Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[Lechmere]

Mike
A few quick points before I have time to get back to you on other issues.

If Tumblety deliberately fed the Ripper story to the New York World to cover up the Gross Indecency charges then when he got to New York a few weeks later, logically he would have accessed a back issue of the newspaper perhaps via one of New York’s libraries to make sure his story had been covered properly.
While looking through the back issues he would see on 18th November the Sir George Arthur story, and on 19th November his own story.

You also suggest that the New York World London correspondent obtained all three stories that appeared in the cable reported in the San Fransisco Chronicle on 18th November from his police connection. Yet you claimed the Tumblety story came from Froest.
Did Froest supply the other two stories? If not then the stories came from different sources, and they could have been non police sources – other reports from domestic newspapers for example, or Tumblety himself.
There is nothing to suggest that they were all from the same source just because they are put together into one cable.

Also, did Tumblety say he was arrested off the streets of Whitechapel? If so where is your source?

You seem to think that a magistrate would not be influenced by the police. If the police vociferously argued against bail most magistrates would agree.
If Tumblety was suspected of involvement in the Ripper case and the police wanted to hold him for longer, the Gross Indecency charges were an ideal opportunity. They could have equally tipped the magistrate the wink before hand about this.
The police’s evident failure to do this undermines the theory that Tumblety was suspected while in London. As is confirmed by their failure to supervise him after he left court.

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

[mklhawley]

But I've already explained - well, proven actually - that it is not a fallacy in this instance. If a slouch hat sighting was not in the report I mentioned, it didn't exist.



But there's not a shred of evidence that the police said anything about a slouch hat to the reporter. Indeed, there's no evidence whatsoever that the reporter in question had any communication with the police. You think they would have headed the article "gossip" if they obtained their information directly from the police?



Point missed by the looks of things, Mike. I've just said it would be folly to dismiss a suspect purely on the grounds of incompatibility with eyewitness descriptions, which is presumably why Anderson didn't in Tumblety's case. However, the reality that Tumblety does not fit the various descriptions is an obvious "con" against his candidacy, and thus as valid point to raise without being told to "get real".

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.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

You really dont have a clue do you if he had have been arrested before the gross indecency arrest what did they do with him ? and what evidence did they have to cause suspicion ?

The only clue, or clues in this case, I have is the evidence. You really haven't been reading my posts have you? 'The police' stated to the New York World correspondent that he, Sir George Arthur, and 'countless others' was arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes off of the streets of Whitechapel exactly where Tumblety admitted he was. Tumblety claimed it was only because of his slouch hat.

Now, that's what brought him into the police station, and when the finally ID'd him (standard procedure) and contacted headquarters, his file said the rest.

[Ben]

There's a reason why 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' is called a fallacy, and it certainly is an instance where you are doing it.

But I've already explained - well, proven actually - that it is not a fallacy in this instance. If a slouch hat sighting was not in the report I mentioned, it didn't exist.

The police would not have mentioned the slouch hat to the reporter (corroborated by none other than Tumblety) unless it was involved.

But there's not a shred of evidence that the police said anything about a slouch hat to the reporter. Indeed, there's no evidence whatsoever that the reporter in question had any communication with the police. You think they would have headed the article "gossip" if they obtained their information directly from the police?

Which is why Sir Robert Anderson didn't personally contact US Chiefs of Police about Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety. Oh yah, he did. Get real Ben, Anderson took him seriously, even though he doesn't fit your narrow view of suspect descriptions.

Point missed by the looks of things, Mike. I've just said it would be folly to dismiss a suspect purely on the grounds of incompatibility with eyewitness descriptions, which is presumably why Anderson didn't in Tumblety's case. However, the reality that Tumblety does not fit the various descriptions is an obvious "con" against his candidacy, and thus as valid point to raise without being told to "get real".

[Trevor Marriott]

I never said he was arrested on suspicion for the gross indecency offense. He was arrested on suspicion for the Whitechapel murders, just as Arthur was and just as 'countless other men'.



