Was Tumblety in Jail during the Kelly Murder?

[Trevor Marriott]

I beg to differ:

[ATTACH]14383[/ATTACH]

This is a central Criminal court case Aug 4/5th 1886 and your point is ?

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Remember, Sir Robert Anderson contacted Brooklyn' Chief of Police requesting information on Tumblety with respect to the Ripper murders. Anderson just didn't say his name publically.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hello Mike,

Many thanks for the correction. Trouble is, he did state publically that Jack the Ripper was a Polish Jew. A def ascertained fact no less.
So Tumblety? For Anderson its goodnight Irene.

Best wishes

Phil

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike,

Many thanks for the correction. Trouble is, he did state publically that Jack the Ripper was a Polish Jew. A def ascertained fact no less.
So Tumblety? For Anderson its goodnight Irene.

Best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

I agree 100%, but just as Jonathan has pointed out, Anderson and crew believed the post-Kelly murders in the next couple of years were also from the hand of the ripper. In their minds at the time, this would have eliminated Tumblety as a suspect because he was already in the US. From that time on, Tumblety was a nonissue as far as Anderson was concerned.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jonathan H]

To Mike

I argue that Mac's 1891 intervention about Kelly as the final victim caused polceman's memories to be successfully sabotaged, because the thrust of the story made the Yard look better.

They really came to accept the 'autumn of terror' and thus mostly forget that the investigation went on for years.

Not just Littlechild, but also Anderson who not only thinks that his Polish Jew is deceased but was positively identified and permanently sectioned soon after Kelly, and thus he 'thought he knew' that her murder was obviously the last of that series at the time because the maniac was 'safely caged' to continue with his 'unmentionable vices'. Caged and then dead.

By the late 1900's Anderson's memory has arguably collapsed; the years after 1888 have become part of tha 'autumn of terror': hence the broken pipe from McKenzie becomes the pipe at Miller's Ct., hence the young and pretty Fances Coles is subsumed entirely into the young and pretty Mary Kelly; hence the prime suspect in her murder, Tom Sadler, becomes 'Kosminski', hence Lawende's no to Salder and his yes to Grant in 1895 becomes his yes and no to a fellow Hebrew, hence the Liberal leader William Harcourt in 1895 (and Home Sec. in 1885) becomes the Tory Henry Mathews in 1888!

Swanson, if recording his own opinion, has also bought into Kelly as the final victim with 'Kosminski' sectioned soon after and then thankfully expiring and no other 'Jack' murders. In fact Aaron Kosminski was not sectioned until just before Coles was killed, over two yeasr later (I accept the Evans-Rumbelow theory that the 'Seaside Home' is his, or Anderson's, misremebering the Seaman's Home involving Salder in 1891. I also think the night-and-day watching of a prime suspect -- and yet no arrest -- refers to Sadler too).

In 1903 Abberline is all over the place, trying to have his cake and eat it too in order to clear away the tabloid dreck for Chapman as the solution.

On the one hand the drowned 'medical student' was only a suspect for the Home Office because of the timing of his death after Kelly -- Druitt was not a medical student or doctor, was not the subject of a Home Office Report that went there, and was not a police-Ripper suspect in 1888 -- and yet on the other hand police patrols were still going on into 1889.

Littlechild has forgotten, or never knew, or does not want to say to a famous writer that Tumblety was the subject of Andrews' investigation in Canada -- in other words was not thought to have killed himself after he went to France, where he did not 'disappear'.

At the time Tumblety was 'cleared' by being on the other side of the Atlantic when Mylett, McKenzie, and Coles were killed, yet that all went down the collective memory hole once Macnaghten retrospectively locked in Kelly as the finale.

