Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[mklhawley]

Isn't it strange that Guy Logan stated Scotland Yard kept it a secret and here we have Scotland Yard, i.e., Anderson, never discussing Tumblety to the public, yet he certainly did with chiefs of police. ...and then to have another Scotland Yard senior official, Littlechild, confirming their interest in Tumblety. ...and Trevor says there's no evidence.

[mklhawley]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;277254]

I think on the face of it O`Brien must figure in status higher than Tumblety as a suspect. After all this name is written as a suspect in an official police record and at the time and not an opinion in a letter to a press man 20 years later.

I should also point out that the entry in the register shows that a file was opened on the basis of that information in the register.

On that basis there is no evidence to show Tumblety was ever a Ripper suspect at the time of the murders.

And before you start quoting Anderson again and all this New York rubbish where does he specifically refer to Tumblety as a ripper suspect ?

Of course you believe this. You're on record claiming Tumblety wasn't even considered a suspect.

Anderson himself, busy and under huge pressure to solve the case, inquiring about Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety just after the murder of Kelly:

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.


Daily Examiner (San Francisco, CA)
Friday, 23 November 1888
DR. TUMBLETY.
The London Detectives Ask Chief Crowley About Him.
STORIES TOLD OF HIM.
He Was an Abortionist in New York and Served a Year in the Tombs.
Dr. Francis Tumblety, the suspect arrested at London in connection with the Whitechapel murders, is still held by the police of that city, and a good deal of importance seems to be attached to his apprehension. All facts in relation to the suspected "doctor" are being carefully collected, and, as Tumblety was once in this city, there has been considerable telegraphing between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London. Chief of Police Crowley has succeeded in gaining some further information about Tumblety, who came to this city in 1870 and opened an account at the Hibernia Bank.
… The dispatch was sent on the 19th instant, and yesterday this answer was received:
HIS HANDWRITING.
"P. Crowley, Chief of Police, San Francisco, Cal.: Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety.
Anderson,
"Scotland Yard."

Sincerely,
Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=robhouse;277210]

It's mind boggling to think that you wrote a book on the SB registers and yet don't seem to have even a basic comprehension of what they signify. O'Brien's name showing up in the registers means that he is about as significant a "suspect" as any of the thousands of people who were fingered as suspects by ordinary people who were suspicious of their neighbors or strange people around the neighborhood. This information was recorded in the register as a matter of process, and does not mean that this person O'Brien was ever regarded as a serious suspect at all.

RH

I think on the face of it O`Brien must figure in status higher than Tumblety as a suspect. After all this name is written as a suspect in an official police record and at the time and not an opinion in a letter to a press man 20 years later.

I should also point out that the entry in the register shows that a file was opened on the basis of that information in the register.

On that basis there is no evidence to show Tumblety was ever a Ripper suspect at the time of the murders.

And before you start quoting Anderson again and all this New York rubbish where does he specifically refer to Tumblety as a ripper suspect ?

[Stewart P Evans]

Protracted debate

Stewart I do not doubt for a second that you have been totally fair with the evidence. I was however trying to answer the OP's implied question, i.e. why does everyone not agree that the case against Tumblety is overwhelming? In my opinion it isn't overwhelming, because the direct evidence appears to me to work against the stated case. However, that is not the same as saying his advocates are unquestionably mistaken, and would concede that the evidence against Tumblety is at least more compelling than that against the likes of William Gull or James Maybrick.

I am sure the points you have made are valid and have been made with a sense of fair play, and I have addressed them. You may or may not be aware that the last thing I wish to get involved in is a protracted debate about the qualities of a particular suspect.

I am really not into that but I am into people getting things right. I don't care whether anyone thinks Tumblety was the Ripper or not. I do care about people getting their facts right as far as is possible when arguing against a suspect. Normally those interested in Tumblety as a suspect are capable of arguing their corner. And this seems to be what Ripper studies are all about for some who choose that path. Fair enough, whatever floats your boat.

