often large tracts of their writings, for use as his own personal observations and experiences.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

What on earth has "Foggy" Dew got to do with Tumblety? Don't you recognize SPEculation when you see it?

Talk about speculation. Of course you will claim he was foggy, because his comment conflicts with your belief. I see no conflict with someone in H-division claiming Andrews was one of the three detectives involved with the JTR case, escpecially when it conforms beautifully with Logan's comment that "Scotland Yard's best man, Inspector Andrews, was sent specifically to America in December 1888" for the Whitechapel fiend. Do you have evidence that Logan is lying just like Home Secretary Matthews, Chief Commissioner Monro, Chief Inspector Anderson, Pinkerton, Littlechild, etc.?

With regards to the West End stuff, wrong thread. Of course you realize that Tumblety's ex-boyfriend Thomas Hall Caine frequented the Beefstake club. Maybe we should start a thread on this.

Mike

[Supe]

Norma,

I think my point has been made.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Nats,

Thank you. Well said. I totally agree.

best wishes

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Mike,

Unfortunately, you were right the first time around: There has been considerable incivility, rudeness and insulting on this thread and others. Such that often the best and brightest among us decide they have better things to do than suffer the slings and arrows of puffed up pygmies.

Nor is Phil's suggestion that everyone involved created the acrimonious situation correct. Most of us could go on for months (and sometimes have) discussing the finer points of Ripperology without recourse to insult, smear, name calling or snide insinuations. There are only a vocal few who create those problems, but sadly they prevail.

Don.

I have rarely read a post so full of rectitude and pomposity and misplaced vanity.Dont flatter yourself so much, Mr Souden.
Stewart has had enough for the time being,thats a real shame because he is a kind and generous man .
But a lot of feathers have been ruffled lately .No need to ruffle any more really is there?

[Phil Carter]

Puffed up?

Hello Don,

"...the best and brightest among us"..."puffed up pygmies"

It it exactly this sort of comment that shows and causes divide. While one treads on this treadmill, I would respectfully remind you that you are no better than the "pygmies" you accuse of being "puffed up", in demonstrating a "holier than thou", "we know better than thee", attitude whilst pretending to look down from aloft.

Don, you continually put down just about everything I, and some selected others write, whilst commentating from this self-acclaimed lofty perch. Being the Editor of an on-line magazine, or any other job title for that matter, doesn't entitle you to sit in judgement over which human beings are or are not "better and brighter" amongst us. Some of the people who write more regularly on this website are of far greater intelligence than many others, and all should be shown the same respect, whatever they contribute with. Some have a more limited education than others, but that doesn't mean that their words are less valuable either.

Just for your information Don, there is NO hierarchy in Ripperology.

This statement that has been commented upon and agreed with by SPE himself, on one of my early threads. Unless of course, SPE also belongs to your proclaimed community of the "lesser bright", "puffed up pygmies"?

I would have thought that unity and encouragement was more important within Ripperology, than trying to insinuate divide between the likes of yourself..the "best and brightest" and the rest of us down here with our feet on the ground.

Your comments only serve, as I see them, to stir up more divide. It will do no good at all. But then, who I am to dare to confront and comment the words of the "great" Mr. Don Souden?
Just one who clearly isn't one of the "better and brighter among us" that's who....

So why not tell us exactly to WHOM you are referring Don? A nice long list it should be, given you sit amongst the few who are " the best and brightest among us." Or is that "below" you?

Who was it that fiddled whilst Rome burned again? Oh yes, the one that got on with doing his thing whilst the more vocal "minions" screamed "fire!"

"The history book on the shelf is always repeating itself." (Andersson/Ulveaus)




best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Mike,

Unfortunately, you were right the first time around: There has been considerable incivility, rudeness and insulting on this thread and others. Such that often the best and brightest among us decide they have better things to do than suffer the slings and arrows of puffed up pygmies.

Nor is Phil's suggestion that everyone involved created the acrimonious situation correct. Most of us could go on for months (and sometimes have) discussing the finer points of Ripperology without recourse to insult, smear, name calling or snide insinuations. There are only a vocal few who create those problems, but sadly they prevail.

Don.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

What on earth has "Foggy" Dew got to do with Tumblety? Don't you recognize SPEculation when you see it?

Just prior to the Millers Court murder two police constables arrested a man in Whitechapel after he approached a well-known prostitute. He was wearing an old shooting coat and a slouch hat, and it occurred to the constables that the man answered the popular description of Jack the Ripper.

The man protested, expostulated and threatened the policemen with the vengeance of royal wrath, but in vain. Finally, a chance was given to him to send to a fashionable West End Club to prove his identity, and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake.

The man was Sir George Compton Archibald Arthur. At the time of his arrest he was a 28 year old captain in the Royal Horse Guard and also an amateur actor, who had appeared as the corpse when the Bancrofts produced "Theodora". He also enjoyed slumming in London's poor areas.

Sir George Arthur's London clubs were Brooks, Marlborough, Carlton and the Beefsteak.

Needless to say, the story did not reach the London newspapers.