Either on November 7 or just prior. It didnt' have to be November 7 as you claim, since this was on the court calendar and the requirement for being on the court calendar is specific to the charge; gross indecency. Since we know he was first arrested on suspicion for the Whitechapel murders, then his official gross indecency arrest was November 7.




They did not have a warrant in his name initially, since their plan was not to arrest him for gross indecency. Read it again. Since they couldn't hold him on murder charges, they held him on this. Someday Trevor, you should embrace all of the evidence, especially when it was corroborated by a Scotland Yard official.



According to Littlechild and the cable, he was arrested on suspicion, and this arrest would not have been on the court calendar. You're just plain wrong.

Sincerely,

Mike

You really dont have a clue do you if he had have been arrested before the gross indecency arrest what did they do with him ? and what evidence did they have to cause suspicion ?

[mklhawley]

No, Mike.

The police were not looking for any man wearing a slouch hat, at least not after Packer's bogus description of a "suspect" who supposedly entered his shop with Elizabeth Stride was discredited. This is indisputably proven by the absence of any slouch-hatted sightings from the report on the eyewitnesses complied by Donald Swanson (and yes, in this instance, absence of evidence is most assuredly evidence of absence).

There's a reason why 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' is called a fallacy, and it certainly is an instance where you are doing it. Sorry.

If you think a "slouched hat" originates from a "previous suspect description", it would help if you could provide the name of the witness and explain why his name doesn't appear in Swanson's report.


Anyone silly enough to "interact with" (as distinct from "give a hard time to") prostitutes, and dress conspicuously at that time and place, as Arthur did, was on obvious target for police interest, but that's not to say that the slouch hat in particular played any part. As both the San Francisco Chronicle and Tumblety himself pointed out, the supposed interest in slouch-hatted Americans amounted to gossip only, and worse than that; it was gossip that ran entirely contrary to actual proven police sources.

Ben, again my arguments are falling on your deaf ears because you refuse to believe the police were using descriptions other than what's on Swanson's report. The police would not have mentioned the slouch hat to the reporter (corroborated by none other than Tumblety) unless it was involved. You are rejecting other evidence just because of your belief.

Finally, I'm not suggesting we should hang our slouch hats on any one witness sighting as being of the actual ripper, but on the other hand, I do believe that Tumblety's total incompatibility with practically all witness descriptions has been too casually cast aside as irrelevant by those who have fancied him as Jack at one point or another.

Which is why Sir Robert Anderson didn't personally contact US Chiefs of Police about Ripper suspect Francis Tumblety. Oh yah, he did. Get real Ben, Anderson took him seriously, even though he doesn't fit your narrow view of suspect descriptions. Why do you think?

[mklhawley]

He could not have been arrested on suspicion for the gross indecency offences because there was no power of arrest unless found committing.

I never said he was arrested on suspicion for the gross indecency offense. He was arrested on suspicion for the Whitechapel murders, just as Arthur was and just as 'countless other men'.

So when was he arrested for the murders. ?

Either on November 7 or just prior. It didnt' have to be November 7 as you claim, since this was on the court calendar and the requirement for being on the court calendar is specific to the charge; gross indecency. Since we know he was first arrested on suspicion for the Whitechapel murders, then his official gross indecency arrest was November 7.

Take the blinkers [what are blinkers?] off and go back and read my earlier post. They already knew who he was. They had a warrant in his name for his arrest which they executed on Nov 7th. No need to take time to identify him they probably knew his residence as well.

They did not have a warrant in his name initially, since their plan was not to arrest him for gross indecency. Read it again. Since they couldn't hold him on murder charges, they held him on this. Someday Trevor, you should embrace all of the evidence, especially when it was corroborated by a Scotland Yard official.

That was the only time he was arrested and again if he ever had been arrested for the murders their hands would have been tied with regards to what was available to them to do with him without any evidence to bring a charge.

According to Littlechild and the cable, he was arrested on suspicion, and this arrest would not have been on the court calendar. You're just plain wrong.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Ben]

No, Mike.

