Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[Lechmere]

Mike
I didn’t say the police did make a statement - I said they didn’t!
I accept what the correspondent says – but I think the correspondent either was actually or was in effect Tumblety
The New York World report doesn’t say that any information was provided by the ‘police’. It says:
‘the police succeeded in getting him held’.
Tumblety himself could very easily have provided this information.

As for the San Francisco Chronicle report of 18th November (via the New York World Cable Service):

‘Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the 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; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.’

This at least says ‘the police say’ but again this could just as easily be Tumblety relaying what he claimed the police said.

The Froest issue could be in connection with anything. You are guessing that the hot water issue involved Tumblety.

Where does it say anywhere that Tumblety was arrested on the streets of Whitechapel before he was arrested for Gross Indecency?

After being arrested a prisoner is not sent to a Magistrate with just the option of the person being convicted or released. They can be remanded pending a trial for example.

Palmer’s articles? You mean the ones about Andrews’ trip to Canada? I have read them.
I also know when Tumblety fled.
I am not denying that Anderson contacted US police chiefs – I am establishing an alternative reason why he contacted them – what was it that prompted him to contact them.
The timeline fits.

No I’m not saying Littlechild read the New York World.
Nor am I saying that the Littlechild Letter was based on the New York World.
I’m suggesting he listened to high end office gossip.

By stating:
‘It was believed he committed suicide’.
Littlechild was saying what the belief was. It clearly wasn’t a random statement he plucked out of thin air. It is slightly qualified – it wasn’t so far as he knew a cast iron certainty that Tumblety had committed suicide. Yet it was the belief.
If the large dossier at Scotland Yard was held by Special Branch then, yes, Littlechild would have been very negligent in passing on beliefs that Tumblety had committed suicide soon after fleeing.
This cannot be denied or got around just because of the use of the word ‘believed’.

If the Tumblety dossier was about his sexual activities then it is understandable that mistaken beliefs were entertained as Tumblety never came back to Britain and the police’s interest in him would have evaporated as soon as the brief Ripper floury dissipated. This was probably when the police realised the implication of Tumblety being in prison when Mary Kelly was murdered.

You simply cannot say that the dossier ‘certainly’ had information in it about Tumblety’s occasional pro Irish sentiments. Do you imagine that Special Branch kept files on everyone in the world who expressed vaguely pro Irish sentiments?

You keep asking for more and more specific examples of things…
‘I'm still waiting for you to prove he self-promoted in the 1880s to such an extent that he was self-promoting specific to the Ripper case.’

I gave you an example of the New York World discussing his self-promotional activities. I never specified that they had to be in connection with his business. Now you are saying they have to be on the scale of the Tumblety-Ripper stories!
That obviously, for Tumblety, was a special case – it made him engage in a major damage limitation exercise to stop it from being widely reported that he had been arrested and fled charges of Gross Indecency.
It worked for Tumblety very well.
You obviously won’t find Tumblety acting in a similar manner – although yes he was a practised self-publicist, which I presume you will not deny.

The similarity in Sir George Arthur’s arrest and the Tumblety story is almost certainly not coincidental. I would suggest Tumblety borrowed the details when he gave his New York World interview in January 1889.

One other problem with claiming that Tumblety was arrested as a Ripper suspect is that the police could easily have made sure he was refused bail for the Gross Indecency charges.
They would have been remarkably incompetent not to do that.
If he was given bail against their wishes, then they would have been remarkably incompetent not to follow him and to allow him to get away to France.
And then even more incompetent to entertain the belief that he may have committed suicide soon after.
None of this adds up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Lechmere, nowhere does it say the police issued a statement. You are misreading it. It certainly was 'off the record' info but not from 'Kumblety', it was from exactly who the correspondent stated it was from 'the police'. Why can't you accepted what the correspondent said? There is evidence who this police officer was. Recall that one of the detectives who signed Tumblety's charge sheet was Detective Frank Froest. He was recorded in his later life to say he was the only detective involved in the Whitechapel crimes to get into hot water with Scotland Yard. There are not too many times we see Froest's name involved in the Whitechapel crimes other than on the suspect Tumblety's charge sheet. The story making the US press certainly would have pissed of the brass.

