Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[Lechmere]

Robert gave me an idea
I do like maps and my reproduction OS map of Whitechapel, Spitalfields and the Bank 1873 has an extract from a contemporary Post Office Directory on the reverse side.

Whitechapel High Street – which is further west than Whitechapel Road is in E.

Houndsditch, on the eastern edge of the City of London is listed as E – although my 1972 Kelly’s Directory map shows it as being in EC.

Leadenhall Market is in EC as would be expected.
This should make it clear that Whitechapel Road was in E.

[Steve S]

Hi Steve,

I write about this in my Yellow Journalism article. If it was ALL newspaper stories then I'd agree, but that's not the case. First, contrary to popular belief, in 1888 the New York World followed strict guidelines to be fair and accurate. Yellow journalism didn't exist yet. Second, the newspaper stories were corroborated by two senior officials in Scotland Yard at the time, Chief Inspector Littlechild and Sir Robert Anderson. Even Tumblety himself corroborated the stories. The power of the evidence is in the corroboration and by whom. British newspapers even joined in on the fun with Tumblety, but they just didn't use his name. Also, the British public did not enjoy US newspapers, including Scotland Yard officials. In view of this, Littlchild would not have been stuped by US newspaper articles. His info came from his files. Anderson requested info from US chiefs of police on Francis Tumblety specific to the Whitechapel investigation. Not only that, he did it at the exact same time Tumblety was arrested.

There is more corroboration, but that's for a future article.

Sincerely,
Mike

I shall await with interest He's certainly interesting enough to be worthy of study for himself........

[Robert]

Hi Mike

I don't have a map, but then a map to me is a cumbersome thing that you unfold and then can never get it folded up again the way it was.

I looked at the London Gazette, which I suppose is a fairly authoritative publication.

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/search

I searched under 'with the exact phrase' between 1st January 1870 and 1st January 1880, using terms like "Whitechapel E," "Commercial Street E" and "Spitalfields E" and there are results for this (there are also results for "Spitalfields NE"). When I tried with "EC" instead of "E" there were no results. I guess it would be a matter of entering various street names to try to get a fix on where the boundary was.

I was hoping the east end traders petition might be online, to see if that had postcodes, but no luck. My Sourcebook, which does have it, is currently packed away.

[Lechmere]

You can tell it doesn't spread down to WhItechapel Road though.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

I'm reassured you're not a postcode specialist - you'd be amazed at some of the narrow fields of interest I've come across in the philatelic field (some far narrower than that) together with the strange creatures who populate the field. Makes Ripperworld look quite sane I can tell you.

The Wikipedia entries (I've found three so far - one on the EC postal district, one on the Eastern postal district and one on the London Postal Districts generally) are quite interesting and contain a map I've not seen before...the newspaper one you mention. I'd have thought it's a bit small to make out the EC boundaries though, beyond showing the same general shape as present.

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Ah Cog
Only 90%?
Postcodes aren't one of my special interests either I'm pleased to say.
There's an 1857 map in the Wikipedia article I think you consulted that certainly shows the EC area as roughly the same as now.

[Cogidubnus]

Cog
You are being over helpful.
It was a rhetorical question as Mike has been insisting that the EC postcode stretched another half mile eastwards in the 1870s.
I am 99.999999% certain that give or take a few yards the boundary has always been the same.
I could off the top of my head walk around the EC boundary and I'd maybe make a mistake of no more than 50 yards the whole way round as I use the postcodes for work reasons frequently,
To be fair to our Colonial Cousins these things are probably less straight forward - as is realising the difference between the City of London (which is almost identical to the EC area) and London in its wider sense.

Oh I'm sorry...I'd hate to be thought helpful under those particular circumstances...

Nonetheless, I have to say I'm 90% certain you're right - I can't go further because (a) I haven't got copies of the annual London Post Office Guide for either 1888 or 1889 and (b) this is not one of my real areas of specialisation...

Briefly the London Postal Districts, as we know them today, were devised by Sir Rowland Hill in 1854, subsequently approved by Parliament, and introduced between 1857 and 1858.

I'm aware of only one phase of dramatic modification between then and 1917, (the year the Postal Districts were divided into numbered segments) and that took place between 1866 and 1868 under the instigation of Anthony Trollope.

In 1866 the North East (NE) Postal District was abolished and the entire area was transferred into the control of the Eastern (E) area. At this time the Eastern area was also withdrawn back on itself from it's outer perimeter leaving Ilford and I think Barking outside the London Postal area.

In 1868 the Southern (S) area was abolished and split between the South Eastern (SE) and South Western (SW) areas.

I'm not aware of any other changes (particularly in regard to the adjacent boundaries between the EC and E Postal Districts) but I can't say 100% (for reasons already stated) that they didn't happen...