The police were not looking for any man wearing a slouch hat, at least not after Packer's bogus description of a "suspect" who supposedly entered his shop with Elizabeth Stride was discredited. This is indisputably proven by the absence of any slouch-hatted sightings from the report on the eyewitnesses complied by Donald Swanson (and yes, in this instance, absence of evidence is most assuredly evidence of absence). If you think a "slouched hat" originates from a "previous suspect description", it would help if you could provide the name of the witness and explain why his name doesn't appear in Swanson's report. Anyone silly enough to "interact with" (as distinct from "give a hard time to") prostitutes, and dress conspicuously at that time and place, as Arthur did, was on obvious target for police interest, but that's not to say that the slouch hat in particular played any part. As both the San Francisco Chronicle and Tumblety himself pointed out, the supposed interest in slouch-hatted Americans amounted to gossip only, and worse than that; it was gossip that ran entirely contrary to actual proven police sources.

And no, I still see no evidence that Tumblety was "interacting negatively with prostitutes" while in London.

Finally, I'm not suggesting we should hang our slouch hats on any one witness sighting as being of the actual ripper, but on the other hand, I do believe that Tumblety's total incompatibility with practically all witness descriptions has been too casually cast aside as irrelevant by those who have fancied him as Jack at one point or another.

Regards,
Ben

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

What you said was this:



The implication being that they were both arrested when they were discovered in the act of giving a harlot a "hard time". However, there is not the slightest indication of this in either the Tumblety or Arthur case. Arthur was simply talking to a prostitute, whereas it was said of Tumblety that he was "known" to make threats against women of "dissolute character". No evidence that he was caught in the act of threatening any women, or that he had ever done so during his stay in London.

What your articles do underscore is the fact that anyone who looked even vaguely out-of-place were almost guaranteed to be scrutinized.

Returning to the witness sightings that were taken seriously by the police. I'm afraid I'm extremely unpersuaded by the argument that Mrs. Long's man could pass for Tumblety, who would have been considerably taller than Annie Chapman. A tall man stooping doesn't resemble a man of average height. He resembles, well, a tall man stooping. But why stoop anyway? Speaking as a man with at least five inches on Tumblety (height, that is!), I don't stoop when talking to considerably shorter people, and nor do I stand in a manner that makes me look shorter. If I did, I'd have serious and painful back problems by now.

All the best,
Ben

Ben,

My goal was never to pursuade you, since it's clear you're only trying to stick to your guns, even though it is blatantly obvious that both Arthur and Tumblety was arrested for very similar reasons and from a previous suspect description. They were on the streets, interacting with harlots (I can't believe you're trying to argue that Tumblety wasn't interacting negatively with prostitutes), AND WEARING AN AMERICAN SLOUCH HAT. The source was 'the police' and they mentioned this. Why? Because they were on the lookout for this. That's what it says. Tumblety even claimed this. This stuff is called evidence, but you rejecting it means something else entirely.


So, if you believe Scotland Yard was only interested in men who fit a description which might not even have been the Ripper anyway, then why did they arrest males of all sizes and flavors? Maybe they weren't as convinced as you are that this was the description of the Ripper.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=mklhawley;278049]Trevor, you're still singing the same tune, and you still don't get it. Here's the entire article:

San Francisco Chronicle,18 November 1888, GOSSIP OF LONDON, Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel,

A Score of Prisoners, but No Clew.


Rothschild Offers a Reward for the Murderer

[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.

Sir George is quite a figure in London. He is a son of the late Sir Frederick N. Arthur, who was an influential man in his day. Sir George was conspicuous on the turf a few years ago and intimately associated with the Duchess of Montrose. Then he turned his attention to the theaters, and when Bancroft produced "Theodora" he let Sir George appear as the corpse. The report is to-night that he is going to Monte Carlo for a few weeks.

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.

Just like 'scores of other men' AND Arthur, Tumblety was arrested 'on suspicion', which means he was arrested on the street by police who did not know him. In Arthur's case, it was 'two policemen'. HE WAS ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT, and because of this, the police did what they always did, attempt to ID him and determine his residence.

