Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[robhouse]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;277202]

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[/B]

It's mind boggling to think that you wrote a book on the SB registers and yet don't seem to have even a basic comprehension of what they signify. O'Brien's name showing up in the registers means that he is about as significant a "suspect" as any of the thousands of people who were fingered as suspects by ordinary people who were suspicious of their neighbors or strange people around the neighborhood. This information was recorded in the register as a matter of process, and does not mean that this person O'Brien was ever regarded as a serious suspect at all.

RH

[Stewart P Evans]

Protracted debate

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.

I am sure the points you have made are valid and have been made with a sense of fair play, and I have addressed them. You may or may not be aware that the last thing I wish to get involved in is a protracted debate about the qualities of a particular suspect.

I am really not into that but I am into people getting things right. I don't care whether anyone thinks Tumblety was the Ripper or not. I do care about people getting their facts right as far as is possible when arguing against a suspect. Normally those interested in Tumblety as a suspect are capable of arguing their corner. And this seems to be what Ripper studies are all about for some who choose that path. Fair enough, whatever floats your boat.

I do not know how anyone could consider the case against Tumblety was overwhelming. That simply is not possible, nor is it possible with regard to any other suspect. If anyone thinks it is they need to reassess their viewpoint. It was refreshing to see here that even Trev does not believe he has solved the case. Everyone has the right to argue against other suspects and I don't disagree with that.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=robhouse;277210]

It's mind boggling to think that you wrote a book on the SB registers and yet don't seem to have even a basic comprehension of what they signify. O'Brien's name showing up in the registers means that he is about as significant a "suspect" as any of the thousands of people who were fingered as suspects by ordinary people who were suspicious of their neighbors or strange people around the neighborhood. This information was recorded in the register as a matter of process, and does not mean that this person O'Brien was ever regarded as a serious suspect at all.

RH

I think on the face of it O`Brien must figure in status higher than Tumblety as a suspect. After all this name is written as a suspect in an official police record and at the time and not an opinion in a letter to a press man 20 years later.

I should also point out that the entry in the register shows that a file was opened on the basis of that information in the register.

On that basis there is no evidence to show Tumblety was ever a Ripper suspect at the time of the murders.

And before you start quoting Anderson again and all this New York rubbish where does he specifically refer to Tumblety as a ripper suspect ?

[mklhawley]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;277254]

I think on the face of it O`Brien must figure in status higher than Tumblety as a suspect. After all this name is written as a suspect in an official police record and at the time and not an opinion in a letter to a press man 20 years later.

I should also point out that the entry in the register shows that a file was opened on the basis of that information in the register.

On that basis there is no evidence to show Tumblety was ever a Ripper suspect at the time of the murders.

And before you start quoting Anderson again and all this New York rubbish where does he specifically refer to Tumblety as a ripper suspect ?

Of course you believe this. You're on record claiming Tumblety wasn't even considered a suspect.

Anderson himself, busy and under huge pressure to solve the case, inquiring about Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety just after the murder of Kelly:

Brooklyn Citizen, November 23, 1888
“Is He The Ripper?” A Brooklynite Charged With the Whitechapel Murders Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety — Captain Eason Supplies the Information and It Is Interesting

Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault. Tumblety is referred to in the dispatch in the following manner: “He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty.”
Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison he has boasted of how he had succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed that he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. The superintendent gave the dispatch immediate attention, and through Captain Eason, of the Second Precinct, has learned all about Tumblety. He came to this city in 1863 from Sherbrook, Canada, where he said he had been a practicing physician. He opened a store on the southeast corner of Fulton and Nassau streets, and sold herb preparations. He did a tremendous business and deposited in the Brooklyn Savings Bank at least $100 a day. He was a very eccentric character, six feet high, dark complexion, large and long flowing mustache, and well built.


