Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

What you list as all facts are a mixture of facts and interpretation of limited data, arguably the wrong interpretation when compared to other sources.

Do you understand the difference?

To TGM

Thanks for at least trying to debate the issue.

I think Sims knew a lot about Tumblety and Druitt, re: the latter more than Littlechild did as he knew zilch about the drowned barrister, Sims having been briefed by Macnaghten.

It is Jack Littlechild in his second letter to Sims who is fishing, who is trying to understand who Dr D is--perhaps Sims regretted mentioning it all as Druitt was, arguably unknown to anybody else at Scotland Yard (just as he does not know that this is Mac's solution).

Perplexed the ex-chief plumps, quite understandably though nevertheless wrongly, for Tumblety--because he was a deviant doctor and a major Ripper suspect in 1888, and about whom it was believed he had taken his own life.

Don't you get it? That's Druitt's fate, not Tumblety's. How did they get mixed up?

The answer to that question is vital.

George R. Sims would never have written that the fiend was a young barrister, pulled from the Thames on the last day of 1888, because it would have ruined the surviving Druitts among the respectable circles in which they moved.

For example, in his 1917 memoir Sims flatly denied having helped the cops point to a dead man, and to have convicted him of being the Ripper. Then what on earth had he been doing since 1899? Pointing away from the real figure towards a fictional construct who could do no harm to the late barrister, or to his good family--and do quite a bit of good for the dented rep of the Yard.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Trevor, George Sims only thought he knew.

But that is not what the dispute is actually about.

This is the question:

Was Jack Littlechild writing to Sims to say the only "Dr D" he could think of from the 1888 Whitechapel murder investigation was a "Dr T" -- only because it rhymed with "D". Had it not done so, he would not have brought the American up.

I am arguing that this tortures the source to make it fit with a crushing bias against Tumblety not even being a Ripper suspect at all, the negationist end-point of the reductionist 'school'.

Litrtlechild is trying to show Sims, as politely as he can to a mega-celebrity who outranks him in class, that much of the writer's information is a bit off-track--and that if it comes from Anderson (via Griffiths) well, he was notoriously egocentric.

But he does not dispute that this was a major police suspect from 1888, whom as far as Littlechild was concerned was never cleared.

Hey guys, let me tell you something else--positive.

Is. This. It?

I this really all there is to 'debunk' the subject called Jack the Ripper.

Is that all you have? The Littlechild Letter is exhibit #1 in proving that Tumblety was not a Ripper suspect??

Because you are playing with an empty hand. An absolute zero. One boxer is in the ring and the other never shows up?

It thoroughly confirms the interpretation of those who have read and enjoyed Evans and Gainey, and Palmer, and Hawley on this subject, which is not a suspect-bias (where do they get this rubbish from?) it's the suspect from 1888. Like it or lump it--and I guess you lump it Big Time!

Les look at the facts once more many of which are irrefutable

1. The police had Tumblety under surveillance between June and Nov 7th
2. That surveillance revealed that on the date of Polly Nicholls murder he was
committing one of his 4 offences in The West End
3. Tumbley was arrested on a warrant for the indecency offences on Nov 7th
4. No evidence to show he was suspected of being the Ripper
5. No evidence to show he was arrested for being the ripper
6. No evidence to show he was ever questioned about the ripper murders
7. Tumblety charged with the indecency offences on Nov 7th
8. Having been charged, detained or bailed- If he had have been bailed he
would have absconded.
9. Due to that belief by the police he was remanded in custody for 7 days
during which time he came up with sureties
10 7 days takes us to Nov 13 when he appears back at court and is given
bail,after which he absconds

The above are ascertained facts, unlike all this newspaper clap trap and wild speculation based on historical outdated opinions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Good Michael]

You are not thinking this through, because you are not stepping back and considering the sources in totality.

Anything in isolation can be made to mean whatever you like, hence the multitude of interpretations of Scripture; when a single line is plucked from a chapter to support slavery or anti-slavery, and so on.

Think logically, whilst still assuming your interpretation is correct.

Who was 'Dr. D', according to George R. Sims?

He was the Ripper, that's who.

If Sims was so sure if Dr. D being the Ripper, how could he make the mistake of not knowing he had been a barrister? It seems to me that Sims was asking Littlechild if he knew of Dr. D. (Druitt) because there had been rumors circulating for a long time and the case, as of 1913, was still unsolved. Regardless, of what Sims thought, the "very likely" component that we are discussing fits either way. I understand that for you by assuming they both understood what "very likely" meant with regards to who the murderer was, then there's corroboration. I don't believe that's the case here. It seems to me just one guy fishing for some information because he only had rumors to go on.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Yes, Trevor, George Sims only thought he knew.

