Tumblety and Pinkerton

[DRoy]

Thanks Simon!

I could tell that many of the stories were light-hearted but I assumed it was still written based on true events. It was written almost like a diary.

DRoy

[Simon Wood]

Hi DRoy,

A brief reading of the article by Edward Adams Shumway [1870-1941] reveals it to be a light-hearted satire which was not meant to be taken literally.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

I found an interesting comment in a book called The Record of the Class of 1891 of the University of Pennsylvania.

It links Pinkerton's agency with a suspect but it isn't Tumblety. The quote from the book is..."But the expedition will be a complete failure; the English authorities will not allow the champion to land because he has said so many rude things about England, while Bud Hogg will be arrested through the agency of Billy Pinkerton and taken to England on the suspicion of being Jack the Ripper."

If this story is true... and if William Pinkerton felt that Tumblety was a solid suspect for reasons other than him being homosexual, why would his own agency be arresting someone else?

Side note...if this story is true... I find it interesting that they would take Mr. Hogg to England (presumably from Ireland as earlier on the same page in the book it says Hogg was travelling to Ireland). So what did he do in Ireland that lent to him being suspected? And why did Pinkerton have detectives in Ireland?

DRoy

Hi DRoy,

Scotland Yard commonly used the Pinkerton Agency for foreign work. I have a few articles to attest to this. William Pinkerton was exceedingly close with Scotland Yard officials. Not only was Pinkerton at Scotland Yard at the beginning of the Ripper murders, Chief Inspector Littlechild and Inspector Abberline worked for the Pinkertons after they retired from Scotland Yard.

A few reasons why they would have bothered with Hogg. If the affair was in 1889 or later, Scotland Yard no longer considered Tumblety a suspect because they believed the post-Kelly murders were from the hand of the Ripper. Since Tumblety was in the US at these times, then this would have ruled him out as a Ripper suspect. Most are now convinced that Kelly was the last victim.

Lastly, William Pinkerton did not claim Tumblety was the killer, only that he could be, since he was -in his mind- insane and a woman hater. There would be no reason why Pinkertons would reject a Scotland Yard request for assistance, anyway.

Sincerely,

Mike

[DRoy]

I found an interesting comment in a book called The Record of the Class of 1891 of the University of Pennsylvania.

It links Pinkerton's agency with a suspect but it isn't Tumblety. The quote from the book is..."But the expedition will be a complete failure; the English authorities will not allow the champion to land because he has said so many rude things about England, while Bud Hogg will be arrested through the agency of Billy Pinkerton and taken to England on the suspicion of being Jack the Ripper."

If this story is true... and if William Pinkerton felt that Tumblety was a solid suspect for reasons other than him being homosexual, why would his own agency be arresting someone else?

Side note...if this story is true... I find it interesting that they would take Mr. Hogg to England (presumably from Ireland as earlier on the same page in the book it says Hogg was travelling to Ireland). So what did he do in Ireland that lent to him being suspected? And why did Pinkerton have detectives in Ireland?

DRoy

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

If they did take Tumblety seriously, do you honestly think they would telegraph this to the press and let Tumblety know about it?

As opposed to what they did do? Which was absolutely nothing. Yes, Mike, denial is a wonderful thing to the man with the empty hand.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Perhaps more importantly I notice that you don’t mention the opinions of police professionals who did know Tumblety and who had known him for years – Chief Inspector Byrnes, of the New York Police Department, and Superintendent Campbell, of the Brooklyn Police Department. Byrnes “laughed” at the suggestion that Tumblety might be the Ripper while Campbell called Tumblety a “harmless crank” and suggested that Scotland Yard had made a mistake in arresting him.

Neither man seems to have taken Tumblety’s suspect status seriously, which is surprising if they believed Tumblety to be, in any way, a danger. In fact, only two days after Tumblety arrived back in New York Police Superintendent Murray and Chief Inspector Byrnes admitted that “Dr. Tumblety was not being watched by the police detectives in this city and that he was at liberty to go where her pleased, as there was no complaint against him at Headquarters.” (The New York Tribune, 5 December, 1888.) An odd thing to say if as you argue, there was “ample evidence to suggest” that Tumblety was considered “brutal in his actions,” had an “aggressive type of sexual deviancy” or that “his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme.”

Denial's a beautiful thing, eh Wolf. We now know that Tumblety's public persona in the U.S., with his flamboyant style, was purely for business reasons. The only thing the U.S. authorities knew about Tumblety was what Tumblety wanted them to know, except when he got caught with his proverbial pants down (his money got him out of those hots spots, though). Of course they saw him as a harmless quack, but Scotland Yard certainly reached across the Atlantic to get the assistance of these same authorities. If they did take Tumblety seriously, do you honestly think they would telegraph this to the press and let Tumblety know about it?

