Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Amanda]

Just to add...

For anyone interested, the Pinkerton historical files are stored in the Library of Congress (Washington D.C).

Here's a link to browse through the stored information, perhaps someone can see something of relevance:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/2003/ms003007.pdf#page24

Amanda

[Amanda]

Thoughts..

Hello Amanda, batman,

"Seek and ye shall find" said Amanda. Things can be found in the most "unexpected places", she added.

Batman informs us that Pinkerton was in London in November 1888.

I wonder if the large file Littlechild claimed was the property of Scotland Yard...was in fact a large file held at Pinkerton's?

If so, then it would explain much. And Littlechild's lapse of concise memory long after the murders.

Anybody ever searched the Pinkerton files?



Phil

Hi Phil,
Excellent deduction & I'll bet the answer to your question is no, nobody has searched the Pinkerton files.
Do you want to be the one to approach them?

Besides Pinkertons there could well be sources of information in other places. I recently purchased copyright on some previously unpublished photos and documents of another JtR suspect from a very unexpected source. It was through long hours of research and a lot of legwork that I was finally able to find the location of what I was looking for.
Our work here on the boards is a tireless, and sometimes thankless, one. But someday, someone will find the right key to unlock the mystery of Jack's identity and put the case to rest, whether it be on our lifetimes I really couldn't say.
What I do know is that time and patience in one's research can pay dividends.

I still stand by my thoughts of 'seek and yee shall find', it worked for me.
Amanda

[mklhawley]

I bet he meant August.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

A minor point.

"Batman informs us that Pinkerton was in London in November 1888."

Which of the Pinkertons might that have been?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hello Amanda, batman,

"Seek and ye shall find" said Amanda. Things can be found in the most "unexpected places", she added.

Batman informs us that Pinkerton was in London in November 1888.

I wonder if the large file Little child claimed was the property of Scotland Yard...was in fact a large file held at Pinker to n's?

If so, then it would explain much. And Little child's lapse of concise memory long after the murders.

Anybody ever searched the Pinkerton files?

Phil

Hi Phil,

Great thought. Tumblety was in trouble with the law in England beginning in the 1870s in Liverpool and it stretched to London in the 1880s (I believe this information has since been published), so there certainly was a file on him already in Scotland Yard. But... Not only was William Pinkerton in Scotland Yard in August 1888, he mentioned a time he helped them out with Tumblety. As you probably know, Littlechild worked for the Pinkertons after he retired, so the Pinkertons had a great relationship with Scotland Yard. It's always been interesting to me why William Pinkerton, himself, spoke about Tumblety to the press just a day after the world knew about him being a Ripper suspect with such amazing detail; as if he'd already researched this for somebody. Scotland Yard used the Pinkertons as the United States' FBI (FBI didn't exist, yet, so the Pinkertons sufficed to chase people across state borders AND into Canada), and loyalty was big. I'm not surprised Pinkerton supported Scotland Yard's decision to consider Tumblety a suspect. It fits.

The Canadian Dominion Police, the Pinkertons, and Scotland Yard, considered each other as equals, and respected each other accordingly.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Amanda, batman,

"Seek and ye shall find" said Amanda. Things can be found in the most "unexpected places", she added.

Batman informs us that Pinkerton was in London in November 1888.

I wonder if the large file Littlechild claimed was the property of Scotland Yard...was in fact a large file held at Pinkerton's?

If so, then it would explain much. And Littlechild's lapse of concise memory long after the murders.

Anybody ever searched the Pinkerton files?



Phil

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pinkmoon,

I think prime suspect is the wrong word. It could very well have been the only potential suspect at the time in November 1888. Kosminski and Druitt came on their radar screen later. If Tumblety was the only hot item, Assistant Commissioner Anderson involving himself, as he did, still makes sense.

Now, I personally see the additional evidence making him a strong suspect for JtR, but Jonathan's done a great job pointing out the strength of Druitt.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Mike,I think Druitt has always been the logical answer its just a shame we don't know what the "private information" was.