But that is not what the dispute is actually about.

This is the question:

Was Jack Littlechild writing to Sims to say the only "Dr D" he could think of from the 1888 Whitechapel murder investigation was a "Dr T" -- only because it rhymed with "D". Had it not done so, he would not have brought the American up.

I am arguing that this tortures the source to make it fit with a crushing bias against Tumblety not even being a Ripper suspect at all, the negationist end-point of the reductionist 'school'.

Litrtlechild is trying to show Sims, as politely as he can to a mega-celebrity who outranks him in class, that much of the writer's information is a bit off-track--and that if it comes from Anderson (via Griffiths) well, he was notoriously egocentric.

But he does not dispute that this was a major police suspect from 1888, whom as far as Littlechild was concerned was never cleared.

Hey guys, let me tell you something else--positive.

Is. This. It?

I this really all there is to 'debunk' the subject called Jack the Ripper.

Is that all you have? The Littlechild Letter is exhibit #1 in proving that Tumblety was not a Ripper suspect??

Because you are playing with an empty hand. An absolute zero. One boxer is in the ring and the other never shows up?

It thoroughly confirms the interpretation of those who have read and enjoyed Evans and Gainey, and Palmer, and Hawley on this subject, which is not a suspect-bias (where do they get this rubbish from?) it's the suspect from 1888. Like it or lump it--and I guess you lump it Big Time!

[Trevor Marriott]

To The Good Michael

You are not thinking this through, because you are not stepping back and considering the sources in totality.

Anything in isolation can be made to mean whatever you like, hence the multitude of interpretations of Scripture; when a single line is plucked from a chapter to support slavery or anti-slavery, and so on.

Think logically, whilst still assuming your interpretation is correct.

Who was 'Dr. D', according to George R. Sims?

He was the Ripper, that's who.

A middle-aged, affluent medico who was urgently pursued by Scotland Yard in 1888 but who took his own life. The Jack murders then [supposedly] stopped.

Are you suggesting that Jack Littlechild did not know this? About the most famous writer of two eras?

To Hunter

There can be no debate with you, redundant or otherwise, because you refuse to debate.

Instead you repeat. That's the technique of the inflexible; to use repetition, or attrition, to wear down the other side until they give up.

The applicable word therefore is not redundant, but reductionist.

Dr. Francis Tumblety is one of the major players in this subject, and one of the major discoveries of this subject, and to reduce it to what you have is beyond sad.

A personal opinion given by Littlechild an ageing police officer in later years, who was not even directly involved in the case is not good evidence, and that fact is supported by incorrect facts that opinion was based on.

You flaunt George Simms and put him on a pedestal, but he was only fed info by others who when it comes to it only thought they knew.

[Jonathan H]

To The Good Michael

You are not thinking this through, because you are not stepping back and considering the sources in totality.

Anything in isolation can be made to mean whatever you like, hence the multitude of interpretations of Scripture; when a single line is plucked from a chapter to support slavery or anti-slavery, and so on.

Think logically, whilst still assuming your interpretation is correct.

Who was 'Dr. D', according to George R. Sims?

He was the Ripper, that's who.

A middle-aged, affluent medico who was urgently pursued by Scotland Yard in 1888 but who took his own life. The Jack murders then [supposedly] stopped.

Are you suggesting that Jack Littlechild did not know this? About the most famous writer of two eras?

To Hunter

There can be no debate with you, redundant or otherwise, because you refuse to debate.

Instead you repeat. That's the technique of the inflexible; to use repetition, or attrition, to wear down the other side until they give up.

The applicable word therefore is not redundant, but reductionist.

Dr. Francis Tumblety is one of the major players in this subject, and one of the major discoveries of this subject, and to reduce it to what you have is beyond sad.

[GUT]

If you mean that Dr T was very likely to have been be the suspect who Sims called 'Dr D', I would agree completely that this is the correct translation. Anything else would be reading into it. How Littlechild felt about Dr T as a Ripper suspect is unclear.

Mike

I have actually always read it the other way, not something I feel strongly about.

[The Good Michael]

The line I pointed out was referring to a Doctor "T" being very likely to be the person who Sims was probing his mind about (because it sounds like "D".) Not to be very likely to be Jack the Ripper. Its that simple. Nothing complex about it.

If you mean that Dr T was very likely to have been be the suspect who Sims called 'Dr D', I would agree completely that this is the correct translation. Anything else would be reading into it. How Littlechild felt about Dr T as a Ripper suspect is unclear.

Mike

Add: Using "Very likely" in this case is similar to "That must be who you are thinking of". If it was some belief of an actual suspect, I doubt he would have used "very".