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike.

Thanks for your confusing, and grudging, explanation – you were, once more, mistaken but by taking part of an article I wrote, that had nothing to do with Pinkerton, out of context, editing that bit so as to lose its intended meaning and then highlighting a quote from another author found within the paragraph then, magically, I “certainly promoted the idea by publishing this and introducing it with “the truth is rather startling”. That’s quite the trick.

By extension, you then claim any comments about Tumblety being a woman-hater merely meant that he was a homosexual, although there is clear evidence to the contrary. After all, if the reason why Tumblety was a JTR suspect was due just to his homosexuality, then we should see many more homosexual suspects and we do not.

It doesn’t surprise me that you’ve missed the point here entirely, or that you’ve ignored Caz’s reasoned thoughts of this very same subject. You seem to like to ask people questions then ignore the answers then ask the same question again (exactly like your friend Palmer). This habit just makes you appear unable to debate the point. Stating that one of the definitions for the term “woman hater” meant homosexual, and I have shown, with examples, that this is true, and stating that Tumblety’s homosexuality was the only reason that Tumblety was suspected (which I don’t believe I ever have said) are two different things.

One merely has to look at Sir Melville Macnaghten’s Memoranda to see what kind of man Scotland Yard considered to be a good suspect. Of the three men he names two were foreigners; two were said to be doctors and all three were said to be insane. Interestingly, their insanity took three different forms. Ostrog was described as being a “homicidal maniac.” Kosminski’s insanity was ascribed to masturbation while Druitt was described as “sexually insane,” meaning that he was (likely) a homosexual (something you have ignored and, apparently, continue to ignore). Both Kosminski and Druitt would be considered “Psychopathia Sexualis” subjects (as Littlechild also stated Tumblety was) because their supposed sexual “deviancies” were seen as forms of insanity. So you are arguing the modern sense of homosexuality rather than the Victorian sense that believed that Tumblety was insane (which is exactly what Pinkerton stated).

It is no wonder, therefore, that Tumblety, a “sexually insane,” to use Macnaghten’s term, foreign doctor with many run ins with the police, would be considered to be a good suspect. It doesn’t prove he was the Ripper, Littlechild himself doesn’t suggest this, but merely a “likely suspect” to policemen who knew nothing about serial killers, had a neanderthalish view of what constituted insanity and who were clutching at straws.

It’s clear with the comments of Pinkerton (“People…always talked of him as a brute, and as brutal in his actions”), Littlechild (“bitter in the extreme, a fact on record”), and my earlier post on aggressive narcissism… that there is ample evidence to suggest his aggressive type of sexual deviancy was more likely the reason.

First off. A psychological “profile” from a non medical layman (checklists like Hare’s are to aid professional mental health experts in a diagnosis only after a patient has been examined and interviewed) is less than useless. Coming from you, even more so.

Second. It’s interesting that you choose two men – Pinkerton and Littlechild – who knew very little about Tumblety and yet suggest that they knew all about his character. As I have pointed out in the past (which you have also ignored) Pinkerton didn’t even know Tumblety’s correct name and he got parts of his life story wrong. Littlechild, who probably never met Tumblety, proves that Scotland Yard didn’t even bother to try and figure out what happened to the man, let alone to investigate his character outside of looking at some police files.

Much of Tumblety’s life has been preserved for us in newspaper articles, books and also official papers dealing with Tumblety’s various legal troubles. Nowhere are the suggestions that Tumblety was “always talked of… as a brute, and as brutal in his actions” or that “his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme,” let alone that this was “a fact on record” in the sense that you mean of an “aggressive type of sexual deviancy.” This does not appear to be “a fact” on any record that we know of. Tumblety’s homosexuality was “a fact on record” however.

Perhaps more importantly I notice that you don’t mention the opinions of police professionals who did know Tumblety and who had known him for years – Chief Inspector Byrnes, of the New York Police Department, and Superintendent Campbell, of the Brooklyn Police Department. Byrnes “laughed” at the suggestion that Tumblety might be the Ripper while Campbell called Tumblety a “harmless crank” and suggested that Scotland Yard had made a mistake in arresting him.

Neither man seems to have taken Tumblety’s suspect status seriously, which is surprising if they believed Tumblety to be, in any way, a danger. In fact, only two days after Tumblety arrived back in New York Police Superintendent Murray and Chief Inspector Byrnes admitted that “Dr. Tumblety was not being watched by the police detectives in this city and that he was at liberty to go where her pleased, as there was no complaint against him at Headquarters.” (The New York Tribune, 5 December, 1888.) An odd thing to say if as you argue, there was “ample evidence to suggest” that Tumblety was considered “brutal in his actions,” had an “aggressive type of sexual deviancy” or that “his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme.”

