Tweet
Greetings all,
One argument against Francis Tumblety being considered a serious JTR suspect by Scotland Yard officials is that absolutely no British papers mention him, yet at the same time US papers were touting it. This argument also led to the argument that US papers were merely practicing sensationalism.
Even though Chief Inspector Littlechild’s letter corroborated the US papers’ claim, many either argued Littlechild had little to do with the murders, thus, his opinion is irrelevant.
If we accept that Tumblety was considered a serious suspect who embarrassingly slipped through Scotland Yard’s fingers, then why did the British Press not mention him? Even if Scotland Yard purposely held the Tumblety information away from them surely the British source for the US papers was accessible to them, as well. Jonathan Hainesworth has pointed out that the British papers feared liability if they used the name of an American in such a manner, but the US Constitution protected the US papers. He states in another thread, “Francis Tumblety could not be named in the British press, or identified without attendant risk of a libel suit down the track. When the affluent, under-employed, dodgy doctor spectacularly resurfaced for the public in 1898 he was libel-proofed against any such trouble -- he was even implied to be English.”
Well, it is not true that Tumblety was never mentioned by the British papers. The following article is from the Eastern Morning News, Hull, England, January 2, 1889 (courtesy of Mike Covell):
“Inspector Andrews of Scotland yard (the Daily Telegraph’s correspondent says) has arrived in New York from Montreal. It is generally believed that he has received orders from England to commence his search in this city for the Whitechapel murderer. Mr. Andrews is reported to have said that there are half a dozen English detectives, two clerks, and one inspector employed in America in the same chase. Ten days ago Andrews brought hither from England Roland Gideon Israel Barnet, charged with helping to wreck the Central Bank, Toronto; and since his arrival he has received orders which will keep him in America for some time. The supposed inaction of the Whitechapel murderer for a considerable period, and the fact that a man suspected of knowing a good deal about this series of crimes left England for this side of the Atlantic three weeks ago, has produced the impression that “Jack the Ripper” is in America. Irish Nationalists pretend that the inspector is hunting up certain evidence to be given before the Parnell Commisson.”
Sure, Tumblety’s name is not mentioned but it is clearly him. For me, the most interesting aspect of this article is that they did not use his name even though they easily had access to this information. That’s odd for a paper, since this would have been interesting information …unless the argument Jonathan has expressed is correct.
Sincerely,
Mike
One argument against Francis Tumblety being considered a serious JTR suspect by Scotland Yard officials is that absolutely no British papers mention him, yet at the same time US papers were touting it. This argument also led to the argument that US papers were merely practicing sensationalism.
Even though Chief Inspector Littlechild’s letter corroborated the US papers’ claim, many either argued Littlechild had little to do with the murders, thus, his opinion is irrelevant.
If we accept that Tumblety was considered a serious suspect who embarrassingly slipped through Scotland Yard’s fingers, then why did the British Press not mention him? Even if Scotland Yard purposely held the Tumblety information away from them surely the British source for the US papers was accessible to them, as well. Jonathan Hainesworth has pointed out that the British papers feared liability if they used the name of an American in such a manner, but the US Constitution protected the US papers. He states in another thread, “Francis Tumblety could not be named in the British press, or identified without attendant risk of a libel suit down the track. When the affluent, under-employed, dodgy doctor spectacularly resurfaced for the public in 1898 he was libel-proofed against any such trouble -- he was even implied to be English.”
Well, it is not true that Tumblety was never mentioned by the British papers. The following article is from the Eastern Morning News, Hull, England, January 2, 1889 (courtesy of Mike Covell):
“Inspector Andrews of Scotland yard (the Daily Telegraph’s correspondent says) has arrived in New York from Montreal. It is generally believed that he has received orders from England to commence his search in this city for the Whitechapel murderer. Mr. Andrews is reported to have said that there are half a dozen English detectives, two clerks, and one inspector employed in America in the same chase. Ten days ago Andrews brought hither from England Roland Gideon Israel Barnet, charged with helping to wreck the Central Bank, Toronto; and since his arrival he has received orders which will keep him in America for some time. The supposed inaction of the Whitechapel murderer for a considerable period, and the fact that a man suspected of knowing a good deal about this series of crimes left England for this side of the Atlantic three weeks ago, has produced the impression that “Jack the Ripper” is in America. Irish Nationalists pretend that the inspector is hunting up certain evidence to be given before the Parnell Commisson.”
Sure, Tumblety’s name is not mentioned but it is clearly him. For me, the most interesting aspect of this article is that they did not use his name even though they easily had access to this information. That’s odd for a paper, since this would have been interesting information …unless the argument Jonathan has expressed is correct.
Sincerely,
Mike
Comment