Interviewed in January 1889, Tumblety told a reporter about being accused of being Jack the Ripper. "It was owing to the stupidity of the London Police, who arrested him because he was an American and wore a slouch hat." Tumblety also said that he was "a frequenter of some of the best London clubs, among others the Carlton Club and the Beefsteak Club."

Over to you.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike,

If your statement on post No. 127 is true, it takes all contributions to cause that feeling, I opine. That includes, you, me, Stewart, Roger, Simon, Wolf, and all. I honestly don't interpret it that way.

In some forms of Ripperology, there will be a great divide. This debate is a by-product of that divide, with effect. There is a passion in Ripperology, which isn't such a bad thing either. That is why this forum is the cutting edge. More and more people question things that have been presented to us over the years. In many cases, it is sorely needed too, imho.

It should also be remembered that behind the present discussions and arguments, lay a few years of personal disagreement as well.

best wishes

Phil

Phil, you have an excellent way of saying things. Well spoken (...or written).

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

If your statement on post No. 127 is true, it takes all contributions to cause that feeling, I opine. That includes, you, me, Stewart, Roger, Simon, Wolf, and all. I honestly don't interpret it that way.

In some forms of Ripperology, there will be a great divide. This debate is a by-product of that divide, with effect. There is a passion in Ripperology, which isn't such a bad thing either. That is why this forum is the cutting edge. More and more people question things that have been presented to us over the years. In many cases, it is sorely needed too, imho.

It should also be remembered that behind the present discussions and arguments, lay a few years of personal disagreement as well.

best wishes

Phil

[mklhawley]

...As far as I know Andrews was not a Special Branch man. Andrews had arrested Barnett in the first place and, I suppose, was the natural choice to return him to Canada. According to Dew (the only source I'm afraid) Andrews was one of three Scotland Yard Inspectors assigned to the Ripper investigation, along with Abberline and Moore. The official records prove Dew to be right about Abberline and Moore, so did Dew have a memory of Andrews carrying out a Ripper connected inquiry in America?

As to evidence of Andrews not being involved in Parnell-related inquiries we have the flat denial of the Home Secretary that that was not the case in the House of Commons on Thursday March 21, 1889. Mr. T. Healey asked if Inspector Andrews had visited America since the passing of the Special Commission Act; and whether his business there was connected with the charges and allegations made before the Royal Commission. Matthews replied in the negative.

Further to that we have Anderson stating, "Neither before nor during the Parnell Commission did the Criminal Investigation Department either directly or indirectly render any assistance to the Times; I disclaim any connection with any move in a political game..." In his 1906 book Anderson stated, "And I say this emphatically, because I find there are people still who credit Mr. Labouchere's statments that I sent police officers across the Atlantic to tout for evidence against the Parnellites. The allegation was unequivocally denied by the Secretary of State in Parliament, and by the Chief Commissioner of Police in a letter to the Times..."

So we have to accept that Home Secretary Matthews, Chief Commissioner Monro and Assistant Commissioner Anderson were all lying, in print, about this and that totally unsubstantiated press claims in the USA were correct [in direct contradiction to the principle of parsimony]. I appreciate that there are those who will say (as it suits their argument) that this is the case and that is their interpretation. It seems to me that to risk a serving Scotland Yard man making such enquiries (with the huge risks that entailed) when there were plenty of other private agents who could do the same thing is a bit silly.

This just needs to be repeated again. It's too bad that there's this "last man standing" belief on the threads, meaning "I'm still posting so I win". It's interesting how those who outright deny Tumblety being considered a serious suspect ignore Dew. I'm curious as to why people also ignore the principle of parsimony when this tool is foundational in scientific inquiry. There's a reason why science works.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Any answers yet to post #100?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Actually I do, but first of all, do you ever sleep?

Recall that Tumblety himself stated when he was in the Whitechapel district during the time of the murders he dressed "as to not draw attention to himself." We know he did this because the reporter who interviewed him in early 1889 stated he did not dress in his public flamboyant attire.

Your problem is you do not understand visual bias. Your perception is when the average man was only 5 ft 8 inches a 6 ft 2 inch person would stick out like a sore thumb. Average does not mean ALL men were 5 ft 8 inches. Height fits into a bell curve and 6 ft 2 inch men were on the high end of the bell curve, but they were within the curve. Check out photos of crowds and taller people do not stick out dramatically. A 7 ft tall man would not be on the bell curve, thus, would stick out like a sore thumb. Keep in mind, this was also at a time when many men wore hats of all sizes, which would further mix the crowd. To say that a person just a few inches taller than the average could not blend in conflicts with visual perception.

For decades, Tumblety was an expert at leaving town when the proverbial heat was turned up. He was very good at it AND he could afford it. You of all people slam on Scotland Yard ineptitudes, and they met their match with the elusive Francis Tumblety - a man who always seemed to get out of a tight spot.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Any answers yet to post #100?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Geez, I thought he'd never leave. Now, let's get back to the uninformed comments.

Sadly, this is the very reason why the top ripperologists leave this forum.