Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[Wyatt Earp]

you can't convict just on circumstantial evidence.

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

[Haskins]

As has often been repeated on these threads, and elsewhere, there is no hard evidence against any of the named suspects.

However, if you are going to quote witnesses (who may or may not have seen the Ripper), please get your facts right. According to Lawende the man he saw with a woman he identified as probably Eddowes (by her clothing!) he was 'age 30, height 5ft. 7 or 8 in, complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build, dress pepper and salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor. Lawende stated, "I doubt whether I should know him again."

According to Levy the man was about 3 inches taller than the woman. However, he went on to state, "I cannot give any description of either of them." Here alone we see there is a discrepancy between the height given by Lawende (who had a better look at the couple) of 5ft 7-8ins. and that given by Levy of only 'about 3 inches taller than the woman (if she was Eddowes). Added to that we have to account for the far from ideal sighting conditions and the fact that the man may have been slouching down to the woman's level to speak to her.

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.

[mklhawley]

...He almost certainly was responsible for his own suspect status by promoting this allegation as a rouse to cover up for the fact that he had been arrested and fled charges of Gross Indecency.

Wow! I wake up to reading this thread and seeing Stewart having to repeat himself and 're'-clarifying misconceptions. I get why Trevor hasn't learned, but then again, he makes CNN so I'm not going to knock him, but Lechmere, where have you been?

The source for Tumblety being suspected of the Whitechapel crimes came from 'the police', according to the very earliest primary source, a London correspondent for the New York World. Where in this does it show he even spoke to Tumblety and Tumblety only? The subsequent reports springboard from this. Can you clarify this 'amost certainly was responsible' statement?

Sincerely,
Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

I'm not sure...

Well if you wish to put forward a suspect for any crime past or present without corroboration then same applies as it does to me and all the others who champion these so called prime suspects on here without anything of substance to back them up.
Some ageing police officers stand the test of time better than others who lose the plot rapidly.

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Crafty Old Fox

Well he didn't die shortly after absconding back to America
...

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.

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.

You then digress from the question in hand here (that Littlechild made incorrect statements) onto matters that are contentious, upon which we disagree, and which you know no more for certain than I do. And you still haven't told us what Littlechild said that was incorrect. Is this a smokescreen to cover the fact that we are still waiting for Littlechild's incorrect statements?

[Trevor Marriott]

When Littlechild wrote the letter in 1913 he was 66 years old. How old are you Trev? On that basis I guess we can ignore much of what you say if we choose to do so. And I'm not far behind you, so there's no hope for me either, ageing ex-police officers being what they are.

Well if you wish to put forward a suspect for any crime past or present without corroboration then same applies as it does to me and all the others who champion these so called prime suspects on here without anything of substance to back them up.

Some ageing police officers stand the test of time better than others who lose the plot rapidly.

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly what has been proved to be incorrect? Do, please, enlighten us.

Well he didn't die shortly after absconding back to america

The large dossier on him as described was most certainly the file in relation to the surveillance carried out on him into his activities in the male brothels of the west end which led to his 3 charges. One of which just happened to be the same date as Polly Nicholls murder !

He was not arrested and interviewed about the Ripper murders and was certainly not given police bail as you suggest. Police bail did come into play until 1976.

He in fact wasn't given bail on Nov 7th when arrested for the gross indecency offences and therefore could not have murdered Mary Kelly the following day

And playing devils advocate if he had been arrested and interviewed and bailed would he have hung around to commit another murder knowing the police were onto him and knowing he might be under surveillance again?

The answer is no he would have done what he did when granted bail days later got out of this country as quick as possible which is excatly what he did when finally bailed by a court.

Taxi for Tumblety !

[Stewart P Evans]

Specific

...
It is conjecture, not a fact, that Andrews visit to Canada (which is in America) had anything to do with Tumblety.

'...Canada (which is in America)...' I'm still trying to get my head around that one. Do you mean 'which is in North America' or do you mean 'which isn't in America'? Do try to be specific.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Ageing ex-police officers'

...
As you also know the uncorroborated opinion given by an ageing police officer many years later does not equate to that person mentioned as being regarded as a prime suspect.

When Littlechild wrote the letter in 1913 he was 66 years old. How old are you Trev? On that basis I guess we can ignore much of what you say if we choose to do so. And I'm not far behind you, so there's no hope for me either, ageing ex-police officers being what they are.

[pinkmoon]

This is another of the popular reasons for dismissing Tumblety. However, the December 1888 description of him leaving the ship in New York show that he was not dressing 'flashily', as does the January 1889 description of him given by the World reporter who interviewed him. There is every reason to believe that by 1888 the early descriptions (usually 1860s) of his uniforms and flashy dress style no longer applied in 1888.

It's not hard to imagine tumblety putting on a few old clothes to fit in with the locals.Also can we really take any of the so called descriptions of the killer seriously I personally have always believed that the killer might have been seen during or just after a murder and the witness never came forward.When you look at the background of tumblety he is an excellent suspect and the simple fact that when he appears on the scene murders start he goes away the murders stop in it self is quite telling.

[Stewart P Evans]

What?