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Mike
First of all I never intended to ruin your forthcoming article by getting you to unveil your files.
You should have just said that all will be revealed – and I would have left those lines of debate alone.

But back to the points you raise.
I do not say:
'it doesn't say specifically, therefore, it didn't happen.’
You have several time stated things as fact which I have challenged you to prove are facts.
I have no problem with conjecture, particularly if it is backed up by facts that suggest the conjecture is true.

Conjecture is inevitable in this field. But it works both ways.
In the Tumblety case for example, when we weigh all the evidence, in my opinion it illustrates that it is far more likely that Tumblety invented the Ripper arrest to cover up the fact that he had fled very damaging charges of Gross Indecency. This in turn attracted the attention of the London police and made him genuinely, for a brief moment, a Scotland Yard suspect.

But we have a way to go yet to sift through all the evidence.

You have provided some more from your files.
Your Bridgeport Morning News clipping from 22nd November 1888 states:

‘Coming at a time when people were beginning to think that the Dr. Twomblety now in custody might really prove to be the Whitechapel fiend, this morning’s affair has renewed all the old excitement.’

This wasn’t true though was it? So I don’t know what it proves, other than that misinformation was spreading in the aftermath of the publication of the New York World Cable Service story.

You also quote the Morning Star of 21st November 1888:

‘A man was arrested here Monday in connection with the Whitechapel crimes. He gave his name as Dr. Tumblety, of New York. He could not be held on suspicion, but the police succeeded in getting him held under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.’

That would mean that Tumblety was arrested on Monday 19th November 1888 for the Whitechapel crimes. If the story was true. I don’t think it is true.

Then we have the New York Herald of 20th November 1888 reporting:

'Dr. Tumblety, alias Blackburn, the person who was arrested in London a week ago as "Jack the Ripper," was a well known character in Brooklyn many years ago.'

That would mean that Tumblety had been arrested around Tuesday 13th November 1888 for the Whitechapel crimes. If the story was true. I don’t think it is true.

Of course we know for a fact that Tumblety was arrested on 7th November 1888 for the Gross Indecency charges.
You think he was arrested for the Whitechapel crimes before he was arrested for Gross Indecency. So how does all this fit? It doesn’t.
It is part of the picture that tells us that the whole Jack the Ripper arrest was a charade invented by Tumblety.

Regarding the three part New York World Cable Service story that was reproduced in full in the San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe and I see the Chicago Daily Tribune on 18th November 1888 (and no doubt others).
The correlation of the wording does indeed show that it was one long cable. This means that Tumblety cannot have personally sent the segment concerning himself.
I can admit things when they become apparent – but this does not materially affect my case!

The Sir George Arthur segment contains the following details:
‘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.’

This passage could be taken to imply that someone in the police was responsible for leaking the tale. However as I pointed out the story was provided not by the police but by ‘the jolly young baronets at the Brooks Club’.

The Tumblety segment states:
‘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.’

This could be taken to imply that someone in the police had spoken directly to the author of this piece. It could equally have been Tumblety telling the reporter what he claimed the police had found out.

Or this sentence could be what Tumblety told the correspondent:
‘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 correspondent may have made enquiries with the police about the Gross Indecency charges which were by then on public record and been told:
‘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.’

The judgement on how this should be interpreted should be based on other surrounding evidence.

[mklhawley]

It is perhaps worth adding at this point that the source for saying the cables were specifically from the New York World's London Correspondent is the Ottowa Free Press article about Sir George Arthur.
The New York World doesn't say the cables were from their correspondent specifically.
Also it is perhaps noteworthy that the Sir George Arthur story was not provided by the police but by one of his chums at his club who thought his predicament was amusing.

Lechmere,

You claim I use pure conjecture. I merely follow the evidence. You, on the other hand, base your arguments on fallacy, as in 'it doesn't say specifically, therefore, it didn't happen." Take for instance the above statement, "The New York World doesn't say the cables were from their correspondent specifically". Let me clarify, prior to 1888, the five major New York newspapers formed an associated press, which included the New York World, the Times, the Herald, etc, and used newscable dispatches. Newspapers in the US and Canada formed agreements with them. The associated press had a foreign correspondent in London (and mainland Europe). It was customary at the time not to publicize 'AP' on the cable dispatches, so if you see a cable dispatch in a Chicago paper (for example), the source was the associated press. The New York World, the NY Times, and the NY Herald were so large that they also had their own foreign corresondents, AND had agreements with other papers to use their cables dispatches. We can tell when that occurred, because these were publicized, such as the San Francisco Chronicle and the Ottawa paper stating 'New York World Cable Service - Special to the Chronicle'. It points out their agreement. It certainly did come from the New York World foreign correspondent. The San Francisco Chronicle wasn't the only paper to fully publish the dispatch in its entirety. Note the segment in the Boston Globe:

BOSTON GLOBE, November 18,1888
London, Nov. 17-

...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...