Note how the November 19 New York World aricle conforms to the November 18 New York World dispatch reported in the SF Chronicle:

Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the 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; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.

He was arrested on the streets of Whitechapel on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes BEFORE they even knew who they had. It was police procedure to identify suspects 'on suspicion' and determine their residence. Once they ID'd the person, they had 24 hours to either send him off to the magistrate for conviction OR let him go. Once they realized who they had that's when Scotland Yard checked their files and that would have been the time Anderson and Littlechild would have realized Tumblety was arrested on suspicion.

Lechmere, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.



Huge problems with this. Anderson was involved BEFORE any stories connecting Tumblety with the Whitechapel crimes. You never did read Roger Palmer's articles did you. Also, I don't think you know when Tumblety fled the country do you. Recheck that one.



Sooo, you're saying Littlechild read the New York World cable dispatch and that's where he got the info? If so, where in the dispatch does it talk about Tumblety's large dossier or his unusual hatred of women? Or, could it be that Littlechild, having access to Tumblety's file learned of this info from Scotland Yard? Lechmere, you are rejecting corroborating evidence, for what? To deny the reality that Anderson considered Tumblety such an important suspect that he personally contacted US chiefs of police for info regarding him SPECIFIC TO THE RIPPER CASE! If Tumblety was just a BS side thought, then why didn't he have a subordinate do all of the leg work? Also, Littlechild never said HE believed Tumblety died soon after. You'd better recheck that as well.



We almost agree upon something, accept that fact that Special Branch certainly was involved in the Ripper case.



This is an 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' fallacy.



Who ever said Tumblety was a Fenian? I certainly didn't and I'm sure the large dossier on him didn't say he was. It certainly showed him being a sympathizer, though.




Who ever said Tumblety wasn't still operating a store? I didn't. I don't think you realize when the last time we have record of him advertising in the papers. I'm still waiting for you to prove he self-promoted in the 1880s to such an extent that he was self-promoting specific to the Ripper case.



I believe Ben charged that there was no hint for both Tumblety or Arthur, so why didn't you claim this with Tumblety? Notice how both Tumblety AND Arthur was involved with harlots, which was one of the reasons for their similar arrest.

Sincerely,
Mike

Mike
At the time Tumblety was arrested on Nov 7th there was no question as to his identity they had him under surveillance from June to Nov 7th so they clearly knew who he was.

He was arrested not for the Whitechapel Murders but for the gross indecency offences and arrested on a warrant as there was no direct power of arrest for these offences. So to get a warrant from the court they would have had to furnish the court with the details of the person they were applying the warrant for.

On a final note had the police even had any suspicions about Tumblety being the killer they would not have agreed to him being bailed on the gross indecency offences.

You should also remember that the police powers were somewhat limited in 1888 when they had arrested someone for an offence they did not carry out interview on that person

Extract from Lord Bramptons speech to constables.

When, however, a Constable has a warrant to arrest, or is about to arrest a person on his own authority, or has a person in custody for a crime, it is wrong to question such person touching the crime of which he is accused. Neither judge, magistrate nor juryman, can interrogate an accused person—unless he tenders himself as a witness, or require him to answer questions tending to incriminate himself. Much less, then, ought a Constable to do so, whose duty as regards that person is simply to arrest and detain him in safe custody.

On arresting a man a Constable ought simply to read his warrant, or tell the accused the nature of the charge upon which he is arrested, leaving it to the person so arrested to say anything or nothing as he pleases.
For a Constable to press any accused person to say anything with reference to the crime of which he is accused is very wrong. It is well also that it should be generally known that if a statement made by an accused person is made under or in consequence of any promise or threat, even though it amounts to an absolute confession, it cannot be used against the person making it.

There is, however, no objection to a Constable listening to any mere voluntary statement which a prisoner desires to make, and repeating such statement in evidence; nor is there any objection to his repeating in evidence any conversation he may have heard between the prisoner and any other person. But he ought not by anything he says or does, to invite or encourage an accused person to make any statement, without first cautioning him that he is not bound to say anything tending to incriminate himself, and that anything he says may be used against him”

[mklhawley]

This is how the New York World reported the matter on 19th November 1888.

