Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[Trevor Marriott]

As I take your 'definitive' point as an act of fallacy. Here's your fallacious argument, "Since it wasn't stated definitively, it didn't happen." Let's look at the Kumblety section:

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.

What does 'The police say' say? I'd say that's definitive. Now, I believe your claim is Tumblety said it. Does it say, 'Kumblety said'? Or are you trying to say, 'The police say' isn't when the Whitechapel discussion occurred, only when they were attempting to ID him? Keep in mind, when the police arrested men 'on suspicion', their job was to ID him and find out where he lived, just what they did with countless others. Notice that's exactly what they did. If Trevor is correct that he was really arrested for gross indecency because of an investigation, then why would they say, 'the police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession...' They would have known already.



You should be, but then again, your transparent agenda is based upon fallacy.



Of course, Reference 1: The New York World cable dispatch, where it stated he was 'held on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes' 'just like a score of other men arrested by the police this week' (last sentence in the article). Notice when the article stated 'other', it was connecting the Kumblety story with it, pointing out the police arresting on the streets. What streets? The West End? Hmmm. No, probably where the murders occurred.

Of course, you don't believe it, even though the New York World's owner pushed for fairness and accuracy in 1888.

Reference 2: Littlechild. Could you imagine Littlechild making the statement "Tumblety, in my mind was a very likely Ripper suspect, despite the fact that he never stepped foot in the East End."

Refence 3: Anderson. Could you imagine wasting not only his time but the chiefs of police of US cities if he knew Tumblety never set foot in the Whitechapel district? Hmmmm.

Because the case is well over 100 years old and much of the evidence is no longer available AND when we have Guy Logan revealing that Scotland Yard attempted to keep secret Andrews' suspect -Tumblety- it will limit info on Tumblety, your request for 'definitive' answers (per your definition) is not an act of searching for the truth but a ploy.

Sincerely,
Mike

The police had to have had a file on him for the gross indecency offences otherwise how would they have been able to charge him with three separate offences between June and November 7th

Furthermore they must have know who he was as i said before

You place to much reliabilty of the press reports you keep quoting which are not even British press reports.

Again as i have said before where are the Brtitish newspaper reports sating the same. You know that you cannot rely on the press to be totally accurate.

What would be the purpose of arresting him if they did not have any evidence on him for the murders ? After arresting him they couldn't interview him.

[mklhawley]

I take your Clinton reference as acknowledgement that the New York World did not definitively state that the information was provided by the police.

As I take your 'definitive' point as an act of fallacy. Here's your fallacious argument, "Since it wasn't stated definitively, it didn't happen." Let's look at the Kumblety section:

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.

What does 'The police say' say? I'd say that's definitive. Now, I believe your claim is Tumblety said it. Does it say, 'Kumblety said'? Or are you trying to say, 'The police say' isn't when the Whitechapel discussion occurred, only when they were attempting to ID him? Keep in mind, when the police arrested men 'on suspicion', their job was to ID him and find out where he lived, just what they did with countless others. Notice that's exactly what they did. If Trevor is correct that he was really arrested for gross indecency because of an investigation, then why would they say, 'the police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession...' They would have known already.

Regarding Tumblety's slouch hat, all I am asking for is a reference from elsewhere that he ever wore such an object. If you are unable to provide such a reference fair enough.
I am not concerned about other people wearing them.

You should be, but then again, your transparent agenda is based upon fallacy.

I also asked before if you had a reference to back up your claim that Tumblety was picked up on the streets of Whitechapel?

Of course, Reference 1: The New York World cable dispatch, where it stated he was 'held on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes' 'just like a score of other men arrested by the police this week' (last sentence in the article). Notice when the article stated 'other', it was connecting the Kumblety story with it, pointing out the police arresting on the streets. What streets? The West End? Hmmm. No, probably where the murders occurred.

Of course, you don't believe it, even though the New York World's owner pushed for fairness and accuracy in 1888.