I do not know how anyone could consider the case against Tumblety was overwhelming. That simply is not possible, nor is it possible with regard to any other suspect. If anyone thinks it is they need to reassess their viewpoint. It was refreshing to see here that even Trev does not believe he has solved the case. Everyone has the right to argue against other suspects and I don't disagree with that.

[robhouse]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;277202]

Dont forget in the SB registers he mentions another man as a suspect O`Brien, now they both cant have been the ripper could they ? and its funny why no one wants to talk about him when clearly in a document of the day his name is mentioned as a suspect. Perhaps there have been no books written about O`Brien to keep his name at the front[/B]

It's mind boggling to think that you wrote a book on the SB registers and yet don't seem to have even a basic comprehension of what they signify. O'Brien's name showing up in the registers means that he is about as significant a "suspect" as any of the thousands of people who were fingered as suspects by ordinary people who were suspicious of their neighbors or strange people around the neighborhood. This information was recorded in the register as a matter of process, and does not mean that this person O'Brien was ever regarded as a serious suspect at all.

RH

[Haskins]

I have to presume that you have knowledge of witnesses and the statements they make. I am sure that you will let us know. With all due respect the witness evidence is simply not of good enough quality to draw solid conclusions and is subject to many variables.

Mrs Long, whom it could be argued had the best suspect sighting of the man with Chapman as she passed on the same footpath, it was virtually daylight, and she actually heard them speak. I note that most people ignore the fact that Mrs Long stated that the man was 'over 40'. Height, and age, are factors that witnesses often get wrong, and markedly so. Other factors such as whether the woman was standing on the doorstep, whether the man was 'slouching down' to talk with her and avoid too much notice, have to be considered. Then, not least of all, whether they actually saw the killer or not.

Age too is very difficult for the average person to assess, for some older people look a lot younger than they are, and vice versa. If you look at the photograph of Tumblety, for instance, he looks much younger than the 40 odd years he was when the photo was taken.

Add to this the fact that when a witness statement is taken, often quite a time after the event which would have perhaps been of little note, the memory plays tricks. Yes, witness descriptions can be very unreliable. Something I found with the countless witnesses I have dealt with. Did Mrs Long see the killer? Did Lawende see the killer? If they both did their descriptions certainly do not agree.

There is no direct evidence against any suspect whatsoever. And who has dismissed 'what little there is'? Certainly not I. In fact I have gone out of my way, in my books, to supply all the witness evidence, including descriptions, fully and accurately. I note that certain other authors (I know not if deliberately) have sought to change Mrs Long's age for the suspect to 'around forty' rather than 'over forty' which is what she stated.

Stewart I do not doubt for a second that you have been totally fair with the evidence. I was however trying to answer the OP's implied question, i.e. why does everyone not agree that the case against Tumblety is overwhelming? In my opinion it isn't overwhelming, because the direct evidence appears to me to work against the stated case. However, that is not the same as saying his advocates are unquestionably mistaken, and would concede that the evidence against Tumblety is at least more compelling than that against the likes of William Gull or James Maybrick.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Stewart P Evans;277204]

Who has mentioned anything about 'prime suspect'? I religiously stick to exactly what Littlechild said, and that was that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects' and to his mind 'a very likely one'.

The first bit of that was a statement of fact that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects' and the qualifier was his own opinion that Tumblety was 'a very likely one'. Those statements have no relation to Littlechild stating that 'it was believed' that Tumblety had committed suicide after leaving Boulogne. He was stating something that was only believed albeit that belief was incorrect. Presumably this was based on information that Littlechild had received. So for Littlechild to state that something was 'believed' is true, despite the fact that the belief was wrong. Please also note the fact that Littlechild isn't making the grandiose claim that Tumblety was the Ripper, he modestly made it patently clear that he was merely 'a very likely' suspect. More strength to Littlechild then - not making the boast that it was a fact, as Anderson did.