‘A special London despatch to THE WORLD yesterday morning announced the arrest of a man in connection with the Whitechapel crimes, who gave his name as Dr. Kumblety, 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.’

I would suggest that Tumblety sent the despatch or at the very least told his version of events to the New York World London correspondent.
The police did not issue statements like this. More normally newspapers relied on off the record information – probably for a few shillings.
So Tumblety could make the claim about the police holding him with no fear of official contradiction.
The editor in New York would be in no position to contradict the story either.

Lechmere, nowhere does it say the police issued a statement. You are misreading it. It certainly was 'off the record' info but not from 'Kumblety', it was from exactly who the correspondent stated it was from 'the police'. Why can't you accepted what the correspondent said? There is evidence who this police officer was. Recall that one of the detectives who signed Tumblety's charge sheet was Detective Frank Froest. He was recorded in his later life to say he was the only detective involved in the Whitechapel crimes to get into hot water with Scotland Yard. There are not too many times we see Froest's name involved in the Whitechapel crimes other than on the suspect Tumblety's charge sheet. The story making the US press certainly would have pissed of the brass.

Note how the November 19 New York World aricle conforms to the November 18 New York World dispatch reported in the SF Chronicle:

Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the 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; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.

He was arrested on the streets of Whitechapel on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes BEFORE they even knew who they had. It was police procedure to identify suspects 'on suspicion' and determine their residence. Once they ID'd the person, they had 24 hours to either send him off to the magistrate for conviction OR let him go. Once they realized who they had that's when Scotland Yard checked their files and that would have been the time Anderson and Littlechild would have realized Tumblety was arrested on suspicion.

Lechmere, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I would suggest that Anderson reacted to the stories in the American press and made enquiries once it was known that Tumblety had been charged with Gross Indecency and the fled.

Huge problems with this. Anderson was involved BEFORE any stories connecting Tumblety with the Whitechapel crimes. You never did read Roger Palmer's articles did you. Also, I don't think you know when Tumblety fled the country do you. Recheck that one.

Technically this did indeed make Tumblety a brief 'official' suspect.
This brief flurry is what Littlechild remembered. Slightly inaccurately as he believed Tumblety had died soon after.

Sooo, you're saying Littlechild read the New York World cable dispatch and that's where he got the info? If so, where in the dispatch does it talk about Tumblety's large dossier or his unusual hatred of women? Or, could it be that Littlechild, having access to Tumblety's file learned of this info from Scotland Yard? Lechmere, you are rejecting corroborating evidence, for what? To deny the reality that Anderson considered Tumblety such an important suspect that he personally contacted US chiefs of police for info regarding him SPECIFIC TO THE RIPPER CASE! If Tumblety was just a BS side thought, then why didn't he have a subordinate do all of the leg work? Also, Littlechild never said HE believed Tumblety died soon after. You'd better recheck that as well.

It’s not surprising Littlechild would remember something as he was a close colleague of Anderson and Swanson, even if it wasn’t his area of operation.

We almost agree upon something, accept that fact that Special Branch certainly was involved in the Ripper case.

Tumblety doesn’t feature in the Special Branch ledgers – the index to their filing system. This suggests that the Scotland Yard file was not Special Branch related.
Furthermore if Tumblety’s file was Fenian related then we should expect Littlechild to be more aware of Tumblety’s fate. But he is not.

This is an 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' fallacy.

Tumblety a Fenian? He supposedly was selected to fight a seat in Canada for the Irish interest. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
Tumblety stayed in a hotel run by an Irish nationalist. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
Tumblety once made a pro Irish and anti Brit remark. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
One Boston newspaper report said he was running around in New York with advanced Irish nationalists. Is that it?
Hardly a dedicated career as a dangerous Fenian. I have yet to see any evidence of Fenianism.
Didn’t Littlechild once complain that over eager informants were always ‘fingering’ innocent Irishmen – just because they were Irish and expressed mildly pro Irish sentiments?