Daily Examiner (San Francisco, CA)
Friday, 23 November 1888
DR. TUMBLETY.
The London Detectives Ask Chief Crowley About Him.
STORIES TOLD OF HIM.
He Was an Abortionist in New York and Served a Year in the Tombs.
Dr. Francis Tumblety, the suspect arrested at London in connection with the Whitechapel murders, is still held by the police of that city, and a good deal of importance seems to be attached to his apprehension. All facts in relation to the suspected "doctor" are being carefully collected, and, as Tumblety was once in this city, there has been considerable telegraphing between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London. Chief of Police Crowley has succeeded in gaining some further information about Tumblety, who came to this city in 1870 and opened an account at the Hibernia Bank.
… The dispatch was sent on the 19th instant, and yesterday this answer was received:
HIS HANDWRITING.
"P. Crowley, Chief of Police, San Francisco, Cal.: Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety.
Anderson,
"Scotland Yard."

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

Isn't it strange that Guy Logan stated Scotland Yard kept it a secret and here we have Scotland Yard, i.e., Anderson, never discussing Tumblety to the public, yet he certainly did with chiefs of police. ...and then to have another Scotland Yard senior official, Littlechild, confirming their interest in Tumblety. ...and Trevor says there's no evidence.

[curious]

HIS HANDWRITING.
"P. Crowley, Chief of Police, San Francisco, Cal.: Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety.
Anderson,
"Scotland Yard." [/I]

Sincerely,
Mike

Very interesting is the request for examples of his handwriting . . .

curious

[mklhawley]

Very true. Now, combine this with Anderson's request for 'all details' and what he was requesting from Campbell in Brooklyn, and we should get a more complete picture.

Sincerely,

Mike

[pinkmoon]

There is no way that the police would spend time and money looking for tumblety in America if they were not going to arrest him and bring him back to the UK so they must have thought he was the killer.Also if they are looking for him that must tell us that they didn't have any firm evidence or suspicion on any one in the UK at the time .

[Lechmere]

Careful Pinkmoon
According to the Tumblety theorists Andrews didn't go to Canada to arrest Tumblety but to collect information about him.
This supposed information would presumably have been left behind during Tumblety's forays north of the border... as if that would be incriminating anyway, but still.
Also the Canadian authorities paid for the visit as Andrews actually went over there to escort a prisoner back to Canada. Andrews had been involved in this case prior to Tumblety's arrest in London. For Gross Indecency. So Andrews had a legitimate reason to be in Canada.
I think the Tumblety theorists claim that Scotland Yard didn't want to pay out for someone to go to Canada to search for vital information about Tumblety as this would have to be explained so they used Andrews' trip for a dual purpose. The reason they didn't want the expense to show up in the accounts was that they thought they might look foolish in allowing Tumblety to escape. Because you see he was their prime suspect at the time yet they failed to keep him under lock and key but strangely granted him bail (on the Gross Indecency charges) and then didn't keep him under observation so he absconded. The incompetent fools.

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;277360]Careful Pinkmoon
According to the Tumblety theorists Andrews didn't go to Canada to arrest Tumblety but to collect information about him.
This supposed information would presumably have been left behind during Tumblety's forays north of the border... as if that would be incriminating anyway, but still.
Also the Canadian authorities paid for the visit as Andrews actually went over there to escort a prisoner back to Canada. Andrews had been involved in this case prior to Tumblety's arrest in London. For Gross Indecency. So Andrews had a legitimate reason to be in Canada.
I think the Tumblety theorists claim that Scotland Yard didn't want to pay out for someone to go to Canada to search for vital information about Tumblety as this would have to be explained so they used Andrews' trip for a dual purpose. The reason they didn't want the expense to show up in the accounts was that they thought they might look foolish in allowing Tumblety to escape. Because you see he was their prime suspect at the time yet they failed to keep him under lock and key but strangely granted him bail (on the Gross Indecency charges) and then didn't keep him under observation so he absconded. The incompetent fools.[/QUOTE
Of all the suspects that have been offerd over the years (and let's face it we have had a few ) were put forward to the police in 1888 the one that would stand out above all would be tumblety.His past history towards women his hobby of collecting human organs his appearing on the scene at the right time his leaving and murders stopping his posing as a doctor come on surely you would want to speak to him.