Here's another example (it also demonstrates the report came from London)
Bridgeport Morning News, Nov. 22, 1888, IS IT ANOTHER?

NEW YORK, Nov. 21 – A special to The Evening World from London says: “Another Whitechapel murder was attempted in George-street, a short distance from the scene of the last horror, this morning. A man and woman had spent the night in the latter’s room. At 9 0’clock in the morning the fellow attacked the woman fiercely with a long, sharp knife, and succeeded in inflicting a frightful gash in her throat.
“The woman struggled desperately and succeeded in raising such an alarm that the man failed to complete his work and was obliged to run away.
“He was seen running by three men who lived in a lodging house near at hand, and they promptly started in pursuit of him. The fellow threaded his way adroitly through the crowd, and choosing his course among the narrow streets and alleys with a quickness which proved his thorough familiarity with the locality, he successfully eluded his pursuers and finally disappeared.
“From the brief glimpses that the pursuing men caught, while following him, the fellow was only vaguely seen to be well dressed and to have a light mustache.
“There is little doubt in the minds of the police that this man who has escaped is the same who has committed the whole series of Whitechapel crimes. If so, he has now scored his first failure, for the woman’s wound, though severe, is not reported as probably involving a fatal result. She may recover and be able to furnish a description or a further clew which will lead to the apprehension of the man.
“Coming at a time when people were beginning to think that the Dr. Twomblety now in custody might really prove to be the Whitechapel fiend, this morning’s affair has renewed all the old excitement, and the bewildered Londoners are helplessly...



Yes, this is irrrefutable. The dispatch came from the New York World Correspondent in London.




Now, this was not the only cable dispatch out of London. Remember, the New York Herald had their own foreign correspondent and it would be embarrassing for them to use New York World cables. The following is an example of a dispatch, which found its origins from the Associated Press London correspondent:

Morning Star November 21, 1888,
IS THIS THE BUTCHER? Another Arrest in Connection with the Whitechapel Murders. CLAIMS TO BE A NEW YORK DOCTOR.
He is Held Under the Special Law Passed After the "Modern Babylon" Exposures...
LONDON, Nov. 20 - A man was arrested her Monday in connection with the Whitechapel crimes. He gave his name as Dr. Tumblety, of New York. He couldnot be held on suspicion, but the police succeeded in getting him helf under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures...


Note two points to this article. The source of this information was London, but it does not say "New York World Cable..." Why? Because it didn't come from the New York World London correspondent, but the associated press correspondent.



Now, in this little post I have not added my file full of evidence to show you how news was dispatched in 1888, but I certainly have it. My plan was to write a future article on it, so maybe I still will.

Point: Notice how these competitive newspapers, especially the New York World and the New York Herald, confirm each other's information. If the New York World foreign correspondent got it blatantly wrong, don't you think newspaper vying for the same readership in New York would point that out to the world?



Here's how the New York World's competitor, the New York Herald reported the story:

New York Herald, 20 November 1888
"DR. TUMBLETY" IN BROOKLYN.
How he Figured on the Streets as a Freak and was Called Humpty Dumpty.
Dr. Tumblety, alias Blackburn, the person who was arrested in London a week ago as "Jack the Ripper," was a well known character in Brooklyn many years ago. Early in the sixties he used to ride down Fulton street dressed in a hunting coat covered with gold braid and followed by several valuable hunting dogs. The boys used to guy him and called him "Humpty Dumpty," which name seemed to please him. He opened an office in Washington street, near Fulton street, and carried on business as a herb doctor, and it is said made plenty of money. At this time he boarded with a Mrs. Foster, at No. 95 Fulton street...




When a competitor confirms the report, it is further corroboration that Tumblety was FIRST arrested on suspicion for the murders, but then charged with gross indecency.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Lechmere]

Cog
You are being over helpful.
It was a rhetorical question as Mike has been insisting that the EC postcode stretched another half mile eastwards in the 1870s.
I am 99.999999% certain that give or take a few yards the boundary has always been the same.
I could off the top of my head walk around the EC boundary and I'd maybe make a mistake of no more than 50 yards the whole way round as I use the postcodes for work reasons frequently,
To be fair to our Colonial Cousins these things are probably less straight forward - as is realising the difference between the City of London (which is almost identical to the EC area) and London in its wider sense.

[Cogidubnus]

No URL to the postcode map showing Whitechapel Road in EC district?

Don't know about the online map Ed, but if it helps picture the Thames as the Southern boundary. The EC postal area was a sort of semi-circle bounded very roughly West to East by The Temple, Grays Inn Road, Mount Pleasant, Wilmington Square, Sadlers Wells, City Road, Old Street, Shoreditch High Street, Norton Folgate. Middlesex Street, Aldgate, Minories and The Tower.