Who ever said Tumblety was a Fenian? I certainly didn't and I'm sure the large dossier on him didn't say he was. It certainly showed him being a sympathizer, though.

He was a dilettante and an exhibitionist.
The 19th November 1888 story makes it clear that he was still conducting himself in this manner in New York immediately prior to the story breaking.

Who ever said Tumblety wasn't still operating a store? I didn't. I don't think you realize when the last time we have record of him advertising in the papers. I'm still waiting for you to prove he self-promoted in the 1880s to such an extent that he was self-promoting specific to the Ripper case.

PS – you provided no evidence for Sir George Arthur giving anyone a hard time.

I believe Ben charged that there was no hint for both Tumblety or Arthur, so why didn't you claim this with Tumblety? Notice how both Tumblety AND Arthur was involved with harlots, which was one of the reasons for their similar arrest.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Mayerling]

Mike
Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly, but when I said:
‘The initial reports said Tumblety had been arrested for the Babylonian offences as a subterfuge by the authorities as they were really after him for the Ripper crimes. In other words the Gross Indecency charges were trumped up and false.’

The second sentence about the trumped up charges was an explanation of the first sentence…
- that according to the first newspaper reports, the charges of Gross Indecency against Tumblety were trumped up as an excuse to hold him for the Ripper crimes.
Of course this was not true – but this is the first major clue that these newspaper reports were based on a story concocted by Tumblety himself. In other words he provided the newspaper with the Ripper allegation to cover up the fact that he had been arrested for Gross Indecency because he had actually committed acts of Gross Indecency!

This is how the New York World reported the matter on 19th November 1888.

‘A special London despatch to THE WORLD yesterday morning announced the arrest of a man in connection with the Whitechapel crimes, who gave his name as Dr. Kumblety, 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.’

I would suggest that Tumblety sent the despatch or at the very least told his version of events to the New York World London correspondent.
The police did not issue statements like this. More normally newspapers relied on off the record information – probably for a few shillings.
So Tumblety could make the claim about the police holding him with no fear of official contradiction.
The editor in New York would be in no position to contradict the story either.


He was a dilettante and an exhibitionist.
The 19th November 1888 story makes it clear that he was still conducting himself in this manner in New York immediately prior to the story breaking.

PS – you provided no evidence for Sir George Arthur giving anyone a hard time.

Since there is this concentration on the gross indecency that brings up reminders of the "Modern Babylon" Scandal of 1885, has anybody checked "The Pall Mall Gazette" for any comments made by it's editor, Mr. Stead, referring to Doc Tumblety and his arrest for indecency. Stead was at the center of the "Modern Babylon" Scandal, and actually served some time in prison as a result. He would have followed a new scandal about this afterwards to see what it was all about. And if he saw nothing about Doc. T. and Jack the Ripper would have possibly said as much.

Jeff

[Lechmere]

Mike
Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly, but when I said:
‘The initial reports said Tumblety had been arrested for the Babylonian offences as a subterfuge by the authorities as they were really after him for the Ripper crimes. In other words the Gross Indecency charges were trumped up and false.’

The second sentence about the trumped up charges was an explanation of the first sentence…
- that according to the first newspaper reports, the charges of Gross Indecency against Tumblety were trumped up as an excuse to hold him for the Ripper crimes.
Of course this was not true – but this is the first major clue that these newspaper reports were based on a story concocted by Tumblety himself. In other words he provided the newspaper with the Ripper allegation to cover up the fact that he had been arrested for Gross Indecency because he had actually committed acts of Gross Indecency!

This is how the New York World reported the matter on 19th November 1888.

‘A special London despatch to THE WORLD yesterday morning announced the arrest of a man in connection with the Whitechapel crimes, who gave his name as Dr. Kumblety, 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.’

I would suggest that Tumblety sent the despatch or at the very least told his version of events to the New York World London correspondent.
The police did not issue statements like this. More normally newspapers relied on off the record information – probably for a few shillings.
So Tumblety could make the claim about the police holding him with no fear of official contradiction.
The editor in New York would be in no position to contradict the story either.