[mklhawley]

If there was ever a prime suspect for the ripper murders we would know the police would have recorded the fact and it would be common knowledge amongst the police forces.

Hi Pinkmoon,

I think prime suspect is the wrong word. It could very well have been the only potential suspect at the time in November 1888. Kosminski and Druitt came on their radar screen later. If Tumblety was the only hot item, Assistant Commissioner Anderson involving himself, as he did, still makes sense.

Now, I personally see the additional evidence making him a strong suspect for JtR, but Jonathan's done a great job pointing out the strength of Druitt.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Trevor,

I know how this can be resolved. I'm going to fly to England, you meet me at the Ten Bells, and we go pint-for-pint with English ale. The more bitter, the better. The first one who drops has to admit defeat. Works for me.

Mike

[pinkmoon]

prime suspect

If there was ever a prime suspect for the ripper murders we would know the police would have recorded the fact and it would be common knowledge amongst the police forces.

[Trevor Marriott]

But that means you’re are saying the report about Assistant Commissioner Anderson soliciting information from US Chiefs of police is all fabrication, because this would have been logically impossible if Tumblety was in jail during the murders. Or… your interpretation of the law is wrong while interpretations that fit are correct. Read it again:

The Brooklyn Citizen,23 November 1888
“Is He The Ripper?” A Brooklynite Charged With the Whitechapel Murders.
Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety

Captain Eason supplies the information and it is interesting Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday from Mr Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault. Tumblety is referred to in the dispatch in the following manner: “He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty.” Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed that he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. The superintendent gave the dispatch immediate attention, and through Captain Eason...

I discovered that the source of this was none other than the Associated Press, and their London correspondent in 1888 was James MacLean. This organization was created to be a fact finding body distributing news to COMPETING daily newspapers. It avoided sensationalism. But of course, you use a broad brushstroke on ‘newspapers’, because it doesn’t fit your biased interpretation. Point, the purpose of your Lost at Sea article was absolutely NOT an unbiased attempt to discover truth but an agenda to prove your preconceived notion that Tumbletly was not a suspect.

But your bias was caught red-handed. Notice the proof of your anti-Tumblety bias. in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18, 1888:

BOSTON GLOBE, November 18,1888

DOING WHITECHAPEL
TWO ARRESTS ON SUSPICION MADE YESTERDAY.
ONE A CHUM OF THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE OTHER AN AMERICAN PHYSICIAN.

London, Nov. 17-

Just think of it ! One of the Prince of Wales' own exclusives, a member of his household and cavalry and one of the best known swells about town who glory in the glamor of the Guelphs, getting into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of all clubdom tonight.
Just now it is a fashionable fad to slum it in Whitechapel and every night scores of young men who have never been in the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders talking with frightened women. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves, the police do not interfere with them. But if a man goes off alone and tries to lure a woman off the street into a secluded corner, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.

This was the case of Sir George Arthur of Prince Wales set. He put on an old coat and slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the description of Jack The Ripper and they watched him and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested and threatened them with the vengeance of the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End Club and prove his identity and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspaper, but the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club considered the joke too good to keep quiet.

Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumbelty of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial, under a 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 from New York and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.

A score of men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion, but the right man still roams at large and everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim.
The large sums offered by private individualsas rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail.
Leon Rothschild has offered an income of 2 pounds a week for life for the man who gives the information leading to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.



I don’t get it Trevor; the very same New York World Cable, where their Chief London correspondent, Tracy Greaves, reported on Tumblety first being arrest on suspicion, was the only report about Sir George Arthur also being arrested on suspicion. You whole-heartedly believe this discovery of Greaves, yet you whole-heartedly reject the other. How do I know this? Your own article:


“On 30 November 1888, the Wrexham advertiser, Clwyd, Wales, Britain, also published the story, but withheld Sir George Arthur’s name. Wild coincidences aside, Tumblety seems to have appropriated it, complete with slouch had, for himself. His story would appear to have been an elaborate fiction.” (Lost at Sea, p. 44, Rip 127) Trevor Marriott


So, how can we accept your interpretation of events when you clearly show bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect?