Without seeing the Special Branch registers (which, I believe are only indexes) I really cannot make a valid comment on them. I would presume that their nature alone dictates that they are not a definitive list and do not necessarily have everything in them. I do know that there are other references to the Whitechapel murders and in any case Tumblety used many aliases including Sullivan and Townsend to name but two. An initial ledger entry could be under an alias first used anyway.

Stewart
You must take care not to damage your back with all that ducking and diving

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspect

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;277202]

...
Let's get this straight once and for all. Littlechild did not say that Tumblety 'died shortly after absconding back to America'. What he did say was 'it was believed he committed suicide but...' which is something entirely different. It therefore seems that, for whatever reason, the police believed (or thought if you like) that Tumblety had committed suicide. Littlechild referred to it as a belief, and did not state it as a fact. Have you got that? Internalised? I don't expect to hear that one again, or else you will be sent to the corner of the classroom again. And you know you don't like that pointed hat.
Well if he believed he committed suicide and was wrong, then how can we accept that he believed Tumblety to have been a likely suspect as being correct
Still no corroboration with regards to what he said which points to him being a prime suspect.
Dont forget in the SB registers he mentions another man as a suspect O`Brien, now they both cant have been the ripper could they ? and its funny why no one wants to talk about him when clearly in a document of the day his name is mentioned as a suspect. Perhaps there have been no books written about O`Brien to keep his name at the front

Who has mentioned anything about 'prime suspect'? I religiously stick to exactly what Littlechild said, and that was that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects' and to his mind 'a very likely one'.

The first bit of that was a statement of fact that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects' and the qualifier was his own opinion that Tumblety was 'a very likely one'. Those statements have no relation to Littlechild stating that 'it was believed' that Tumblety had committed suicide after leaving Boulogne. He was stating something that was only believed albeit that belief was incorrect. Presumably this was based on information that Littlechild had received. So for Littlechild to state that something was 'believed' is true, despite the fact that the belief was wrong. Please also note the fact that Littlechild isn't making the grandiose claim that Tumblety was the Ripper, he modestly made it patently clear that he was merely 'a very likely' suspect. More strength to Littlechild then - not making the boast that it was a fact, as Anderson did.

Without seeing the Special Branch registers (which, I believe are only indexes) I really cannot make a valid comment on them. I would presume that their nature alone dictates that they are not a definitive list and do not necessarily have everything in them. I do know that there are other references to the Whitechapel murders and in any case Tumblety used many aliases including Sullivan and Townsend to name but two. An initial ledger entry could be under an alias first used anyway.

[mklhawley]

Well if he believed he committed suicide and was wrong, then how can we accept that he believed Tumblety to have been a likely suspect as being correct

Because he said it, but he even added 'a very likely suspect'.

Still no corroboration with regards to what he said which points to him being a prime suspect.

No corroboration? His comments nearly match the newspaper reports, and keep in mind they all stem from who the New York World foreign correspondent used as his source, 'the police'.

Did you forget that Anderson naming Tumblety as a ripper suspect to US chiefs of police just after the Kelly murder is further corroboration?

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Stewart P Evans;277180]You really are a crafty old fox Trev. Please be accurate and specific with your replies - you know how people leap on everything you say, and even suggest that you lie.

Well thats par for the course when you shatter peoples beliefs that the only thing they can do is to say you are lying.

Let's get this straight once and for all. Littlechild did not say that Tumblety 'died shortly after absconding back to America'. What he did say was 'it was believed he committed suicide but...' which is something entirely different. It therefore seems that, for whatever reason, the police believed (or thought if you like) that Tumblety had committed suicide. Littlechild referred to it as a belief, and did not state it as a fact. Have you got that? Internalised? I don't expect to hear that one again, or else you will be sent to the corner of the classroom again. And you know you don't like that pointed hat.

Well if he believed he committed suicide and was wrong, then how can we accept that he believed Tumblety to have been a likely suspect as being correct

Still no corroboration with regards to what he said which points to him being a prime suspect.