I would suggest that Anderson reacted to the stories in the American press and made enquiries once it was known that Tumblety had been charged with Gross Indecency and the fled.
Technically this did indeed make Tumblety a brief 'official' suspect.
This brief flurry is what Littlechild remembered. Slightly inaccurately as he believed Tumblety had died soon after. It’s not surprising Littlechild would remember something as he was a close colleague of Anderson and Swanson, even if it wasn’t his area of operation.

Tumblety doesn’t feature in the Special Branch ledgers – the index to their filing system. This suggests that the Scotland Yard file was not Special Branch related.
Furthermore if Tumblety’s file was Fenian related then we should expect Littlechild to be more aware of Tumblety’s fate. But he is not.

Tumblety a Fenian? He supposedly was selected to fight a seat in Canada for the Irish interest. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
Tumblety stayed in a hotel run by an Irish nationalist. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
Tumblety once made a pro Irish and anti Brit remark. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
One Boston newspaper report said he was running around in New York with advanced Irish nationalists. Is that it?
Hardly a dedicated career as a dangerous Fenian. I have yet to see any evidence of Fenianism.
Didn’t Littlechild once complain that over eager informants were always ‘fingering’ innocent Irishmen – just because they were Irish and expressed mildly pro Irish sentiments?

He was a dilettante and an exhibitionist.
The 19th November 1888 story makes it clear that he was still conducting himself in this manner in New York immediately prior to the story breaking.

PS – you provided no evidence for Sir George Arthur giving anyone a hard time.

[mklhawley]

...and Tumblety:


Daily Telegraph, December 5, 1888: 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.

So Ben, there is evidence for both.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

...And speaking of no evidence:

Where was it even hinted at that either Tumblety or Arthur were arrested for "giving a harlot a hard time"?

Umm, here:


The Ottawa Free Press (Canada), 21 November 1888

London, Nov. 21--

...A BARONET ARRESTED
New York, Nov. 21.--The World's London correspondent says:--The most intense amusement has been caused among all classes of the London world by the arrest of Sir George Arthur on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. Sir George is a young baronet holding a captaincy in the regiment of Royal Horse Guards,...

Since the past few weeks the old mania for "slumming" in Whitechapel has become fashionable again. Every night scores of young men who have never been to the East end in their lives prowl around the neighborhood in which the murders were committed, talking with the frightened women and pushing their way into overcrowded lodging houses.

THE VIGILANT POLICE
So long as any two men keep together and do not make a nuisance of themselves the police do not interfere with them, but if a man goes alone and tries to lure a woman of the street into a secluded corner to talk with her he is pretty sure into trouble. That was the case with Sir George Arthur. He put on an old shooting coat and a slouch hat and went down to Whitechapel for a little fun...

[mklhawley]

Mike
I am well aware the Gross Indecency charges weren't trumped up - they were the whole reason Tumblety used his self promotion skills to spread the clearly false Ripper stories - to wipe out the true 'bad news story' about himself.

So, why did you say they were trumped up? Besides, you have the cart before the horse. Instead of guessing what Tumblety did because of your perception of who he was, why not follow evidence...and corroborating evidence at that! First, the New York World reporter stated that the police said he was arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders (and why can't you accept this? Because you think they got their facts wrong, because Tumblety was a self-promoter?) and ONLY after this did they decide to use the Gross Indecency charge.

Corroboration: In a private letter by an acting Chief Inspector IN SCOTLAND YARD during the murders, Chief Inspector Littlechild corroborated this. To reject the factual power of corroborating evidence is merely a practice in denial.

The US press fell for it.

And apparently Chief Inspector Littlechild did too?

He was not self promoting his liking for boys - he was doing the opposite - and doing it to protect his reputation which was vital for his business and social standing - that he imagined he had.

As I stated above, the source for Tumblety's connection to the Ripper murders was 'the police' prior to him even setting foot in a jail cell.

We don't actually know what was in the file Littlechild referred to - almost certainly it was sex related and not Feinianism.

Honestly, you should read the recent Tumblety articles, so you can get caught up. So, what the heck would be in a 'large dossier' IN SCOTLAND YARD? He was in trouble with the law a few times, which would have been there. Littlechild, Chief Inspector of Special Branch - the branch dealing with Irish Nationalism, recalled Tumblety's file. We have numerous connections between Tumblety and the Irish Nationalish cause. Where have you been?

