Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[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.

[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

[Lechmere]

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

[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

[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

[Lechmere]

Am I correct in thinking that Tumbelty’s self-serving interview with the New York World, of 29th January 1889 is the only reliable source for him having set foot in the East End, when he said:

‘I had been going over to England for a long time-ever since 1869, indeed-and I used to go about the city a great deal until every part of it became familiar to me.
‘I happened to be there when these Whitechapel murders attracted the attention of the whole world, and, in the company with thousands of other people, I went down to the Whitechapel district. I was not dressed in a way to attract attention, I thought, though it afterwards turned out that I did. I was interested by the excitement and the crowds and the queer scenes and sights, and did not know that all the time I was being followed by English detectives.’

As for his fondness for wearing slouch hats of the American pattern, is this self-same article the only source for his predilection for this variety of chapeau:

‘Someone had said that Jack the Ripper was an American, and everybody believed that statement. Then it is the universal belief among the lower classes that all Americans wear slouch hats; therefore, Jack the Ripper, must wear a slouch hat. Now, I happened to have on a slouch hat, and this, together with the fact that I was an American, was enough for the police.’

[mklhawley]

I'm afraid they demonstrate nothing of the sort, Mike. They are press articles, as opposed to police reports, which evince no indication of originating from police sources.

Ben, you have blinders on. To suggest the press did not receive their information from police sources is ridiculous. In fact, the very same article that discusses Sir George Arthur and his hat is the very same article we see Tumblety connected to the Whitechapel murders AND it points out the police source:


San Francisco Chronicle, 18 November 1888
[THE NEW YORK WORLD CABLE SERVICE; COPYRIGHTED, 1888 - SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE]

LONDON, November 17.--Just to think of one of the Prince of Wales' own exclusive set, a member of the household cavalry, and one of the best known of the many swells about town, who glory in the glamour of the Guelph going into custody on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. It is the talk of clubdom tonight. Just now it is a fashionable fad to "slum it" in Whitechapel. Every night scores of young men, who never have beeni n the East End before in their lives, prowl around the neighborhood of the murders, talking with frightened women and pushing their way into overcrowded lodging-houses. So long as two men keep together and do not make nuisances 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 street to talk to her, he is pretty sure to get into trouble.

That was the case with Sir George Arthur of the Price of Wales set. He put on an old shooting coat and a 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 popular description of Jack the Ripper. They watched him, and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested, expostulated and threatened them with the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End club to prove his identity, and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspapers, but the jolly young Barnets at Brookes Club consider the joke too good to keep quiet...


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.

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. Everybody is momentarily expecting to hear of another victim. The large sums offered as private rewards have induced hundreds of amateur detectives to take a hand in the chase, but to no avail. Leon Rothschild has offered an income of £2 a week for life to the man who gives information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the assassin.

This is evinced indication.

Tumblety's protest that it was purely down to the "slouch hat" that he was arrested can only have been his own interpretation, since there is no realistic possibility of a policeman approaching Tumblety and saying "you're nicked because of your ownership of a slouch hat". Hunter's already made the point that the police had to intervene and set the record straight in response to all the "slouched hat" press nonsense.

The problem is, how the heck did Tumblety even know about a slouch hat causing the arrest of lone men in the first place? It couldn't have been the Sir George Arthur story, since the police were successful in keeping it out of the British papers, and that's where Tumblety was, on the streets of Whitechapel. And to suggest that it's not realistic for a constable to approach Tumblety is actually unrealistic, because they just did it to Sir George Arthur AT AROUND THE SAME TIME.

As I've already mentioned, Swanson provided an internal police report on the eyewitnesses, and if any slouch-hat spotter was being taken seriously, it would certainly have been included in that. Indeed, its absence tells us for certain that the police were not in pursuit of a slouch-hatted suspect.

You're doing the 'absence of evidence is evidence of absent' fallacy. The fact that Anderson was indeed interested in Tumblety negates this kind of cherry picking.

As for Swanson's and Anderson's interest in Tumblety, it clearly wasn't to last as they ultimately believed a Polish Jew was responsible.

Just as Guy Logan pointed out, they tried to keep their interest in Andrews' suspect -Tumbley- a secret, which causes Polish Jew theorists a problem. Interest in Tumblety waned only because he was across the Atlantic when post-Kelly victims were murdered by who they believed was Jack the Ripper.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Ben]

Not only do the articles I posted demonstrate that Scotland Yard did indeed have interest in lone males in American Slouch Hats prior to and during the Kelly murder

I'm afraid they demonstrate nothing of the sort, Mike. They are press articles, as opposed to police reports, which evince no indication of originating from police sources. Tumblety's protest that it was purely down to the "slouch hat" that he was arrested can only have been his own interpretation, since there is no realistic possibility of a policeman approaching Tumblety and saying "you're nicked because of your ownership of a slouch hat". Hunter's already made the point that the police had to intervene and set the record straight in response to all the "slouched hat" press nonsense.