[Hunter]

Hi Jonathan,

To Hunter
No, I didn't think you would engage with the actual debate.
I responded to each if your points and you responded with ... nothing.
Just a bytchy put-down.

I stand by my post #238 to Paddy Goose. It is self explanatory. There is no debate. Littlechild calls Tumblety a suspect. How much of one I'll leave to the usual suspects to debate because it has nothing to do with my point.

The line I pointed out was referring to a Doctor "T" being very likely to be the person who Sims was probing his mind about (because it sounds like "D".) Not to be very likely to be Jack the Ripper. Its that simple. Nothing complex about it.

To borrow a line from JL... It is finished.
Now back to the regularly scheduled redundant discussion.

[Trevor Marriott]

...and therefore one must believe the opposite - says Trevor.

Really, Trevor, you should read my Yellow Journalism article and Tumblety Over the Wire article. The 'Anderson contacting Campbell' source was none other than the Associated Press, an organization purposely avoiding sensationalism and inaccuracies. Keep in mind, the daily US newspapers hated each other and would have loved to embarrass their competitors by revealing misinformation published by them.

...and then they were corroborated by the British papers (or were they involved in the conspiracy of misinformation, also?).

Lastly, not only do these separate newspaper sources corroborate each other, they're corroborated by Littlechild's and Logan's statements.

So, are you claiming that Assistant Commissioner Anderson did not request information from Superintendent Campbell a week or so after? Are you claiming the Associated Press made it up? Ridiculous.

Mike

What you rely on is paper talk as stated secondary evidence.

We are talking about evidence to lead to his arrest or evidence at the time of his arrest or evidence to hand whilst he was in custody. NOT AFTERWARDS.

You have nailed your colors to the mast by saying Tumblety was arrested for the murders. All I am asking for is proof of that at the time.

Do you agree that there is none ?

And you avoided all my previous questions.

As to the handwriting requests they would already have had that from documents Tumblety would have signed on his arrest and later for his bail, so why ask for more?

[Natasha]

Tumblety already had a record in Scotland Yard, and in it was a case involving a young boy a few years earlier, clearly gross indecency. He was released for that case. I'm sure there was more in that file, since Littlechild called it extensive.

Per the London correspondent, Tumblety was first arrested on suspicion, just like multitudes of others on the streets. They didn't know who he was, yet. Once they had him, they searched his pockets and found his letters stating Francis Tumblety, MD. They spent a day or so confirming this information, which was normal procedure. They went to his residence (I have an article on this). It was most likely at this time they perused Tumblety's record held at Scotland Yard, where Littlechild hung out. Keep in mind which department Littlechild headed. The London correspondent stated they didn't have enough on him for the Ripper murders so they decided to 'hold' him on gross indecency, hence, the arrest on November 7.

He knew they had nothing on him specific to the Ripper charges, because they had nothing on everyone. No one saw the murders. I see Scotland Yard deciding to hold him on gross indecency once they realized what was in his record, then hopefully incarcerating him (and if the murders stopped, then maybe they got their man). Scotland Yard knew darn well when he was with the four young men, which didn't deter Assistant Commissioner Anderson from getting involved and personally solicit US chiefs of police for information on Ripper suspect, Francis Tumblety (AFTER the information was known about the four young men).

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Mike

Thanks for the clarification.

[Jonathan H]

To Hunter

No, I didn't think you would engage with the actual debate.

I responded to each if your points and you responded with ... nothing.

Just a bytchy put-down.

To Trevor

The newspaper accounts are second hand but still primary sources.

To Batman

Yes, it is contested here that Tumblety was even a Ripper suspect.

That's fine--you can contest anything. But the arguments put forward for this are terribly weak, like the ones that argue that Druitt could never have been suspected by his own family--and if he was, hey, so what?

[David Orsam]

The investigators felt confident that they had a witness and they used him all the way to Sadler though.

They might have done but that doesn't mean that such witness is going to be able to make a positive identification when confronted with the murderer (or a negative one when confronted with an innocent man).

[Batman]

That, of course, is not necessarily true. They might not have been able to make a positive identification. With Pizer, it seems that one of the witnesses did identify him (as someone who attacked a woman in Hanbury Street) but his identification was subsequently discredited.

The investigators felt confident that they had a witness and they used him all the way to Sadler though.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Brooklyn Standard-Union, 23rd November 1888—

" . . . the London Police are evidently doing their level best to fasten the Whitechapel murders upon Dr. F. T. Tumblety."

Regrettably this did not involve Scotland Yard keeping Tumblety under surveillance, confiscating his passport, preventing him leaving the country or boarding a ship at Le Havre.

Regards,

Simon