Lechmere and Trevor, once they they ID a person plus determine his residence, they have 24 hours before they must bring him up in front of the magistrate, but in Tumblety's case -as in the case of the scores of other men- they had no case. Lechmere, read the article again. If you can't see that it states they attempted to use the gross indecency only after in order to hold him, I don't know what to say. If you don't believe me, reread Littlechild, because he confirmed this. And also from Littlechild, we can infer that once they ID'd Tumblety, this is when they knew who he was to see his file and to figure out how to hold him.

Sincerely,
Mike[/Q

He could not have been arrested on suspicion for the gross indecency offences because there was no power of arrest unless found committing.

So when was he arrested for the murders. ?

Take the blinkers off and go back and read my earlier post. They already knew who he was. They had a warrant in his name for his arrest which they executed on Nov 7th. No need to take time to identify him they probably knew his residence as well

That was the only time he was arrested and again if he ever had been arrested for the murders their hands would have been tied with regards to what was available to them to do with him without any evidence to bring a charge.

You are one on a number who prop up Tumblety and keep saying he was arrested even taking it literally what grounds did they have to suspect him ?

The police powers allowed them to question anyone where a crime had been committed but not under arrest and as soon as they had determined that a person was guilty of an offence they could be arrested and then the questioning had to cease,

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

What you said was this:

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

The implication being that they were both arrested when they were discovered in the act of giving a harlot a "hard time". However, there is not the slightest indication of this in either the Tumblety or Arthur case. Arthur was simply talking to a prostitute, whereas it was said of Tumblety that he was "known" to make threats against women of "dissolute character". No evidence that he was caught in the act of threatening any women, or that he had ever done so during his stay in London.

What your articles do underscore is the fact that anyone who looked even vaguely out-of-place were almost guaranteed to be scrutinized.

Returning to the witness sightings that were taken seriously by the police. I'm afraid I'm extremely unpersuaded by the argument that Mrs. Long's man could pass for Tumblety, who would have been considerably taller than Annie Chapman. A tall man stooping doesn't resemble a man of average height. He resembles, well, a tall man stooping. But why stoop anyway? Speaking as a man with at least five inches on Tumblety (height, that is!), I don't stoop when talking to considerably shorter people, and nor do I stand in a manner that makes me look shorter. If I did, I'd have serious and painful back problems by now.

All the best,
Ben

[mklhawley]

The similarity in Sir George Arthur’s arrest and the Tumblety story is almost certainly not coincidental. I would suggest Tumblety borrowed the details when he gave his New York World interview in January 1889.

I did a search on British newspapers, and the article is correct, the police kept it out of the British papers. Since Tumblety was in England, how on earth would he have known about the Sir George Arthur story, especially when it occurred near the same time?

One other problem with claiming that Tumblety was arrested as a Ripper suspect is that the police could easily have made sure he was refused bail for the Gross Indecency charges.
They would have been remarkably incompetent not to do that.

Are you trying to say Scotland Yard had the power to order Magistrate Hannay to not give bail? That's ridiculous. If true, then why was Scotland Yard so worried about people pursuing a lawsuit (which they were)?

It all makes sense when you take into account the article matches Littlechild's comments PLUS the actions of Anderson getting personally involved. Note again we don't hear Swanson's involvement because he was following the orders of Anderson and company to keep quite (per Guy Logan) and the fact that if it wasn't for US chiefs of police opening their big mouths, Anderson would also have been completely silent.

As I said, it all makes perfect sense, accept if you have misguided notions that Tumblety initiated it.

Sincerely,
Mike


Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

Lechmere,

Wouldn't you be surprised if a newspaper accepted and printed a dispatch from an unknown or unverifiable source that libeled someone so horribly?

Would any mewspaper risk a lawsuit to such an extent without verifying both the information and the source?

curious

..and as Jonathan Hainsworth has pointed out in the past, British law favored the person initiating the lawsuit and the police were sensitive to this.