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Okay Mike, let's try this a third time.



What, exactly, are you taking about here? Where did I “claim” that Pinkerton’s views were influenced by Dunham? I don’t remember ever doing this. Please try and explain.

Wolf.

Wolf,

I promised I would reply to this. My point was not that all of Pinkerton’s views were influenced by the Dunham article, but that any article discussing woman-hater (as was Pinkerton’s) was influenced by the Dunham article. Even so, I am mistaken. You did not say this and I should have known because you champion the idea that “woman-hater” in the Victorian Age merely meant homosexual. By extension, you then claim any comments about Tumblety being a woman-hater merely meant that he was a homosexual, although there is clear evidence to the contrary. After all, if the reason why Tumblety was a JTR suspect was due just to his homosexuality, then we should see many more homosexual suspects and we do not. It’s clear with the comments of Pinkerton (“People…always talked of him as a brute, and as brutal in his actions”), Littlechild (“bitter in the extreme, a fact on record”), and my earlier post on aggressive narcissism (http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4561) that there is ample evidence to suggest his aggressive type of sexual deviancy was more likely the reason. Of course, I know you disagree with this.

So I wondered to myself why I thought you claimed Dunham was the source of the woman-hater belief and I then realized why. I read your article, On the Trail of Tumblety? Notice how you quote Michael Kauffman, someone you clearly value, yet Kauffman got it completely wrong:

“…Unfortunately, as we shall see, the truth is rather startling.
Michael W. Kauffman’s book American Brutus is a reinvestigation of the Lincoln assassination and has nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders except for one interesting passage dealing with Tumblety. After a brief explanation of Tumblety’s arrest in connection with the murder of the President, Kauffman mentions how Tumblety resurfaced years later in connection with the Ripper murders. Kauffman states “Press coverage of his case brought to light some chilling details, such as Tumblety’s violent hatred for women and his gruesome collection of wombs that he kept in jars. Unfortunately, those stories could all be traced back to one Charles A. Dunham, the convicted perjurer who once went by the name of Sanford Conover” …the same Sandford Conover we met earlier, the pathological liar and master of the black arts of propaganda and false information.”

Maybe you never personally stated this, but you certainly promoted the idea by publishing this and introducing it with “the truth is rather startling”.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Tick, tock, Mike.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Tumblety having a "passion for the theatre" does not automatically enroll him in the Beefsteak Club.

Quite intriguing, though, especially when Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde was being shown at the Lyceum theater during the time of the murders.

So what if the 1888 Beefsteak Club records are missing? Tumblety was a regular vistor to London. Why doesn't his name appear in club records from earlier years?

I'm not entirely correct on this one. After reviewing the article once more, a correction needs to be made. 1888 was the only year in which the United Service Club's records are missing and not the Beefsteak club.

The United Service Club was a Pall Mall military club. The George Yard military investigator (Colonel Hughes-Hallett) was a member of this club during 1888. The Colonel was suspicious of a fellow Pall Mall clubman being Jack the Ripper.

A well-known Pall Mall figure was contacted a few years ago. His name is Anthony Lejeune. He is an elderly and respected author. Anthony graciously looked into the old records of the Beefsteak Club when requested. He was asked to check if Tumblety's name was listed in the guest membership records of the Beefsteak Club during the 1880's. (A guest membership was often used by traveling gentleman in Pall Mall in those days, and the membership would be good for a short period of time.) Anthony looked into it, and he discovered that the Beefsteak Club did not preserve their guest membership record books from the 1880's.

Do you honestly believe the man parading up and down in front of Mrs McNamara's lodging house, wearing a "billycock hat" and "thick boots", looking at once villainous and then "whistling gaily", while dressed in a disguise so complete "that nobody could possibly recognize him" was a Scotland Yard detective?

Yes. The Parnell Conspiracy requires multitudes of characters lying and the reporter would have to be another one. There are too many details for the reporter to be lying about the entire story, although I do believe the reporter embellished the "British" digs.

Andrews and Shore didn't arrive in North America until after the NY World story, so do you think he might have been Inspector Fred Jarvis, who arrived in November?

I do not, unless Jarvis was stationed in New York. Note the following article from the Southland Times, 21 October 1889.

SCOTLAND YARD.
…Most of the English detective work in America is done through the Pinkertons agency; but there are always three or four Scotland Yard men in the country watching the dynamite societies and looking after their Irish friends in different parts of the country. One of them, who was stationed in New York last year…”

Sincerely,

Mike

[sleekviper]

Thank you for the info Mike!

