Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[Ben]

It really is extremely irritating to be accused of wearing "blinders" and of "cherry-picking" when, in fact, I have provided total and irrefutable proof that none of the police-endorsed eyewitness sightings featured anyone wearing a "slouch hat". There is no evidence that it was specifically the hat that drew the attention of the two policeman to Sir George Arthur, and even if it was, the only possible explanation is that they were working from the out-of-date, discredited information supplied by bogus witnesses like Matthew Packer.

You seem to have this rather strange idea that accurate information on eyewitnesses can only be found in American newspapers because all the British ones were deprived of details by the police. I'm afraid that's not the case at all. If the San Francisco Chronicle and other papers were under the impression that the police were in pursuit of a slouch-hatted suspect, they were either seriously out-of-date or seriously ill-informed, or both. The Swanson report proves very conclusively that they definitely were not.

The problem is, how the heck did Tumblety even know about a slouch hat causing the arrest of lone men in the first place?

Please reflect on the heading of the article you provided from the San Francisco Chronicle. "Gossip from London". Gossip. Not "secret special information that comes directly from the police, and which the silly old rubbish London journalists weren't privy to", but simply GOSSIP. Is it really that much of a stretch to conclude that Tumblety simply picked up the same "gossip" while in London?

You're doing the 'absence of evidence is evidence of absent' fallacy.

Well, no, it isn't fallacious at all in this instance because the "absence" of any slouch hats from the Swanson document is evidence that there were no slouch-hatters among the eyewitness sightings that the police took seriously. I'm afraid there's just no way round that.

I know not if Anderson's interest in Tumblety is a "problem" for Polish jew theorists (as I'm not one of them), but I can't imagine that it would be, considering that a) I'm sure a great many suspects were of "interest" to Anderson at one stage or another during the course of the investigation, and b) Anderson's obvious conviction that a Polish jew was the murderer obviously absolved Tumblety of all suspicion in his mind.

Regards,
Ben

[mklhawley]

We shouldn't treat the eyewitness descriptions as gospel, Pink, no, and nor should we use them as the ultimate barometer for ruling suspects in or out, but we should certainly take them "seriously". It's each to one's own, of course, but Tumblety would be very far down my list of people to question in connection with the murders in 1888, simply because what we know about him is so very far removed from what we know to be true of the vast majority of serial killers.

But the problem is Ben that you're coming from a position that Tumblety could not have been JTR, but the reason is truly off the mark. Assumption one is that JTR was like the vast majority of serial killers. Since we don't know who he was, then how can you claim this? Also, JTR did not mutilate the sexual organs to the extent he did with what made the unfortunates women; their reproductive parts. Of the FBI's motives for 'the vast majority of the serial killers', this fits extreme hatred of a group, in this case women. This fits Tumblety to a tee. When you say, 'what we know about [Tumblety]', I suggest you read more on him, since it's clear you're using dated information.

You seem to have this rather strange idea that accurate information on eyewitnesses can only be found in American newspapers because all the British ones were deprived of details by the police. I'm afraid that's not the case at all. If the San Francisco Chronicle and other papers were under the impression that the police were in pursuit of a slouch-hatted suspect, they were either seriously out-of-date or seriously ill-informed, or both. The Swanson report proves very conclusively that they definitely were not.

Never said that, but to reject this historical evidence is foolhearty. While your position must reject this evidence, my position embraces both, including Swanson's. The common thread between both Sir George Arthur and Tumblety was lone male on the streets, probably giving a harlot a hard time, and then what they wore, an American Slouch Hat. This is a reality.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Lechmere]

But who said Tumblety ever wore a slouch hat - and when was he ever in the East End?

[Ben]

But the problem is Ben that you're coming from a position that Tumblety could not have been JTR

No, I'm not, Mike.

I might regard Tumblety as a very implausible suspect, but in the absence of an alibi or any other concrete proof of innocence, I can hardly declare that he "could not have been JTR". Indeed, I'm not even attacking the overall theory. I'm simply addressing the specific point about eyewitness descriptions, and correcting the mistaken impression that the police were looking for men in slouch hats.

Because they weren't.

Or else they would have appeared in Swanson's report on the witnesses. That is absolutely insurmountable. There was obviously just a silly rumour doing the rounds that the killer must have been an American, and that all Americans wear slouch hats. It is remotely possible that the policemen who arrested Arthur were doing so under the misapprehension that Packer's "yankee hat" man was still a credible suspect, but even then there is no evidence that his slouch hat played any role at all in his arrest.

And speaking of no evidence:

The common thread between both Sir George Arthur and Tumblety was lone male on the streets, probably giving a harlot a hard time

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

Assumption one is that JTR was like the vast majority of serial killers. Since we don't know who he was, then how can you claim this?

Many serial killers will share certain traits that law enforcement may observe, document, and predict in uncaught offenders, often successfully snaring them as a consequence, which is why I'm personally fairly comfortable in my assumption that the ripper shared several traits with some of his modern "successors". As for the FBI, one of the foremost criminologists associated with that organization described Tumblety as "the opposite" of the type of person he envisaged the Whitechapel murderer to have been.

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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

[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]

...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