As I've already mentioned, Swanson provided an internal police report on the eyewitnesses, and if any slouch-hat spotter was being taken seriously, it would certainly have been included in that. Indeed, its absence tells us for certain that the police were not in pursuit of a slouch-hatted suspect.

As for Swanson's and Anderson's interest in Tumblety, it clearly wasn't to last as they ultimately believed a Polish Jew was responsible.

All the best,
Ben

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

I should make clear that I never said "genuine sightings of the ripper". I meant "genuine" in the sense that they were considered by the police to have been truthfully imparted by witnesses and relevant to the time of the death of the victims.

I'm afraid there is no evidence that "Scotland Yard" had any interest in "lone suspects in American Slouch Hats". We are indeed "privy" to what the police had in terms of eyewitness evidence. Swanson penned an internal document on eyewitness descriptions collated up until (at the very earliest) the immediate aftermath of the Eddowes murder, and they don't include any slouch-hatters or Tumblety-a-likes.

All the best,
Ben

Ben,

Not only do the articles I posted demonstrate that Scotland Yard did indeed have interest in lone males in American Slouch Hats prior to and during the Kelly murder, Tumblety admitted in his interview in Jan 1889 that he was arrested for his American Slouch Hat. It's truly an anti-Tumblety bias to reject this reality.

There is a pattern with Swanson that you've never considered. His boss, even his hero, Sir Robert Anderson, maintained the same silence as Swanson did about Tumblety. Luckily for us, the US chiefs of police opened their big mouths and we now know that Anderson had a big interest in Tumblety just after the Kelly murder. If it wasn't for these cables, one would say that Anderson never knew of Tumblety, since we have no other record of him discussing him. To say that Swanson did not have the same concerns about Tumblety just because he did not mention him, ignores the reality of Swanson's relationship with Anderson.


Sincerely,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I should make clear that I never said "genuine sightings of the ripper". I meant "genuine" in the sense that they were considered by the police to have been truthfully imparted by witnesses and relevant to the time of the death of the victims.

I'm afraid there is no evidence that "Scotland Yard" had any interest in "lone suspects in American Slouch Hats". We are indeed "privy" to what the police had in terms of eyewitness evidence. Swanson penned an internal document on eyewitness descriptions collated up until (at the very earliest) the immediate aftermath of the Eddowes murder, and they don't include any slouch-hatters or Tumblety-a-likes.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

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.

[mklhawley]

Many thanks for providing those extracts, Mike.

As Hunter points out, however, none of the "slouched hat" descriptions seem to originate from any genuine sightings that were taken seriously by the police at the time. If Packer's man in the "yankee hat" or Hutchinson's Astrakhan man prompted the police to search for an American suspect, it can only have been temporary, as both witnesses were fairly swiftly discredited. Moreover, assuming even that the Packer and Hutchinson "suspects" were anything other than fabrication, neither looked anything like Tumblety. To my mind, it is rather more significant that the few witness descriptions that were, apparently, taken seriously by the police point very heavily, if not conclusively, away from Tumblety.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

That fact that we are not privy to all of what the police had, means you can't make that assumption. What we do know is, Sir George Arthur was picked up because he fit the description... of what then? Notice that Scotland Yard took seriously lone suspects in American Slouch Hats.

Also, 'genuine' sightings of the Ripper? No. pinkmoon is absolutely correct.

Sincerely,

Mike

[pinkmoon]

Like I said before can we take any of the eye witnesses descriptions seriously I think the answer to that is no.Tumblety would certainly be on the top of my list of people to question if I was investigating these murders in 1888.I think when the penny dropped with the police and they realised tumblety had done a runner they tried to find him in a low key manner to save face in case they couldn't find him and save any embarrassment.

[Ben]

Many thanks for providing those extracts, Mike.

As Hunter points out, however, none of the "slouched hat" descriptions seem to originate from any genuine sightings that were taken seriously by the police at the time. If Packer's man in the "yankee hat" or Hutchinson's Astrakhan man prompted the police to search for an American suspect, it can only have been temporary, as both witnesses were fairly swiftly discredited. Moreover, assuming even that the Packer and Hutchinson "suspects" were anything other than fabrication, neither looked anything like Tumblety. To my mind, it is rather more significant that the few witness descriptions that were, apparently, taken seriously by the police point very heavily, if not conclusively, away from Tumblety.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

Lawrence?
I didn't type that.
Lawende.
There, take that 'smartphone.'