Dont forget in the SB registers he mentions another man as a suspect O`Brien, now they both cant have been the ripper could they ? and its funny why no one wants to talk about him when clearly in a document of the day his name is mentioned as a suspect. Perhaps there have been no books written about O`Brien to keep his name at the front

[Stewart P Evans]

I have to say...

Well as I said on another forum the press and media have been distorting the facts for over 125 years and they are still doing so today never be so ready to accept what you read as being correct as having come straight from the horses mouth.
If I had solved the case I wouldn't be on here I would sitting on some hot beach spending all that money I would get from the press and media instead of having to scrape by on a police pension

I have to say that you have a much better publicity machine than I do Trev.

[Wyatt Earp]

Well maybe in some cases but it's never satisfactory in my opinion, although it does, for sure, keep conspiracy theorists the world over in business.

It also puts murderers in jail.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, there is no problem with anyone 'putting forward a suspect for any crime past or present' as long as there is some justification for doing so. In my case I'm not putting up a person who is a suspect in my opinion, I have the word of the 1888 head of the Special Branch, ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild, who names the suspect.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that needs corroboration, the fact that he's a suspect, or the fact that he was the offender? Publishers of books, as you know, will invariably describe a 'suspect' book published by themselves as being about 'the prime suspect', 'the number one suspect' or the 'actual murderer case solved' (as I think they do in your case, correct me if I'm wrong but I've been reading all over the place that you have solved this case). It makes sense for them to do so, such hype sells books, and that's the business they are in.

Anyway, I accept the poked out tongue, despite your age you are a handsome and smooth-talking beast. For me there is no hope.

Well as I said on another forum the press and media have been distorting the facts for over 125 years and they are still doing so today never be so ready to accept what you read as being correct as having come straight from the horses mouth.

If I had solved the case I wouldn't be on here I would sitting on some hot beach spending all that money I would get from the press and media instead of having to scrape by on a police pension

[Stewart P Evans]

I have to presume...

But neither description remotely fits Tumblety surely? Lawrende saying he was about 30, was nearly 50% out! And didn't Mrs Long also state that the man she saw before the Chapman attack was just a bit taller than the 5 foot Eddowes? It is true that there is little direct evidence against any suspect but I don't think you can dismiss what little there is.

I have to presume that you have knowledge of witnesses and the statements they make. I am sure that you will let us know. With all due respect the witness evidence is simply not of good enough quality to draw solid conclusions and is subject to many variables.

Mrs Long, whom it could be argued had the best suspect sighting of the man with Chapman as she passed on the same footpath, it was virtually daylight, and she actually heard them speak. I note that most people ignore the fact that Mrs Long stated that the man was 'over 40'. Height, and age, are factors that witnesses often get wrong, and markedly so. Other factors such as whether the woman was standing on the doorstep, whether the man was 'slouching down' to talk with her and avoid too much notice, have to be considered. Then, not least of all, whether they actually saw the killer or not.

Age too is very difficult for the average person to assess, for some older people look a lot younger than they are, and vice versa. If you look at the photograph of Tumblety, for instance, he looks much younger than the 40 odd years he was when the photo was taken.

Add to this the fact that when a witness statement is taken, often quite a time after the event which would have perhaps been of little note, the memory plays tricks. Yes, witness descriptions can be very unreliable. Something I found with the countless witnesses I have dealt with. Did Mrs Long see the killer? Did Lawende see the killer? If they both did their descriptions certainly do not agree.

There is no direct evidence against any suspect whatsoever. And who has dismissed 'what little there is'? Certainly not I. In fact I have gone out of my way, in my books, to supply all the witness evidence, including descriptions, fully and accurately. I note that certain other authors (I know not if deliberately) have sought to change Mrs Long's age for the suspect to 'around forty' rather than 'over forty' which is what she stated.

[Haskins]

[QUOTE=Wyatt Earp;277191]

you can't convict just on circumstantial evidence.QUOTE]

This is not true. Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

Well maybe in some cases but it's never satisfactory in my opinion, although it does, for sure, keep conspiracy theorists the world over in business.