You asked when was he suspected of the Ripper murders. Let's see if you can finally get around your clouded judgment; just as the reliable sources state, he was arrested on suspicion 'just like countless others'. What does that mean? He was arrested on suspicion, just like Sir George Arthur; OFF THE STREETS. He was brought in and they figured out who he was by the letters in his pocket (he always had these letters in his pocket, so that when he got arrested it would show the police he was a 'gentleman'). They then searched this residence to confirm this and found out he would come six months at a time.

Mike

So you are contradicting yourslef

So in effect there was no evidence against him, and he wasnt released on bail,and was no more a prime suspect than any of all those similar persons who according to you were brought in under identical circumstances.

[mklhawley]

At the time of the murders dear boy, not after, and you like Mike Hawley seek to use unreliable secondary sources i.e newspapers

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But that means you’re are saying the report about Assistant Commissioner Anderson soliciting information from US Chiefs of police is all fabrication, because this would have been logically impossible if Tumblety was in jail during the murders. Or… your interpretation of the law is wrong while interpretations that fit are correct. Read it again:

The Brooklyn Citizen,23 November 1888
“Is He The Ripper?” A Brooklynite Charged With the Whitechapel Murders.
Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety

Captain Eason supplies the information and it is interesting Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday from Mr Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault. Tumblety is referred to in the dispatch in the following manner: “He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty.” Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed that he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. The superintendent gave the dispatch immediate attention, and through Captain Eason...

I discovered that the source of this was none other than the Associated Press, and their London correspondent in 1888 was James MacLean. This organization was created to be a fact finding body distributing news to COMPETING daily newspapers. It avoided sensationalism. But of course, you use a broad brushstroke on ‘newspapers’, because it doesn’t fit your biased interpretation. Point, the purpose of your Lost at Sea article was absolutely NOT an unbiased attempt to discover truth but an agenda to prove your preconceived notion that Tumbletly was not a suspect.

But your bias was caught red-handed. Notice the proof of your anti-Tumblety bias. in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 18, 1888:

BOSTON GLOBE, November 18,1888

DOING WHITECHAPEL
TWO ARRESTS ON SUSPICION MADE YESTERDAY.
ONE A CHUM OF THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE OTHER AN AMERICAN PHYSICIAN.

London, Nov. 17-

Just think of it ! One of the Prince of Wales' own exclusives, a member of his household and cavalry and one of the best known swells about town who glory in the glamor of the Guelphs, getting into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of all clubdom tonight.
Just now it is a fashionable fad to slum it in Whitechapel and every night scores of young men who have never been in the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders talking with frightened women. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances of themselves, the police do not interfere with them. But if a man goes off alone and tries to lure a woman off the street into a secluded corner, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.

This was the case of Sir George Arthur of Prince Wales set. He put on an old coat and slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the description of Jack The Ripper and they watched him and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested and threatened them with the vengeance of the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End Club and prove his identity and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspaper, but the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club considered the joke too good to keep quiet.

Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumbelty of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he has been committed for trial, under a 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 from New York and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.

A score of men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion, but the right man still roams at large and everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim.
The large sums offered by private individualsas rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail.
Leon Rothschild has offered an income of 2 pounds a week for life for the man who gives the information leading to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.