You actually have no idea who sent the story to the US from London or possibly who fed the details to the person who sent it.
Just as you have no way of knowing that a US correspondent would scrutinise every minor court case.

You clearly didn't read my article. If you did, then this is another example of denial.

It fits the facts better for Tumblety to be the person spreading the story himself.

Prove it. In your next post, instead of stating your opinions, why not show me all of the evidence of his self-promotions in the 1880s. ...I'm waiting.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Mike
I am well aware the Gross Indecency charges weren't trumped up - they were the whole reason Tumblety used his self promotion skills to spread the clearly false Ripper stories - to wipe out the true 'bad news story' about himself.
The US press fell for it.
He was not self promoting his liking for boys - he was doing the opposite - and doing it to protect his reputation which was vital for his business and social standing - that he imagined he had.

We don't actually know what was in the file Littlechild referred to - almost certainly it was sex related and not Feinianism.

You actually have no idea who sent the story to the US from London or possibly who fed the details to the person who sent it.
Just as you have no way of knowing that a US correspondent would scrutinise every minor court case.

It fits the facts better for Tumblety to be the person spreading the story himself.

[mklhawley]

That's precisely it...
The initial reports said Tumblety had been arrested for the Babylonian offences as a subterfuge by the authorities as they were really after him for the Ripper crimes. In other words the Gross Indecency charges were trumped up and false.
In whose interest was it to promote that canard?
Furthermore a euphemism for Gross Indecency was used that would have gone straight over the heads of most readers - 'Modern Babylon'.
It is clear that the aspect of the story that stuck was the Ripper allegation - as was in my opinion the intention.
The obscure Modern Babylon references were soon forgotten.
So after the dust settled came his impassioned denial of the Ripper claims - all very theatrical.
Now the motive for his arrest was that he was too American looking - clearly an attempt at gaining sympathy and at exciting outrage - oh and he couldn't help bragging about his diamonds at the same time.
Who would have been the London correspondent who set the ball rolling for the Ripper allegations in the US press with respect to Tumblety? Who was well informed about his appearance in a minor court in the early stages of proceedings against him for Gross Indecency?
Who had a motive to cover up the nature of those charges?
Who could have informed the press about his secret flight?
Tumblety the self promoter.

Hi Lechmere,

You have a few misconceptions that need to be clarified. First, the gross indecency charges were not trumped up. He clearly had a record of enjoying the company of young men even in England. He went to court years ealier in England for this very issue. Within this large file that Chief Inspector Littlechild spoke of, had this case in it. Just as the New York World correspondent stated, 'the police' said they used the gross indeceny charge to incarcerate him, because they couldn't with the Ripper case (they couldn't charge anyone with the Ripper case, since no one saw the murders).

We also know who set the ball rolling. It was a foreign correspondent for the New York World. I discuss the names in my last article. I point out that it was common practice for news reporters to be at the courts and also to review the court papers. Since he was an American reporter, this 'Kumblety' was an American, which would have red flagged him. The case before the magistrate Hannay was Gross Indecency and Indecent Assault and that's what the reporter would have heard. How did the reporter know about the Ripper connection? He said how, 'the police'. The two detectives on Tumblety's charge sheet was Walter Dinnie and Frank Froest, so both of them were there.

There is a huge problem with your 'Tumblety the self promoter' theory. It doesn't fit the evidence, and that's what we need to go by. Tumblety indeed self promoted, but ONLY for his business and ONLY in the earlier days. Give me an example of Tumblety's self promoting in the 1880's for his business. If he did, it was few and far between. Also, NEVER did he self promote with his passion for young men. This was his private side. Tumblety has two persona's; his public flamboyant persona and his private shady persona. Do not mix the two.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Lechmere]

