Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[Stewart P Evans]

Crafty Old Fox

Well he didn't die shortly after absconding back to America
...

You really are a crafty old fox Trev. Please be accurate and specific with your replies - you know how people leap on everything you say, and even suggest that you lie.

Let's get this straight once and for all. Littlechild did not say that Tumblety 'died shortly after absconding back to America'. What he did say was 'it was believed he committed suicide but...' which is something entirely different. It therefore seems that, for whatever reason, the police believed (or thought if you like) that Tumblety had committed suicide. Littlechild referred to it as a belief, and did not state it as a fact. Have you got that? Internalised? I don't expect to hear that one again, or else you will be sent to the corner of the classroom again. And you know you don't like that pointed hat.

You then digress from the question in hand here (that Littlechild made incorrect statements) onto matters that are contentious, upon which we disagree, and which you know no more for certain than I do. And you still haven't told us what Littlechild said that was incorrect. Is this a smokescreen to cover the fact that we are still waiting for Littlechild's incorrect statements?

[Stewart P Evans]

I'm not sure...

Well if you wish to put forward a suspect for any crime past or present without corroboration then same applies as it does to me and all the others who champion these so called prime suspects on here without anything of substance to back them up.
Some ageing police officers stand the test of time better than others who lose the plot rapidly.

No, there is no problem with anyone 'putting forward a suspect for any crime past or present' as long as there is some justification for doing so. In my case I'm not putting up a person who is a suspect in my opinion, I have the word of the 1888 head of the Special Branch, ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild, who names the suspect.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that needs corroboration, the fact that he's a suspect, or the fact that he was the offender? Publishers of books, as you know, will invariably describe a 'suspect' book published by themselves as being about 'the prime suspect', 'the number one suspect' or the 'actual murderer case solved' (as I think they do in your case, correct me if I'm wrong but I've been reading all over the place that you have solved this case). It makes sense for them to do so, such hype sells books, and that's the business they are in.

Anyway, I accept the poked out tongue, despite your age you are a handsome and smooth-talking beast. For me there is no hope.

[mklhawley]

...He almost certainly was responsible for his own suspect status by promoting this allegation as a rouse to cover up for the fact that he had been arrested and fled charges of Gross Indecency.

Wow! I wake up to reading this thread and seeing Stewart having to repeat himself and 're'-clarifying misconceptions. I get why Trevor hasn't learned, but then again, he makes CNN so I'm not going to knock him, but Lechmere, where have you been?

The source for Tumblety being suspected of the Whitechapel crimes came from 'the police', according to the very earliest primary source, a London correspondent for the New York World. Where in this does it show he even spoke to Tumblety and Tumblety only? The subsequent reports springboard from this. Can you clarify this 'amost certainly was responsible' statement?

Sincerely,
Mike

[Haskins]

As has often been repeated on these threads, and elsewhere, there is no hard evidence against any of the named suspects.

However, if you are going to quote witnesses (who may or may not have seen the Ripper), please get your facts right. According to Lawende the man he saw with a woman he identified as probably Eddowes (by her clothing!) he was 'age 30, height 5ft. 7 or 8 in, complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build, dress pepper and salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor. Lawende stated, "I doubt whether I should know him again."

According to Levy the man was about 3 inches taller than the woman. However, he went on to state, "I cannot give any description of either of them." Here alone we see there is a discrepancy between the height given by Lawende (who had a better look at the couple) of 5ft 7-8ins. and that given by Levy of only 'about 3 inches taller than the woman (if she was Eddowes). Added to that we have to account for the far from ideal sighting conditions and the fact that the man may have been slouching down to the woman's level to speak to her.

But neither description remotely fits Tumblety surely? Lawrende saying he was about 30, was nearly 50% out! And didn't Mrs Long also state that the man she saw before the Chapman attack was just a bit taller than the 5 foot Eddowes? It is true that there is little direct evidence against any suspect but I don't think you can dismiss what little there is.

[Wyatt Earp]

you can't convict just on circumstantial evidence.

This is not true. Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

[Haskins]

[QUOTE=Wyatt Earp;277191]

you can't convict just on circumstantial evidence.QUOTE]

This is not true. Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to obtain a conviction.

Well maybe in some cases but it's never satisfactory in my opinion, although it does, for sure, keep conspiracy theorists the world over in business.

[Stewart P Evans]

I have to presume...

But neither description remotely fits Tumblety surely? Lawrende saying he was about 30, was nearly 50% out! And didn't Mrs Long also state that the man she saw before the Chapman attack was just a bit taller than the 5 foot Eddowes? It is true that there is little direct evidence against any suspect but I don't think you can dismiss what little there is.

I have to presume that you have knowledge of witnesses and the statements they make. I am sure that you will let us know. With all due respect the witness evidence is simply not of good enough quality to draw solid conclusions and is subject to many variables.