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Okay Mike, let's try this a third time.

… Keep in mind also that this article came BEFORE the Colonel Dunham interview, thus, not influenced by Dunham’s article as you previously and incorrectly claimed.

What, exactly, are you taking about here? Where did I “claim” that Pinkerton’s views were influenced by Dunham? I don’t remember ever doing this. Please try and explain.

Wolf.

[mklhawley]

Hi Sleekviper,
Some have proposed this, especially since he usually traveled with a rough looking hired hand. If you look at the very first U.S. newspaper articles about Tumblety, it seems to hint at both possibilities.

San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1888, GOSSIP OF LONDON.
Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years…


New York Times, November 19, 1888, THE SAME TUMBLETY.
"His Arrest in London not His First Experience."
The Dr. Tumblety who was arrested in London a few days ago on suspicion of complicity in the Whitechapel murders…


Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), Monday, 19 November 1888, Arrested on Suspicion.
DR. FRANCIS TUMBLETY THOUGHT TO BE CONCERNED IN THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.
Dr. Francis Tumblety, who, according to a cable dispatch, was arrested in London on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders and held on another charge for trial under the special law passed after the "Modern Babylon" exposures, is known in nearly every large city in this country…


New York World, 19 November 1888, HE IS "ECCENTRIC" DR. TWOMBLETY
The Amercian Suspected of the Whitechapel Crimes Well Known Here.
A special London despatch to THE WORLD yesterday morning announced the arrest of a man in connection with the Whitechapel crimes, who gave his name as Dr. Kumblety, of New York. He could not be held on suspicion, but the police succeeded in getting him held under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures…


On December 1, 1888, William Smith, the Deputy Minister of Marine in Ottawa wrote to his colleague James Barber of Saint John:
"My dear Barber.... Do you recollect Dr. Tumblety who came to St. John about 1860 and who used to ride on a beautiful white horse with a long tail, and a couple of grey hounds following after him? Do you recollect how he used to canter along like a circus man? And do you recollect that it was asserted that he killed old Portmore, the Carpenter who built the extension to my house and fleeced me to a large extent? Do you recollect how he suddenly left St. John, circus horse, hounds and all, and afterwards turned up at different places in the States and Canada? He was considered by Dr. Bayard and others an adventurer and Quack Doctor. He is the man who was arrested in London three weeks ago as the Whitechapel murderer. He had been living in Birmingham and used to come up to London on Saturday nights. The police have always had their eyes on him every place he went and finally the Birmingham Police telegraphed to the London Police that he had left for London, and on his arrival he was nabbed accordingly…”

The deputy minister’s confidence and detail certainly suggests he received his information from Scotland Yard officials, especially since Chief Inspector Anderson was contacting equivalent city officials in cities Tumblety lived in the U.S. the two weeks prior. The timing and similarity is just too coincidental. Smith’s comment seems to suggest Scotland Yard was looking solely at him.

I certainly would not discount the idea, especially if his motive was that of the subject of the following JRT article: http://www.searchingfortruthwithabro..._Research.html

Sincerely,
Mike

[sleekviper]

Hi Mike,
I have been watching this closely, and I was thinking that from the actions taken, is it possible that they had the idea that Tumblety was the accomplice to the killer rather than the actual killer? Two things that have me thinking this way; England knows that there is not enough evidence to have an extradition of Francis, so why send a detective? If the hope is to get Tumblety, I would think that there would have been a huge stink about America harboring a monster if they refused to release him with evidence, but this is relatively quiet, and like a stakeout to see who shows up. Second, it should have been a rather brief trip, but it lasts for sometime. Tumblety does kill here, he goes through our system before being sent to England, so staying in the hope that he does something stupid is not going to get him back any quicker. Which begs to question if he actually escaped, or was allowed to assume that he had to see where he would go, and who he would meet. Just a thought.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

" . . . there is no evidence to suggest his [Tumblety's] London trips up to 1888 did not involve social visits with Caine" does not mean that any such visits did involve Caine.

Tumblety having a "passion for the theatre" does not automatically enroll him in the Beefsteak Club.

So what if the 1888 Beefsteak Club records are missing? Tumblety was a regular vistor to London. Why doesn't his name appear in club records from earlier years?

Do you honestly believe the man parading up and down in front of Mrs McNamara's lodging house, wearing a "billycock hat" and "thick boots", looking at once villainous and then "whistling gaily", while dressed in a disguise so complete "that nobody could possibly recognize him" was a Scotland Yard detective?

Andrews and Shore didn't arrive in North America until after the NY World story, so do you think he might have been Inspector Fred Jarvis, who arrived in November?

Regards,

Simon