[Jonathan H]

Mike, the first date is wrong -- it is meant to read 1898.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

I agree 100%, but just as Jonathan has pointed out, Anderson and crew believed the post-Kelly murders in the next couple of years were also from the hand of the ripper. In their minds at the time, this would have eliminated Tumblety as a suspect because he was already in the US. From that time on, Tumblety was a nonissue as far as Anderson was concerned.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hello Mike,

Thanks for the reply.
If what you write is true, then in 1894 MM upset the applecart, stating 5 and 5 only.
And if it was 5 only in 1894, MM didn't mention Tumblety, who using your theory, WOULD have qualified as Jack the Ripper in 1888. On this basis alone there is no candidacy for Tumblety.

As regards Tumblety's elimination, none of that would stop Anderson writing in 1910 about him, nor Major Griffiths, nor MM himself in 1914. Nor, infact, would it stop any person writing, for example, 'at the time, an American quack named Dr. T was suspected of the crimes' or even just 'an American Doctor'. None of them wrote anything that leads to Dr. T being a suspect, even though they MUST have heard of him via the American Newspapers. Even Tumblety himself 'boasted/claimed' he was suspected. Nobody even denounced him, let alone name his candidacy.

Returning to the Littlechild letter, the claim that Tumblety was never heard of again is even more erroneous given Anderson's actions. It really would be a leap of faith to presume Littlechild didnt know what Anderson was up to. Nor any detective (Andrews) possibly chasing him down in North America. So the comment is badly wrong, like the 'drowning' presumption.

The more I think of Littlechild's role in SB, the more I'm convinced that
a) he would neuer tell any journalist what he was up to, and
b) he would certainly know where Sims was coming from on the issue of JTR-pushing the drowned doctor theory.
Sims obviously asked in his (unknown) letter to Littlechild, and it is obvious that Littlechild answered in the same tone, about a doctor that did 'drown'. He knew that Sims couldnt publish any name, so hey presto he used the Dr he knew of, Tumblety, to satisfy Sims' curiosity. Sims happy, drowned doctor theory extant. To me thats logical. 'Special' are reknowned for never revealing their real ploys, real suspects and real names of people. Think of Anderson. The traditions of the old department...

As an aside Mike, SB won't open a book 120years old for fear of recrimination 5 or 6 generations later! Apart from the nonsense of the 'club rule' that MI6 have no problem doing it, can you honestlx imagine any Irish sectarian terrorist taking months if not years slaving through unlimited records galore to find a great great great grandson of a snitch from 1888 and exacting revenge? I think they do things totajy differently these days and wouldnt waste such amounts of time. Proof? The records from Dublin have been open for years with informants names in. Known revenge attacks 5 generations down the line? None.

So Littlechild's letter to a well-known journalist? Wrong info. Typical SB.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

'By the late 1900's, Andersons memorx had arguably collapsed'

Forgive me but I have to chuckle. Anderson, having died in 1918, would indeed have a collapsing everything by the late 1900's! LOL

I DO know what you meant though.

Forgive me, the picture in my mind was hilarious. Earth, grass, wood and all!

Best wishes

Phil

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,

For me, it's this:

Brooklyn Citizen, November 23, 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, of the Second Precinct, has learned all about Tumblety. He came to this city in 1863 from Sherbrook, Canada, where he said he had been a practicing physician. He opened a store on the southeast corner of Fulton and Nassau streets, and sold herb preparations. He did a tremendous business and deposited in the Brooklyn Savings Bank at least $100 a day. He was a very eccentric character, six feet high, dark complexion, large and long flowing mustache, and well built.

On November 22, Sir Robert Anderson became personally involved in the Tumblety case, specific to the Whitechapel murder investigation. Why would Anderson get personally involved with an insignificant suspect, especially if he was in jail during the Kelly murder? Some claim this cable was with regards to the gross indecency case, but information from Campbell would have been irrelevant in a case set -at the time- for November 19th. The gross indecency evidence was the four boys.