Mrs Long, whom it could be argued had the best suspect sighting of the man with Chapman as she passed on the same footpath, it was virtually daylight, and she actually heard them speak. I note that most people ignore the fact that Mrs Long stated that the man was 'over 40'. Height, and age, are factors that witnesses often get wrong, and markedly so. Other factors such as whether the woman was standing on the doorstep, whether the man was 'slouching down' to talk with her and avoid too much notice, have to be considered. Then, not least of all, whether they actually saw the killer or not.

Age too is very difficult for the average person to assess, for some older people look a lot younger than they are, and vice versa. If you look at the photograph of Tumblety, for instance, he looks much younger than the 40 odd years he was when the photo was taken.

Add to this the fact that when a witness statement is taken, often quite a time after the event which would have perhaps been of little note, the memory plays tricks. Yes, witness descriptions can be very unreliable. Something I found with the countless witnesses I have dealt with. Did Mrs Long see the killer? Did Lawende see the killer? If they both did their descriptions certainly do not agree.

There is no direct evidence against any suspect whatsoever. And who has dismissed 'what little there is'? Certainly not I. In fact I have gone out of my way, in my books, to supply all the witness evidence, including descriptions, fully and accurately. I note that certain other authors (I know not if deliberately) have sought to change Mrs Long's age for the suspect to 'around forty' rather than 'over forty' which is what she stated.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, there is no problem with anyone 'putting forward a suspect for any crime past or present' as long as there is some justification for doing so. In my case I'm not putting up a person who is a suspect in my opinion, I have the word of the 1888 head of the Special Branch, ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild, who names the suspect.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that needs corroboration, the fact that he's a suspect, or the fact that he was the offender? Publishers of books, as you know, will invariably describe a 'suspect' book published by themselves as being about 'the prime suspect', 'the number one suspect' or the 'actual murderer case solved' (as I think they do in your case, correct me if I'm wrong but I've been reading all over the place that you have solved this case). It makes sense for them to do so, such hype sells books, and that's the business they are in.

Anyway, I accept the poked out tongue, despite your age you are a handsome and smooth-talking beast. For me there is no hope.

Well as I said on another forum the press and media have been distorting the facts for over 125 years and they are still doing so today never be so ready to accept what you read as being correct as having come straight from the horses mouth.

If I had solved the case I wouldn't be on here I would sitting on some hot beach spending all that money I would get from the press and media instead of having to scrape by on a police pension

[Wyatt Earp]

Well maybe in some cases but it's never satisfactory in my opinion, although it does, for sure, keep conspiracy theorists the world over in business.

It also puts murderers in jail.

[Stewart P Evans]

I have to say...

Well as I said on another forum the press and media have been distorting the facts for over 125 years and they are still doing so today never be so ready to accept what you read as being correct as having come straight from the horses mouth.
If I had solved the case I wouldn't be on here I would sitting on some hot beach spending all that money I would get from the press and media instead of having to scrape by on a police pension

I have to say that you have a much better publicity machine than I do Trev.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Stewart P Evans;277180]You really are a crafty old fox Trev. Please be accurate and specific with your replies - you know how people leap on everything you say, and even suggest that you lie.

Well thats par for the course when you shatter peoples beliefs that the only thing they can do is to say you are lying.

Let's get this straight once and for all. Littlechild did not say that Tumblety 'died shortly after absconding back to America'. What he did say was 'it was believed he committed suicide but...' which is something entirely different. It therefore seems that, for whatever reason, the police believed (or thought if you like) that Tumblety had committed suicide. Littlechild referred to it as a belief, and did not state it as a fact. Have you got that? Internalised? I don't expect to hear that one again, or else you will be sent to the corner of the classroom again. And you know you don't like that pointed hat.

Well if he believed he committed suicide and was wrong, then how can we accept that he believed Tumblety to have been a likely suspect as being correct

Still no corroboration with regards to what he said which points to him being a prime suspect.

Dont forget in the SB registers he mentions another man as a suspect O`Brien, now they both cant have been the ripper could they ? and its funny why no one wants to talk about him when clearly in a document of the day his name is mentioned as a suspect. Perhaps there have been no books written about O`Brien to keep his name at the front

[mklhawley]

Well if he believed he committed suicide and was wrong, then how can we accept that he believed Tumblety to have been a likely suspect as being correct

Because he said it, but he even added 'a very likely suspect'.

Still no corroboration with regards to what he said which points to him being a prime suspect.

No corroboration? His comments nearly match the newspaper reports, and keep in mind they all stem from who the New York World foreign correspondent used as his source, 'the police'.

Did you forget that Anderson naming Tumblety as a ripper suspect to US chiefs of police just after the Kelly murder is further corroboration?