That's precisely it...
The initial reports said Tumblety had been arrested for the Babylonian offences as a subterfuge by the authorities as they were really after him for the Ripper crimes. In other words the Gross Indecency charges were trumped up and false.
In whose interest was it to promote that canard?
Furthermore a euphemism for Gross Indecency was used that would have gone straight over the heads of most readers - 'Modern Babylon'.
It is clear that the aspect of the story that stuck was the Ripper allegation - as was in my opinion the intention.
The obscure Modern Babylon references were soon forgotten.
So after the dust settled came his impassioned denial of the Ripper claims - all very theatrical.
Now the motive for his arrest was that he was too American looking - clearly an attempt at gaining sympathy and at exciting outrage - oh and he couldn't help bragging about his diamonds at the same time.
Who would have been the London correspondent who set the ball rolling for the Ripper allegations in the US press with respect to Tumblety? Who was well informed about his appearance in a minor court in the early stages of proceedings against him for Gross Indecency?
Who had a motive to cover up the nature of those charges?
Who could have informed the press about his secret flight?
Tumblety the self promoter.

[Stewart P Evans]

Just One

Just one post here as I am not going to become embroiled in protracted and specious arguments.

First given the quality of the witness sightings, the poor ambient conditions, failure of most of the descriptions to match, doubts as to whether any witness did actually see the murderer, etc., (for which see all the past witness debates), no suspect can be positively ruled out on description alone.

Clothing is a variable that cannot be used as simple disguises such as changing headwear, overcoats, etc. could have been utilized by the murderer.

It is a nonsense to say that Tumblety, in January 1889, was trying to 'cover up the real reason for his arrest' when it was widely reported in the American press in December 1888 that he had been charged with the 'Modern Babylon' legislation offences.

The reporter interviewing Tumblety stated that he spoke with an English accent which would indicate that Tumblety could change the accent that he spoke with, he had travelled extensively over the years.

It rather amuses me when people say he would have been noticed in the East End when in reality the area was populated by just about every cast, creed and nationality under the sun, including a transient element that gravitated to the area. I doubt that anyone would stand out in such an eclectic mix.

Mrs Long's description described the man as 'over 40' and that he was of 'foreign appearance' (which does not immediately mean a Jew as some would have it). His height would be reduced slouching down to speak with the woman and certainly not raising himself to full height in the sight of a witness.

I hasten to add here that I am not trying to convince anyone of any suspect's guilt, merely showing that nothing is certain. Those who argue the loudest and longest are usually peddling their own suspects.

[Lechmere]

I don't take any witness sightings very seriously, but as Tumblety was a big unit it seems very unlikely that he would have been able to slip in and out unnoticed especially as (so far as we can determine) he would have been unfamiliar with the backstreets of the East End.
Also this slouched hat red herring was set in place by Tumblety, from his own lips, as an explanation for his arrest.
If he was the Ripper then it is hardly likely to be true that he was stopped just because he had a slouch hat.
If he was innocent it is possible, but he wasn't entirely innocent as he was arrested for Gross Indecency - which he obviously failed to mention in that article. Hence the slouched hat which I would suggest he figuratively borrowed to avoid mentioning the real charges. And that is what it was all about - subterfuge and camouflage to cover up the real reasons for his arrest.

[Abby Normal]

We can't really take any of the so called sightings seriously due to the fleeting glimpses and poor lighting I personally have always believed some one actually saw our killer possible during an attack and never reported it

Why can't we take any of the sightings seriously? Long, Lawende, schwartz, Marshall, smith, cox-all of them unreliable? C'mon. Surely one or some or all of these witneses saw the ripper? None described a large man, regardless of lighting, conditions, one would think very large size would be the easiest descriptor to get right. Also, the ones who heard him speak don't describe an American accent.

One more thing to keep in mind, on the night of the double event, stride witnesses Marshall, smith, Schwartz, and then eddowes witness Lawende ALL describe a man in a peaked cap. My money is on that the ripper was wearing a peaked cap that night. And non describe him as large.

[pinkmoon]

If tumblety was the ripper then none of the most reliable witnesses ever saw him or they did and utterly missed the size of the man. Both of these options seem far fetched to me. Especially since he was a big dude.

We can't really take any of the so called sightings seriously due to the fleeting glimpses and poor lighting I personally have always believed some one actually saw our killer possible during an attack and never reported it