Reference 2: Littlechild. Could you imagine Littlechild making the statement "Tumblety, in my mind was a very likely Ripper suspect, despite the fact that he never stepped foot in the East End."

Refence 3: Anderson. Could you imagine wasting not only his time but the chiefs of police of US cities if he knew Tumblety never set foot in the Whitechapel district? Hmmmm.

Because the case is well over 100 years old and much of the evidence is no longer available AND when we have Guy Logan revealing that Scotland Yard attempted to keep secret Andrews' suspect -Tumblety- it will limit info on Tumblety, your request for 'definitive' answers (per your definition) is not an act of searching for the truth but a ploy.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Lechmere]

Mike
I have no idea what map you tried to put up there to show that Whitechapel Road was in the EC post code area.
Perhaps you could provide the URL?
I would be interested to see this.

I take your Clinton reference as acknowledgement that the New York World did not definitively state that the information was provided by the police.

Regarding Tumblety's slouch hat, all I am asking for is a reference from elsewhere that he ever wore such an object. If you are unable to provide such a reference fair enough.
I am not concerned about other people wearing them.

I also asked before if you had a reference to back up your claim that Tumblety was picked up on the streets of Whitechapel?

[mklhawley]

It looks like my nineteenth century East Central postal map didn't come up, but it shows that the east central section certainly did cover some of the east end including Whitechapel road AND it didn't cover the whole city of London.

Mike

[mklhawley]

The way I see it, East Central certianly does cover parts of the East End and certainly does have Whitechapel road running through it. It looks like Bucks County got it right.

From that last post of yours - can you pin point where in the New York World article about Tumblety's arrest that it definitively states that the information was provided by the police?

This question reminds me of Clinton saying, "I did not have sex with that woman." If you can't see that the the reporter's source was provided by 'the police', it's a practice in denial.

Can you point to any other reference to Tumblety wearing a slouch hat apart from in the January 1889 story from his own lips?

Can you point to any reference that he wasn't? I can at least point to multiple sources demonstrating that he was telling the truth. Tumblety admitted it, and Americans in slouch hats were persons of interest for Scotland Yard, especially when they were on the streets of Whitechapel as Tumblety was.


Brooklyn Daily Eagle, New York, 10 November 1888
London's Reign of Terror
The assassin of Whitechapel has claimed his ninth victim, having planned and executed his latest crime with all the deliberation and cunning that characterized his former exploits…It has been said among other things that the assassin is an American, because he wears a slouch hat…

The Sun, January 13, 1889.
LATEST NEWS FROM EUROPE.
London, Jan. 12 – It is sad to have to say so, but murder in its most unattractive shape is becoming positively fashionable in this island… The Whitechapel murderer’s exploits were promptly and universally credited to some foreigner –an American preferred- on the ground that the slaughter of defenceless (sic) women was incompatible with the noble instincts of Englishmen; but this characteristically British theory has been damaged by the readiness which the Englishman has shown to imitate Whitechapel methods, and the American-with-the-low-hat theory is being gradually abandoned…

Britain - and apparently Scotland Yard -had representation in the United States so it is not entirely surprising that US Ripper rumours would be reported back to Scotland Yard and I would guess that protocol would dictate that if a response was required, any communication would be signed off under a senior officer's name - such as Anderson's.

Soo, you're saying someone other than Anderson signed it Anderson? We do agree on one thing; you're guessing.

[Lechmere]

Mike
I'm glad you are going back over my earlier posts to clear up various things as I was going to repost a whole series of issues that you had skipped over.

From that last post of yours - can you pin point where in the New York World article about Tumblety's arrest that it definitively states that the information was provided by the police?

Can you point to any other reference to Tumblety wearing a slouch hat apart from in the January 1889 story from his own lips?

Are you aware that EC postcodes cover the City of London not the East End? I am afraid that letter of yours proves precisely nothing.
Which leaves us relying on the 'Bucks County Gazette'. Hmmmm.