[pinkmoon]

I would like to know any of the reasons that you have heard of that suggest he was not the Ripper.

I have only ever heard two reasons, and they are (1) His age and (2) his height.

Does anyone know of any others? Please list them.

I believe it's very likely that Tumblety could have been JTR but I'd like to look at his case from both sides, I know all the reasons in favour of him being guilty and would now like to know what the other reasons against him are besides what I have said above.

Can we honestly take any of the so called sightings of the killer seriously I think the answer is no.Did some one see the killer when he was committing his foul deeds and not come forward quite possibly yes .You have to remember that anybody out and about in that area at that time was probably up to no good themselves .To try and dismiss tumblety purely because of so called eyewitnesses is wrong he is probley the best suspect discoverd in this case so far .I hasten to add that druitt is still my personal favourite purely because of the tales told by my great grandparents who both lived in Whitechapel during the autumn of terror.

[Lechmere]

pinkmoon
You don't seem to have addressed what I said.
I don't agree that if all the suspects offered forward were lined up in 1888, then Tumblety would stand out above all others, because Fleming was taller for a start.

[Mayerling]

How is this as a plausible scenario (although one hard to prove):

The Yard feels stupid for letting Doc out so easily (a bail on a lesser charge - though the only one they had him on, apparently, that he finds he can pay easily, and then he skips to France and then America). In 1881 the railroad police looked stupidly incompetent when they allowed an opportunity to Percy Lefroy Mapleton to flee through a back door in his house when he was supposed to be returned to Brighton for more rigorous questioning about the railroad murder of Frederick Isaac Gold. It took two weeks or so to recapture Mapleton. The Yard was not doing too well with the Whitechapel Murders Case anyway, but to let a serious suspect escape too easily was just a huge new nightmare.

So they send Andrews to Canada to get further information, supposedly on Tumblety's possible criminal activities there. They also seek to try to connect him to the letters by contacting the police in the U.S. for samples of his hadwriting. They also send Andrews (supposedly more secretly but the news gets out) to New York to get any information on Doc, and possibly to arrest him (for bail jumping most likely). But they stope after a few weeks.
They don't even try to get Tumblety returned for the bail jumping!

In the meantime a family in Dorset has contacted some members at the Yard about their missing relative Montague, and how he as been very secretive and strange and even violent in his behavior recently. They have grave suspicions about what he may have been doing. Then Montague's drowned body is found, and the inquest finds he died a suicide when under unsound mind. Now there is an equally plausible local suspect, and the Yard decides it is now able to begin dismantling the investigation since Druitt (an equally good suspect to Doc is dead). They call Andrews home, and he does not even bother to seek extradition for Monty from the U.S. for the morals charge.

It might seem to fit together.

[Abby Normal]

Really? Please do tell exactly what the Ripper looked like, and who the witnesses were that actually saw him.

Have you ever taken a witness statement? I have, hundreds of them, in a police career spanning nearly thirty years. I think I know more about witnesses, and what they say, than you ever will.

Hello mr. Evans
Not sure what I said to deserve this response, I thought it was a fairly innocuous answer to the thread starters original question. That is simply that tumblety does not match any of the witness descriptions. And he does not. He was a very large man and none of the best witnesses describe a large man. Long, marshal, smith, Schwartz, cox none of them describe a big man.

I guess it's possible that none of them saw the ripper (if tumblety was the ripper) or if they did they missed describing the largeness of the man. But I would think that size would be one of the easier things to get right.

And since , as you have so graciously pointed out , you have way more experience than I do with witness descriptions I ask you-is size something that witnesses typically get so wrong?

[Lechmere]

Mayerling
So in effect the 'Yard' winds the case up based a body that they can never prove was responsible and forget about a living 'prime' suspect and neglect to tell the boys on the ground any of this?