It wasn't just Chief Inspector Littlechild who knew Tumblety as a Ripper suspect.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

For me, it's this:

Brooklyn Citizen, November 23, 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, of the Second Precinct, has learned all about Tumblety. He came to this city in 1863 from Sherbrook, Canada, where he said he had been a practicing physician. He opened a store on the southeast corner of Fulton and Nassau streets, and sold herb preparations. He did a tremendous business and deposited in the Brooklyn Savings Bank at least $100 a day. He was a very eccentric character, six feet high, dark complexion, large and long flowing mustache, and well built.

On November 22, Sir Robert Anderson became personally involved in the Tumblety case, specific to the Whitechapel murder investigation. Why would Anderson get personally involved with an insignificant suspect, especially if he was in jail during the Kelly murder? Some claim this cable was with regards to the gross indecency case, but information from Campbell would have been irrelevant in a case set -at the time- for November 19th. The gross indecency evidence was the four boys.

It wasn't just Chief Inspector Littlechild who knew Tumblety as a Ripper suspect.

Sincerely,
Mike

Hello Mike,

Thank you for providing that clip.
This clip is a little odd as proof, if you'll pardon my comment.
The clip is dated 23rd November.
He was 'arrested' 'some weeks ago.'
(thats at least 2, maybe 3 ) that makes the date 9th November or 2nd of November, which means the 7th November date is fine- BUT
The very next line is-
' Since his incarceration in prison'
indicating to me that following his arrest 'some weeks ago' he was 'incarcerated in prison'.
Finally- why would Anderson want info AFTER he left the UK IF he was boasting etc whilst incarcerated? Surely the time to contact was when he told the police to contact Brooklyn- WHILST in prison?

So for me it shows he was incarcerated in prison at the time of the Kelly murder.
And incarceration indicates a length of time.
Surely had the prison visit been a very short one he wouldnt be just incarcerated, but 'released'?
No mention.
Best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil

That's the nature of sources and context: the possibility of multiple interpretations when data is scarce and what we have is ambiguous.

Eg. 'Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeded in baffling the police ...'

Meaning that 'since' as in after he was let out of incarceration because he baffled the plods and extricated himself from their clutches -- maybe even offed another unfortunate while he was on the streets again?

[Chris]

If Tumblety had been on bail leading up to his committal then on Nov 14th when committed that bail would have been extended.

This is really the crucial point, isn't it?

Given the fact that in the entry for Tumblety in the calendar, the only bail mentioned is that on 16th November, can we infer that there could not have been any previous bail - that is, bail between arrest (7th November) and committal (14th November)?

The case of Henry George Ginger, already mentioned by Mike, appears to show that we cannot make that inference. Ginger was received into custody on 14 September, and committed for trial on 15 November after he had "surrendered to his recognizances". When committing him for trial Sir A. Lusk accepted bail, and the calendar says only that he was bailed the following day (16 November).

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=4529&postcount=48

The calendar doesn't mention the fact that Ginger had previously been on bail between September and November. Doesn't it follow that Tumblety could also have previously been bailed (presumably by a magistrate) without it being mentioned in the calendar?

[Rob Clack]

Hello Rob,

MY logic is wrong. Yours is sound.

I think everyone knows that, but thanks for admitting it on a public board.

Here's one fo you.
Insp Abberline, Ass. Comm Anderson, Supt Arnold, Insp Reid, Melville McNagthen, Major Henry Smith, Major Griffiths,Sir Charles Warren, Sir Basil Thomson, Walter Dew, Col Fraser, a few beat policemen, Sims, H L Adam, Forbes Winslow, and Lord knows how many others, when writing memoirs, and or commentating upon or theorising, not ONE of them, not ONE, mentioned Tumblety as a Ripper suspect.

And why should they? They never said Tumblety was the Ripper. The argument is whether Tumblety was a suspect or not. He was, along with a lot of other people you will find not mentioned in anybodys writings. Did any of these writing contain a suspects name? Was Druitt named in print by Macnaghten? Was Kosminski by Anderson? no.