Yes but as you know some of what he said has proved to be incorrect. As you also know the uncorroborated opinion given by an ageing police officer many years later does not equate to that person mentioned as being regarded as a prime suspect.

Exactly what has been proved to be incorrect? Do, please, enlighten us.

[Stewart P Evans]

Here we go...

He had no known East End connections to gain familiarity with those streets of all the streets in London – or the world.
He was almost certainly on remand for Gross Indecency when Kelly was killed.
He almost certainly was responsible for his own suspect status by promoting this allegation as a rouse to cover up for the fact that he had been arrested and fled charges of Gross Indecency.
Littlechild was ignorant as to Tumblety’s fate, which makes his ‘no. 1 suspect status’ in 1888 a little dubious. As dubious as the claim that the Scotland Yard Tumblety file was about his Fenianism which would have been Littlechild’s speciality (yet he didn’t know his fate).
I am not aware of any firm evidence to suggest that Tumblety had any connection to Fenianism – being Irish and expressing ‘Irish’ sympathies does not a Fenian make.
It is conjecture, not a fact, that Andrews visit to Canada (which is in America) had anything to do with Tumblety.

Here we go, same old misplaced or mistaken ideas.

We do know he was on the streets of the East End at the time. We do not know that he was incarcerated at the time of the Kelly murder. Even if we did, I dare say that those wishing to progress Tumblety as the Ripper would then either suggest that Kelly was not a Ripper victim (an idea that some of the detectives on the case at the time had) or that Tumblety was working in league with some 'young man' he had under his control (something he was said to have done, i.e. control young men).

It is a nonsense to suggest that 'he was almost certainly responsible for his own suspect status by promoting this allegation as a rouse [sic - ruse] to cover up for the fact that he had been arrested and fled charges of Gross Indecency [sic].' Not least of all because the American reports of his arrest and flight all stated that he was on charges under the 'Modern Babylon' legislation (i.e. gross indecency) so I don't even know how this argument can be made. The newspaper reports also stated that they were from their 'London correspondent' and they presumably knew who their correspondents were.

Whether Tumblety was the 'no. 1 suspect in 1888' or not, is, I guess a matter of opinion, but if he wasn't who was? Certainly neither 'Kosminski' nor Druitt were in the police sights that early. Oh, I forgot, it was Cross alias Lechmere, or is that Lechmere alias Cross?

Littlechild knew that Tumblety had fled the country via Boulogne (where Littlechild had agents) and that he had left Boulogne shortly afterwards. He then went on to state that he 'was never heard of afterwards' and that 'it was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the "Ripper" murders came to an end.' After that Littlechild's only concern would have been if Tumblety ever returned to England and London, something he had been doing for many years previously.

We don't have Tumblety's Fenian membership card but he did use lawyers with Fenian connections to get him off when charged in 1857 in Montreal with attempting to procure the abortion of a young prostitute.

Before you get involved in debates about Tumblety why don't you go away and bone up on the subject?

[Trevor Marriott]

As is the case with every proposed Ripper. At least Tumblety was named as a suspect by a contemporary chief at Scotland Yard in 1888.

Yes but as you know some of what he said has proved to be incorrect. As you also know the uncorroborated opinion given by an ageing police officer many years later does not equate to that person mentioned as being regarded as a prime suspect.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Quite, there is a possibility that the woman seen by Lawende was not Eddowes (the very point I was making). Something the police were aware of at the time. Personally I think it probably was Eddowes, but I cannot say for certain - which is what some people do. By the way, I would guess there were several thousands of women in Victorian London with a height of around five feet.

Undoubtedly. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that they were merely chatting and ended the conversation soon after the three men passed, or they were punter/client and simply decided against it. It wouldn't be the first time that people were in the wrong place at the wrong time and were not guilty of anything.

And, Levy's statement that, yes, they got up to leave at 1.30 as Lawende stated, but they did not actually leave until 3 or 4 minutes later suggests they would have been at Church Passage around 1:38/1:39; giving the killer 5to 6 minutes to let the three men pass, get her into the square/position, carry out the murder and mutilations and leave before the police arrive. It starts to look less likely, and Levy's statement on the timing of the sighting is under utilised in the context of this murder.

Shame at the inquest that they weren't questioned on this discrepancy as it's fairly central to whether or not the woman was Eddowes.

[Stewart P Evans]

Quite...

Not just by her clothing. Levy had her at 5ft, which is about right; and Lawende seemingly agreed as Eddowes' height upon ID did not lead him to doubt whether or not it was her.
Taking into account it was so close to the timing of the murder, they were hanging around just outside of the square (if they were there just for a chat then there's no real reason to think they would have disappeared by the time the police arrived; and if they weren't there for just a chat then why were they in that spot?); the height of the woman, the ID by clothing, we know Eddowes was in that area half an hour earlier - then I would say it's at least 70/30 that it was Eddowes.

Quite, there is a possibility that the woman seen by Lawende was not Eddowes (the very point I was making). Something the police were aware of at the time. Personally I think it probably was Eddowes, but I cannot say for certain - which is what some people do. By the way, I would guess there were several thousands of women in Victorian London with a height of around five feet.