Britain - and apparently Scotland Yard -had representation in the United States so it is not entirely surprising that US Ripper rumours would be reported back to Scotland Yard and I would guess that protocol would dictate that if a response was required, any communication would be signed off under a senior officer's name - such as Anderson's.
Anderson's supposed initial enthusiasm for Tumblety as a suspect certainly evaporated quickly - if it was ever really there to an significant degree in the first place

[mklhawley]

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

Post 98: 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.

Your first question leads to the credibility of Tumblety's own comments in is Jan 1889 interview. Was his admission to wearing a slouch hat true? Besides the the confirmation from the New York World reporter receiving his info from 'the police' (unless you believe he lied) the second question of yours helps us answer this. "...and was he ever in the East End?" Tumblety admitted he was in the East End during the same interview, but did he lie about it as you suggest in order to cover up his gross indecency charge? Instead of conjecture, let's look at the evidence:

1. Tumblety mailed a letter to Caine that was in an envelope postmarked "London E.C. 21 June 1875". That would be London East Central. Page 121 of Neil Storey's book on Bram Stoker and Jack the Ripper displayed the contents of that letter. This is not a US newspaper article Lechmere, this is the postal service. Also, notice that it was in the 1870s, yet you claim Tumblety was unfamiliar with the East End. The evidence contradicts your conjecture.


There is also this report from the Bucks County Gazette of Dec 13, 1888:

(Tumblety's) "herb doctoring" finally became unprofitable in America; so he went to London, located near the Whitechapel road and for a while did a big business.

Of course you can say the reporter got this wrong, but notice how it conforms so beautifully to the postal record. Tumblety began his London visits in the 1870s.


Confirmed by your own post, you did not believe Tumblety was ever in the east end, yet now we know he was. The reason you did not believe this is because of your preconceived notions about Tumblety and his motives, which is the same reason why you do not believe the slouch hat part. And you want me to trust your opinion/conjecture that Tumblety never wore a slouch hat (even though it is corroborated evidence) and that he drummed it all up as a camoflage to cover up the gross indecency charge (of course Anderson somehow read the US papers from thousands of miles away in London, got sucked into it, and spent his personal time contacting US chiefs of police during the busiest time of the case when his boss just quit and Kelly was brutally murdered)?

Sincerely,
Mike

[Lechmere]

Mike
You seem to be misinterpreting what I have been saying again.
I am perfectly aware that the San Francisco Chronicle published the ‘complete’ cable on 18th November 1888 and the New York World split it over two days, and that the New York World added some local colour about Tumblety.
This actually makes it less likely that the New York World delayed publication out of any caution.

Details are always interesting but I don’t think that knowing the identity of the New York World’s London correspondent gets us very far in proving who sent the cable or on whose information it was based.

Do you even know that it was sent as one cable as opposed to three separate cables?

I didn’t suggest that Tumblety saw a back issue of the San Francisco Chronicle.

[mklhawley]

Lechmere,

Below is what the New York World published on the same day the San Francisco Chronicle published the November 18 dispatch. Both are from the New York World's cable dispatch out of London, but the World opted to publish only the Arthur story while the Chronicle merely published the entire dispatch. A paper in Ottawa published the same cable dispatch, but also opted not to add the Kumblety story. Interestingly, the Ottawa paper added the third story about others being arrested, so they purposely made the decision to ignore kumblety. More to come.

New York World, 18 November 1888

SPECIAL CABLE DESPATCH TO THE WORLD.
London, Nov. 17. - The most intense amusement has been caused among all calsses of the London world by the arrest last week of little 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, and is a member of the most leading clubs in town. He is also a well-known amateur actor, and was a great friend of the latE Prince Leopold Duke of Albany. 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 in the East End before in their lives, prowel around the neighborhood in which the murders were committed, talking with the frightened women and pushing their way into over-crowded lodging-houses. 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 to get into trouble. That was the case with Sir George Arthur. He put on an old shooting coat, a slouch hat and went down to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much the popular descriptive of Jack the Ripper. They watched him, and when they saw him talking with women they proceeded to collar him. He protested, expostulated and threatened them with the vengeance of royal wrath, but in vain. Finally, a chance was given to him to send to a fashionable Western 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 Baronet's friends at Brook's Club considered the joke too good to be kept quiet.