Now. LOGICALLY, do please inform the plebs who know sweet fanny adams about the case and that havent the memory you posess, isnt it rather odd that none of these learned gentlemen either apparently knew nothing about Tumblety as a Ripper suspect, DID know but fos some reason dismissed any serious thought of him, DID know but as he was being followed up by Special Branch COULDNT mention him or just forgot about him?

That is just a ridiculous paragraph. We have no idea of knowing what was being thought of Tumblety. We do not have all the documentation from the period to make an informed opinion of what was known about him. All we can say is that he was at least known to Special Branch.

On the other hand we have ONE, factually wrong opinion by Ch. insp. john Littlechild that in a privtate letter of reply to another who had the ear of MM, that Tumblety did a runner and was presumed drowned, never heard of again (patenty wrong if his colleague Andrews was chasing across North America after him, for whatever reason and was therefore 'heard of again'), in addition to all the American Newspapers bleating his name out left right and centre ( you would imagine that Littlechild had knowledge of these press reports, including quotes by the 'drowned, never heard of again' man himself- telling the world what an innocent man he was...
On top of that lot- there is the question, rightly raised and quoted, about the law and how it actually worked in the LVP. logically, one sees very little to go on. His only known crime in the UK wasNt infaact a crime because he was never found guilty- and any crime he was charged with had sweet fanny adams to do with women, low life Victorian women nor even Low life Whìtechapel Victorian women.

There's a lot more to it than that and you know it. Try presenting the full facts about Tumblety and not cherry pick.

Logic tells you what? That he is a viable suspect after that lot?
Logic tells me that he wasnt, that Littlechild put Sims off any trail by mixing in someone that 25 years after the murders no one knew about- and because it was private correspondance it wouldnt be known anyway.
Littlechild was Secret Squirrel Rob. Secret Squirrel never talk nor write to journalists about what they were REALLY doing. Ever. They won't talk shop. If they feel they have to, it wij be too mixf up to prove useful. Littlechild was telling Sims what he knew Sims wrote about, a variation on the drowned Doctor theory. Because he would have known full well what Sims had written over many years. Note the opening line of direct reference- 'I have never heard of a Dr...
.' that's loaded!

What a lot of drivel.

It's logic. And it isnt 'stupid' either. And if you think it shows in your mind disrespect to SPE, let me firmlx assure you it doesnt and isnt intended, as he himself knows. Trevor's work coumterbalances the Littlechild letter, imo. Nothing else shown thusfar in response tips the scales back.

No I was wrong, I admit it wasn't stupid. After this post of yours I have had to change my thinking, and I have come to the conclusion you are talking a load of bollocks.

Now lets see if you can manage ONE reply without personal disrespect?

Phil

Probably not considering you started the insults and disrespect first.
Some people are just to stupid top post.

Rob

[PaulB]

Trevor's work coumterbalances the Littlechild letter, imo. Nothing else shown thusfar in response tips the scales back.
Now lets see if you can manage ONE reply without personal disrespect?

Phil, you've lost me. How, exactly, does Trevor's article counterbalance the Littlechild letter? Littlechild said Tumblety was a suspect, Trevor has sought to demonstrate that Tumblety was in custody when Kelly was murdered, from which, and predicated on his assumption that the canonical victims were killed by the same person, he argues that Tumblety wasn't Jack the Ripper. Littlechild says only that Tumblety was a suspect. Nothing Trevor has written contradicts that. So where is the so-called counterbalance?

[Jonathan H]

To PaulB

I agree in the sense that Littlechild was referring to Tumblety as a suspect, in general, of the Whitechapel murders -- at least the ones prior to his flight.

I would just add that George Sims, from 1899 (to 1917) had persisted in writing that that there were only five Jack victims and that Kelly was definitely the last and most ghastly one. And that this chief suspect of Scotland Yard then committed suicide before he could be arrested by fast-closing police.