According to the directories it had twelve postal deliveries a day in 1888, the surrounding areas receiving eleven.

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Mike
Most of your last post was pure conjecture that you're passing off as fact.
You have no reason to suppose that Tumblety was arrested off the streets in Whitechapel or anywhere else on suspicion of being the Ripper. If - and it's a massive if - he was ever arrested anywhere in connection with being the Ripper then what basis do you have for suggesting that this was before he was arrested in connection with the gross indecency charges?
I will remind you that Anderson never suggested Tumblety was arrested in connection with being the Ripper, and Littlechild only said Tumblety was arrested for unnatural acts -the Gross Indecency charges.

You say they rushed his investigation to put him away - then botched it and let him escape?

Those British press reports are delayed reaction blow backs from the US - not original reports from Britain.

[mklhawley]

The police had to have had a file on him for the gross indecency offences otherwise how would they have been able to charge him with three separate offences between June and November 7th

Furthermore they must have know who he was as i said before

You place to much reliabilty of the press reports you keep quoting which are not even British press reports.

Oh, they're not? We'll start with the Daily Telegraph as shown in the Sheffield and Rotterdam Independent, 5 December 1888:

AN IMITATOR OF THE WHITECHAPEL FIEND. In Boston, says the American correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, the Whitechapel fiend has been imitated by a man who hides in dark corners and darts out at women, brandishing a knife and muttering threats. He is undoubtedly insane, and the police are “arresting him numerously.”
…It is reported by cable from Europe that a certain person, whose name is known, has sailed from Havre for New York, who is famous for his hatred of women, and who has repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character. Whether this will throw any light on the Whitechapel tragedies I must leave the London detectives to decide.

and The Pall Mall Gazette, 31 December 1888:

The supposed inaction of the Whitechapel murderer for a considerable period and the fact that a man suspected of knowing a good deal about this series of crimes left England for this side of the Atlantic three weeks ago, has, says the Telegraph correspondent, produced the impression that jack the Ripper is in that country.

Someday, you'll read my articles, because I explain the misconception that you're touting.

What would be the purpose of arresting him if they did not have any evidence on him for the murders ? After arresting him they couldn't interview him.

You still don't get it. He was initially arrested 'like a score of other men' and that was arresting him on the streets 'on suspicion'. Just like the score of other men, they did not know who they had until (just as 'the police' said they searched him) they identified him AND (according to the law) they located his place of residence. While doing so, Headquarters where Littlechild and Anderson hung out pulled out his file. Once they realized who they had and his troubles with young men, they rushed this investigation in order to put him away.

They didn't interview him.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Lechmere]

It is perhaps worth adding at this point that the source for saying the cables were specifically from the New York World's London Correspondent is the Ottowa Free Press article about Sir George Arthur.
The New York World doesn't say the cables were from their correspondent specifically.
Also it is perhaps noteworthy that the Sir George Arthur story was not provided by the police but by one of his chums at his club who thought his predicament was amusing.

[Lechmere]

Mike
You know I asked if you could:
‘pin point where in the New York World article about Tumblety's arrest that it definitively states that the information was provided by the police?’

You quoted me a section from The San Francisco Chronicle. Not the New York World.
The point being you somewhat exaggeratedly regard the New York World as being the fountain of truth (based on your Yellow Journalism article).
There are differences in the way the San Francisco Chronicle and the New York World covered the Tumblety story – although both were based on the same cable.
The simple fact is that the New York World does not say that the information was provided by the police.

Of course we do not know whether there were actually one two or three cables form London.

No URL to the postcode map showing Whitechapel Road in EC district?

So there is no reference to Tumblety ever wearing a slouch hat apart from in his January 1889 interview. He gave this interview to exonerate himself from being Jack the Ripper so anything he says has to be regard with suspicion. Doubly so as Tumblety was a known liar.

We know that the story he gave about himself in January 1889 has marked similarities to that of Sir George Arthur. We know the Sir George Arthur story was cabled to the US on the same day as his own arrest story. We know that the Sir George Arthur Story appeared in the New York World just the day before his own story. A bit of a coincidence.

The San Francisco Chronicle stated at the end of its article based on the New York World cable service:

‘A score of other men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion of being the murderer, but the right man still roams at large.’

You amended this to say:

'just like a score of other men arrested by the police this week'.

You added in the ‘just like’ bit.
Also the reference makes no claim as to where these people were arrested. If you read contemporary British newspapers it makes it clear that people were arrested all over London on suspicion of being the murderer.

You references to Anderson and Littlechild are irrelevant as they are silent on where Tumblety was picked up.
So actually we have no idea where Tumblety was arrested – either for the Gross Indecency or on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, so it is best not to claim be was arrested in Whitechapel.