[mklhawley]

Curious
The San Francisco Chronicle published the story the day before - the day the cable arrived. They cannot have checked it at all. And how could the New York World check it in one day - with who?
Tumblety was charged with Gross Indecency and the Modern Babylon reference although it would have gone over the heads of virtually the entire readership would not have been lost on the editorial staff. Tumblety was in no position to sue anyone.

Suggesting a vote on it seems to
imply a lack of argument to me.

Lechmere,

A few things. First, the cable originated in London from the New York World foreign correspondent, and I can give you his name if you'd like. San Francisco Chronicle had a cable news dispatch agreement with the New York World, so The Chronicle published the article on November 18 while the New York World opted not to... but that's not true. They did, but they elected not to add the 'Kumblety' story while electing to continue the Arthur story. Why didn't they opt not to publish their own story about 'Kumblety' and demonstrate that they broke the story? They knew Tumblety was from their fine city, so they decided to dig further. The original cable was sent in its entiretly Lechmere, and any additions came once they investigated in NYC.

Your problem is Tumblety could not have seen San Francisco's November 18 story in New York, because they kept their back issues in San Francisco! Tumblety would never have seen it.


You're the only one barking up this tree, but there's no fruit hanging.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Lechmere]

Curious
The San Francisco Chronicle published the story the day before - the day the cable arrived. They cannot have checked it at all. And how could the New York World check it in one day - with who?
Tumblety was charged with Gross Indecency and the Modern Babylon reference although it would have gone over the heads of virtually the entire readership would not have been lost on the editorial staff. Tumblety was in no position to sue anyone.

Suggesting a vote on it seems to
imply a lack of argument to me.

[mklhawley]

Biggest problem for me...Other than the Littlechild letter, it's ALL newspaper stories..........Some of which can't be proved to refer to him.....( the whole "bloody shirt" business)

Hi Steve,

I write about this in my Yellow Journalism article. If it was ALL newspaper stories then I'd agree, but that's not the case. First, contrary to popular belief, in 1888 the New York World followed strict guidelines to be fair and accurate. Yellow journalism didn't exist yet. Second, the newspaper stories were corroborated by two senior officials in Scotland Yard at the time, Chief Inspector Littlechild and Sir Robert Anderson. Even Tumblety himself corroborated the stories. The power of the evidence is in the corroboration and by whom. British newspapers even joined in on the fun with Tumblety, but they just didn't use his name. Also, the British public did not enjoy US newspapers, including Scotland Yard officials. In view of this, Littlchild would not have been stuped by US newspaper articles. His info came from his files. Anderson requested info from US chiefs of police on Francis Tumblety specific to the Whitechapel investigation. Not only that, he did it at the exact same time Tumblety was arrested.

There is more corroboration, but that's for a future article.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Steve S]

Biggest problem for me...Other than the Littlechild letter, it's ALL newspaper stories..........Some of which can't be proved to refer to him.....( the whole "bloody shirt" business)

[Ben]

My apologies for the 'get real' comment Ben. My bad. We'll never see eye to eye on this, but then again, there's more research to be done.

There is indeed, Mike, and no hard feelings.

All the best,
Ben

[curious]

Curious
US newspapers were not restricted by libel in the same way as the British press, which was more reluctant to actually name names.

Lechmere,

There are differences in the US laws and British, as everyone would expect.

Part of the reason is the First Amendment and Freedom of the press.

Another main difference is that in the U.S. the truth is an absolute defense against libel. So, if the statements were true, Tumblety would not have any grounds for a suit.

However, had the story not been fact, a man with Tumblety's resources could certainly have pursued a case and created a real problem for the newspapers in questions.

I personally don't believe for a second that Tumblety was the source behind the stories.

I wonder if anyone here other than you thinks that is even a remote possibility.

Show of hands?

curious