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspect

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;277202]

...
Let's get this straight once and for all. Littlechild did not say that Tumblety 'died shortly after absconding back to America'. What he did say was 'it was believed he committed suicide but...' which is something entirely different. It therefore seems that, for whatever reason, the police believed (or thought if you like) that Tumblety had committed suicide. Littlechild referred to it as a belief, and did not state it as a fact. Have you got that? Internalised? I don't expect to hear that one again, or else you will be sent to the corner of the classroom again. And you know you don't like that pointed hat.
Well if he believed he committed suicide and was wrong, then how can we accept that he believed Tumblety to have been a likely suspect as being correct
Still no corroboration with regards to what he said which points to him being a prime suspect.
Dont forget in the SB registers he mentions another man as a suspect O`Brien, now they both cant have been the ripper could they ? and its funny why no one wants to talk about him when clearly in a document of the day his name is mentioned as a suspect. Perhaps there have been no books written about O`Brien to keep his name at the front

Who has mentioned anything about 'prime suspect'? I religiously stick to exactly what Littlechild said, and that was that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects' and to his mind 'a very likely one'.

The first bit of that was a statement of fact that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects' and the qualifier was his own opinion that Tumblety was 'a very likely one'. Those statements have no relation to Littlechild stating that 'it was believed' that Tumblety had committed suicide after leaving Boulogne. He was stating something that was only believed albeit that belief was incorrect. Presumably this was based on information that Littlechild had received. So for Littlechild to state that something was 'believed' is true, despite the fact that the belief was wrong. Please also note the fact that Littlechild isn't making the grandiose claim that Tumblety was the Ripper, he modestly made it patently clear that he was merely 'a very likely' suspect. More strength to Littlechild then - not making the boast that it was a fact, as Anderson did.

Without seeing the Special Branch registers (which, I believe are only indexes) I really cannot make a valid comment on them. I would presume that their nature alone dictates that they are not a definitive list and do not necessarily have everything in them. I do know that there are other references to the Whitechapel murders and in any case Tumblety used many aliases including Sullivan and Townsend to name but two. An initial ledger entry could be under an alias first used anyway.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Stewart P Evans;277204]

Who has mentioned anything about 'prime suspect'? I religiously stick to exactly what Littlechild said, and that was that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects' and to his mind 'a very likely one'.

The first bit of that was a statement of fact that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects' and the qualifier was his own opinion that Tumblety was 'a very likely one'. Those statements have no relation to Littlechild stating that 'it was believed' that Tumblety had committed suicide after leaving Boulogne. He was stating something that was only believed albeit that belief was incorrect. Presumably this was based on information that Littlechild had received. So for Littlechild to state that something was 'believed' is true, despite the fact that the belief was wrong. Please also note the fact that Littlechild isn't making the grandiose claim that Tumblety was the Ripper, he modestly made it patently clear that he was merely 'a very likely' suspect. More strength to Littlechild then - not making the boast that it was a fact, as Anderson did.

Without seeing the Special Branch registers (which, I believe are only indexes) I really cannot make a valid comment on them. I would presume that their nature alone dictates that they are not a definitive list and do not necessarily have everything in them. I do know that there are other references to the Whitechapel murders and in any case Tumblety used many aliases including Sullivan and Townsend to name but two. An initial ledger entry could be under an alias first used anyway.

Stewart
You must take care not to damage your back with all that ducking and diving

[Haskins]

I have to presume that you have knowledge of witnesses and the statements they make. I am sure that you will let us know. With all due respect the witness evidence is simply not of good enough quality to draw solid conclusions and is subject to many variables.

Mrs Long, whom it could be argued had the best suspect sighting of the man with Chapman as she passed on the same footpath, it was virtually daylight, and she actually heard them speak. I note that most people ignore the fact that Mrs Long stated that the man was 'over 40'. Height, and age, are factors that witnesses often get wrong, and markedly so. Other factors such as whether the woman was standing on the doorstep, whether the man was 'slouching down' to talk with her and avoid too much notice, have to be considered. Then, not least of all, whether they actually saw the killer or not.

Age too is very difficult for the average person to assess, for some older people look a lot younger than they are, and vice versa. If you look at the photograph of Tumblety, for instance, he looks much younger than the 40 odd years he was when the photo was taken.

Add to this the fact that when a witness statement is taken, often quite a time after the event which would have perhaps been of little note, the memory plays tricks. Yes, witness descriptions can be very unreliable. Something I found with the countless witnesses I have dealt with. Did Mrs Long see the killer? Did Lawende see the killer? If they both did their descriptions certainly do not agree.

There is no direct evidence against any suspect whatsoever. And who has dismissed 'what little there is'? Certainly not I. In fact I have gone out of my way, in my books, to supply all the witness evidence, including descriptions, fully and accurately. I note that certain other authors (I know not if deliberately) have sought to change Mrs Long's age for the suspect to 'around forty' rather than 'over forty' which is what she stated.

Stewart I do not doubt for a second that you have been totally fair with the evidence. I was however trying to answer the OP's implied question, i.e. why does everyone not agree that the case against Tumblety is overwhelming? In my opinion it isn't overwhelming, because the direct evidence appears to me to work against the stated case. However, that is not the same as saying his advocates are unquestionably mistaken, and would concede that the evidence against Tumblety is at least more compelling than that against the likes of William Gull or James Maybrick.