Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[Lechmere]

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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

According to Lawende the man he saw with a woman he identified as probably Eddowes (by her clothing!)

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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I would like to know any of the reasons that you have heard of that suggest he was not the Ripper.

I have only ever heard two reasons, and they are (1) His age and (2) his height.

Does anyone know of any others? Please list them.

I believe it's very likely that Tumblety could have been JTR but I'd like to look at his case from both sides, I know all the reasons in favour of him being guilty and would now like to know what the other reasons against him are besides what I have said above.

His known actions?

Doesn't strike me as a serial killer, but then I have my preconceptions and tend to think it would be a Peter Sutcliffe/Denis Nilson type - seemingly innocuous while harbouring serious issues with violence, and inconspicuous.

I think perhaps the police weren't well versed on the type of person usually guilty of these crimes, so people such as Tumblety, Ostrog, Chapman and to an extent Kosminski and Cutbush were at some time in the frame. These people were known criminals predisposed to violence, extreme anti-social behaviour such as eating out of a gutter or career criminals; but really none of them appear to fit the bill based upon what we know today.

Kosminski clearly stands out as the person in a position to know named him as being positively ID'd, so he does command a position of being a decent bet. In view of a lack of anything comparable with Tumblety I personally just can't see him being involved.

[Stewart P Evans]

Descriptions

I think they couldn't ignore anyone as they had to keep an open mind.
The problem with Tumblety I think is that you can't convict just on circumstantial evidence. But more than that, the direct evidence seems to show he was not the ripper.
For example, the documented witnesses include Laurende and Levy, who almost certainly did see the ripper, at least as far as we can be certain of anything, and Levy said that the man with Eddowes was about 3 inches taller than her. Eddowes was about 5 feet, so Tumblety would have towered over her.

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Dressing...

...
I also think that Tumblety was too tall, too "flashy" and too strange not to have stood out had he been prowling in the East End on murder nights.
Phil H

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Really?

Hello
He does not match any of the witness descriptions. Not even close.

Really? Please do tell exactly what the Ripper looked like, and who the witnesses were that actually saw him.

Have you ever taken a witness statement? I have, hundreds of them, in a police career spanning nearly thirty years. I think I know more about witnesses, and what they say, than you ever will.

[Stewart P Evans]

Please...

...
I suspect (with no real reason I guess) that Stewart Evans may now regret "The Lodger" - everything else he's written being pretty sound!
...Dave

Please do not presume to suspect anything about what I may regret.

No, I do not regret The Lodger which was a necessary book to introduce a newly found genuine 1888 suspect. The book has sold over 47,000 copies and introduced much new information, including the newly found police suspect.

True, I would rather have not written a 'suspect' book, but what was I to do? Leave to someone else to write a book on a suspect I had discovered and a suspect unknown to Ripperworld.

Thanks for the kind comment about my subsequent books.

[Stewart P Evans]

As is...

Hi TW,
Lack of reliable evidence.
Regards,
Simon

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.

[mklhawley]

...But more than that, the direct evidence seems to show he was not the ripper.

For example, the documented witnesses include Laurende and Levy, who almost certainly did see the ripper, at least as far as we can be certain of anything, and Levy said that the man with Eddowes was about 3 inches taller than her. Eddowes was about 5 feet, so Tumblety would have towered over her.

First of all, "for example" hints that there's more against Tumblety and there's not.

Second, if Scotland Yard believed Laurende and Ley 'almost certainly did see the ripper', then why did Anderson spend his precious time on personally contacting US chiefs of police on Tumblety AS A RIPPER SUSPECT. No, Scotland Yard did not believe Laurende and Levy almost certainly saw the ripper.

We know one thing for certain, though, they were on the lookout for someone in an American slouch hat, which Tumblety certainly wore.

[Haskins]

...and that's why Sir Robert Anderson personally contacted Brooklyn's chief of police on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety at the peak of the murders, Inspector Andrews was sent across the Atlantic to investigate Tumblety's background, and why Chief Inspector Littlechild considered him a likely suspect. Notice the disconnect.

He did match a description: a lone male wearing an american slouch hat. Ever since early October, this was one of the descriptions.

Scotland Yard in November 1888 took him seriously. Why didn't they ignore him because, as you say, 'he does not match any of the witness descriptions'? I'm quite sure they knew much more about the details of the investigation that we give them credit for.

Besides, how are you so sure that the witness descriptions were of the killer when absolutely no one saw the murders! Unless you know who the killer was.

I think they couldn't ignore anyone as they had to keep an open mind.

The problem with Tumblety I think is that you can't convict just on circumstantial evidence. But more than that, the direct evidence seems to show he was not the ripper.

For example, the documented witnesses include Laurende and Levy, who almost certainly did see the ripper, at least as far as we can be certain of anything, and Levy said that the man with Eddowes was about 3 inches taller than her. Eddowes was about 5 feet, so Tumblety would have towered over her.

[mklhawley]

Notice what Guy Logan stated in 1928 in Masters of Crime, over ninety years prior to 'pro-Tumblety' folks push the idea of Andrews crossing the Atlantic because of the Whitechapel murders.



Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,

Isn't it intriguing, though, that the 500-plus pound brightly colored tiger hunts it's prey through stealth. How? Blending with its environment. Tumblety himself admitted he dressed as to not bring attention to himself. Also, 6' 2" is not out of the bell curve of height, especially in a society of hat wearers. Check out any photos of the Whitechapel streets and you will find tall people, yet they do not stand out.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Phil H]

My reading of Tumblety is that his sexuality (whether bi or gay) was not what I imagine the Ripper's to have been.

I think he might have been around in Whitechapel and environs that autumn, but so were a lot of odd types (D'Onston Stephenson, for instance) around. If there was a Fenian connection to any of the killings, then i wouldn't rule out a Tumblety connection.

Also, if Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan Man is remotely reliable (I think it is based on a tailor's window dummy, so is unreliable) then it might just be a misremembered, half-seen description of Tumblety. The flamboyance would be right, and the moustache maybe.

I also think that Tumblety was too tall, too "flashy" and too strange not to have stood out had he been prowling in the East End on murder nights.

Phil H

[mklhawley]

Hello
He does not match any of the witness descriptions. Not even close.

...and that's why Sir Robert Anderson personally contacted Brooklyn's chief of police on Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety at the peak of the murders, Inspector Andrews was sent across the Atlantic to investigate Tumblety's background, and why Chief Inspector Littlechild considered him a likely suspect. Notice the disconnect.

He did match a description: a lone male wearing an american slouch hat. Ever since early October, this was one of the descriptions.

Scotland Yard in November 1888 took him seriously. Why didn't they ignore him because, as you say, 'he does not match any of the witness descriptions'? I'm quite sure they knew much more about the details of the investigation that we give them credit for.

Besides, how are you so sure that the witness descriptions were of the killer when absolutely no one saw the murders! Unless you know who the killer was.

[Abby Normal]

I would like to know any of the reasons that you have heard of that suggest he was not the Ripper.

I have only ever heard two reasons, and they are (1) His age and (2) his height.

Does anyone know of any others? Please list them.

I believe it's very likely that Tumblety could have been JTR but I'd like to look at his case from both sides, I know all the reasons in favour of him being guilty and would now like to know what the other reasons against him are besides what I have said above.

Hello
He does not match any of the witness descriptions. Not even close.