I don’t get it Trevor; the very same New York World Cable, where their Chief London correspondent, Tracy Greaves, reported on Tumblety first being arrest on suspicion, was the only report about Sir George Arthur also being arrested on suspicion. You whole-heartedly believe this discovery of Greaves, yet you whole-heartedly reject the other. How do I know this? Your own article:


“On 30 November 1888, the Wrexham advertiser, Clwyd, Wales, Britain, also published the story, but withheld Sir George Arthur’s name. Wild coincidences aside, Tumblety seems to have appropriated it, complete with slouch had, for himself. His story would appear to have been an elaborate fiction.” (Lost at Sea, p. 44, Rip 127) Trevor Marriott


So, how can we accept your interpretation of events when you clearly show bias against Tumblety as a Ripper suspect?


You asked when was he suspected of the Ripper murders. Let's see if you can finally get around your clouded judgment; just as the reliable sources state, he was arrested on suspicion 'just like countless others'. What does that mean? He was arrested on suspicion, just like Sir George Arthur; OFF THE STREETS. He was brought in and they figured out who he was by the letters in his pocket (he always had these letters in his pocket, so that when he got arrested it would show the police he was a 'gentleman'). They then searched this residence to confirm this and found out he would come six months at a time.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Speaking from a scientific perspective, I am all for skepticism and exceptional evidence for exceptional claims.

If a historian chooses to do this, then fine and usually we can have a much larger degree of confidence in that type of strong inferences made through exceptional evidence.

While some of history can be subject to the scientific method, much of it can't be and we do have to parse claims that are true from claims that are false using variously methods.

Trevor, if you select for the type of evidence that is exceptional (v.good) then we are really talking about witnesses (including expert ones) presenting facts (hard evidence) at inquests which would also reference the files such as case files in the appendix or something like it. The inquest findings itself also become a reference and police files open for legal teams.

Then we have the media and this is usually under more scrutiny than private views.

In the case of Pinkerton you are claiming Hearsay because it only appears in this news article. We don't have an inquest or police files corroborating such. Okay. However that means in your worldview you don't accept media reports without the type of corroborating inquest/police records I am talking about. Fine, but that philosophy needs to be global in your entire view of this case or else one runs into problems with hypocrisy. Do you not agree?

I think this is one of the main objections people seem to have here. That you are proposing a type of evidence of the stronger inference type, but people are pointing out that you seem to drop this line of reasoning when it comes to other suspects of interest to you. Is this case? Have you used media reports (without corroborating evidence as per above) to make an inference about a suspect?

But lets get back to you original point if we cant prove Tumblety was a police suspect at the time (on or about Nov 7th) not Nov 20th or Dec 12th what reliability can be placed from newspapers or other correspondents thereafter?

[Batman]

Speaking from a scientific perspective, I am all for skepticism and exceptional evidence for exceptional claims.

If a historian chooses to do this, then fine and usually we can have a much larger degree of confidence in that type of strong inferences made through exceptional evidence.

While some of history can be subject to the scientific method, much of it can't be and we do have to parse claims that are true from claims that are false using variously methods.

Trevor, if you select for the type of evidence that is exceptional (v.good) then we are really talking about witnesses (including expert ones) presenting facts (hard evidence) at inquests which would also reference the files such as case files in the appendix or something like it. The inquest findings itself also become a reference and police files open for legal teams.

Then we have the media and this is usually under more scrutiny than private views.

In the case of Pinkerton you are claiming Hearsay because it only appears in this news article. We don't have an inquest or police files corroborating such. Okay. However that means in your worldview you don't accept media reports without the type of corroborating inquest/police records I am talking about. Fine, but that philosophy needs to be global in your entire view of this case or else one runs into problems with hypocrisy. Do you not agree?

I think this is one of the main objections people seem to have here. That you are proposing a type of evidence of the stronger inference type, but people are pointing out that you seem to drop this line of reasoning when it comes to other suspects of interest to you. Is this case? Have you used media reports (without corroborating evidence as per above) to make an inference about a suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

During the Whitechapel murders Pinkerton was in London. Meaning at the time. Meaning he was there when the murders were happening. He is recounting what he learned.

Pinkerton isn't just a witness to this. He is an 'expert' witness because of his function.

Hearsay !