Littlechild's Tumblety revelation is to challenge some of this widely disseminated profile, which the ex-chief thinks is probably Dr T anyway as D and T are very close in sound (but if Sims really means Dr D as a separate suspect, well, that Anderson is unreliable -- 'only thought he knew'. Littlechild is not referring to Anderson's Polish Jew suspect. He mistakenly think Dr D originates with Anderson via Griffiths to Sims).

So, Littlechild corrects Sims as respectfully as he can since the latter is his social superior, writing that, yes, the chief suspect of 1888 was a doctor of sorts, but he was an American, he had been arrested, and he was only 'believed' to have taken his own life after vanishing abroad.

If Tumblety had been held over and was thus proven innocent of the Miller's Ct. murder Sims would have added that to his list of gentle corrections of Sims' drowned doctor profile.

I don't think he did because Dr T wasn't held over, and that is exactly what Jack Littlechild implies: the murders ended with Kelly because the chief suspect absconded and, perhaps, took his own life. This is a variation on the 'autumn of terror' template established by Macnaghten via Griffiths in 1898 (Littlechild, like the rest, seems completely ignorant of Druitt or Mac's role in all of this).

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike,

Thank you for providing that clip.
This clip is a little odd as proof, if you'll pardon my comment.
The clip is dated 23rd November.
He was 'arrested' 'some weeks ago.'
(thats at least 2, maybe 3 ) that makes the date 9th November or 2nd of November, which means the 7th November date is fine- BUT
The very next line is-
' Since his incarceration in prison'
indicating to me that following his arrest 'some weeks ago' he was 'incarcerated in prison'.
Finally- why would Anderson want info AFTER he left the UK IF he was boasting etc whilst incarcerated? Surely the time to contact was when he told the police to contact Brooklyn- WHILST in prison?

So for me it shows he was incarcerated in prison at the time of the Kelly murder.
And incarceration indicates a length of time.
Surely had the prison visit been a very short one he wouldnt be just incarcerated, but 'released'?
No mention.
Best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

It's not odd for me. It's Anderson himself -post Kelly murder- asking for more info on him. Remember, the US papers received its information from a New York World London cable just after Tumblety posted bail on November 16th. The cable was dated November 17th. Just as Trevor stated, the case was in private session, so neither British nor US papers would have known, but once he posted bail, the cable source (most likely stationed at Marlborough Street Station, since a New York World correspondent was stationed there, the timing is perfect, and the details of the case are correct) spoke with police about Tumblety. How do we know this? Because it says so; "The police say..."

Back to your point, the arrest 'some weeks ago' was not his arrest for gross indecency, the source was talking about the first arrest; his arrest 'on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes'. This occurred sometime before the November 7th re-arrest for gross indecency, because that's exactly what this cable source said. The Brooklyn article is only a few days later, but AFTER he was placed in jail by Hannay on November 14th, so 'since his incarceration' would refer to this time.

Now remember, this is a time that no one knew Tumblety with respect to the Ripper case. Why would the London cable source just make this up about him being arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, especially when Littlechild confirmed this and Tumblety admitted it?

Finally- why would Anderson want info AFTER he left the UK IF he was boasting etc whilst incarcerated? Surely the time to contact was when he told the police to contact Brooklyn- WHILST in prison?

When he requested information on Tumblety, this occurred before Tumblety was safely in France on November 24th. Roger Palmer pointed out that the purpose for gaining information on Tumblety about the murders and the purpose for Inspector Andrews collecting the information from Canada was to do a deep background investigation on him. Anderson's (and company) assumption was Tumblety was going to be convicted and be in jail for awhile; in a place where they could keep their hands on him just incase they discover something that would solidify a Ripper case. If the murders stopped while Tumblety was in jail for gross indecency, why all the more reason to suspect him, but if they continued then they would know he was not the Ripper. Since the Ripper murders continued after the Kelly murder (at least that's what they thought), then he wasn't the guy any way.

Sincerely,

Mike