By reading the article in its entirety, one can see why the 'Tumblety initiating the cable' or the 'correspondent receiving info NOT from the police' is implausible. Note the common thread between all three stories (Arthur, Kumblety, and Scores of other men), the same New York World foreign correspondent in communication with 'the police'. The correspondent seems to have received all three stories from his police connection. The Kumblety story is almost an afterthought since the most important part was Arthur.

Sincerely,

Mike

[curious]

Lechmere,

Wouldn't you be surprised if a newspaper accepted and printed a dispatch from an unknown or unverifiable source that libeled someone so horribly?

Would any mewspaper risk a lawsuit to such an extent without verifying both the information and the source?

curious

[mklhawley]

Mike
At the time Tumblety was arrested on Nov 7th there was no question as to his identity they had him under surveillance from June to Nov 7th so they clearly knew who he was.

He was arrested not for the Whitechapel Murders but for the gross indecency offences and arrested on a warrant as there was no direct power of arrest for these offences. So to get a warrant from the court they would have had to furnish the court with the details of the person they were applying the warrant for.

On a final note had the police even had any suspicions about Tumblety being the killer they would not have agreed to him being bailed on the gross indecency offences.

You should also remember that the police powers were somewhat limited in 1888 when they had arrested someone for an offence they did not carry out interview on that person

Extract from Lord Bramptons speech to constables.

When, however, a Constable has a warrant to arrest, or is about to arrest a person on his own authority, or has a person in custody for a crime, it is wrong to question such person touching the crime of which he is accused. Neither judge, magistrate nor juryman, can interrogate an accused person—unless he tenders himself as a witness, or require him to answer questions tending to incriminate himself. Much less, then, ought a Constable to do so, whose duty as regards that person is simply to arrest and detain him in safe custody.

On arresting a man a Constable ought simply to read his warrant, or tell the accused the nature of the charge upon which he is arrested, leaving it to the person so arrested to say anything or nothing as he pleases.
For a Constable to press any accused person to say anything with reference to the crime of which he is accused is very wrong. It is well also that it should be generally known that if a statement made by an accused person is made under or in consequence of any promise or threat, even though it amounts to an absolute confession, it cannot be used against the person making it.

There is, however, no objection to a Constable listening to any mere voluntary statement which a prisoner desires to make, and repeating such statement in evidence; nor is there any objection to his repeating in evidence any conversation he may have heard between the prisoner and any other person. But he ought not by anything he says or does, to invite or encourage an accused person to make any statement, without first cautioning him that he is not bound to say anything tending to incriminate himself, and that anything he says may be used against him”

Trevor, you're still singing the same tune, and you still don't get it. Here's the entire article:

San Francisco Chronicle,18 November 1888, GOSSIP OF LONDON, Heavy Swell Arrested in Whitechapel,

A Score of Prisoners, but No Clew.


Rothschild Offers a Reward for the Murderer

[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.

Sir George is quite a figure in London. He is a son of the late Sir Frederick N. Arthur, who was an influential man in his day. Sir George was conspicuous on the turf a few years ago and intimately associated with the Duchess of Montrose. Then he turned his attention to the theaters, and when Bancroft produced "Theodora" he let Sir George appear as the corpse. The report is to-night that he is going to Monte Carlo for a few weeks.

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.

Just like 'scores of other men' AND Arthur, Tumblety was arrested 'on suspicion', which means he was arrested on the street by police who did not know him. In Arthur's case, it was 'two policemen'. HE WAS ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT, and because of this, the police did what they always did, attempt to ID him and determine his residence.

Lechmere and Trevor, once they they ID a person plus determine his residence, they have 24 hours before they must bring him up in front of the magistrate, but in Tumblety's case -as in the case of the scores of other men- they had no case. Lechmere, read the article again. If you can't see that it states they attempted to use the gross indecency only after in order to hold him, I don't know what to say. If you don't believe me, reread Littlechild, because he confirmed this. And also from Littlechild, we can infer that once they ID'd Tumblety, this is when they knew who he was to see his file and to figure out how to hold him.

Sincerely,
Mike