Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[Lechmere]

Mike
Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly, but when I said:
‘The initial reports said Tumblety had been arrested for the Babylonian offences as a subterfuge by the authorities as they were really after him for the Ripper crimes. In other words the Gross Indecency charges were trumped up and false.’

The second sentence about the trumped up charges was an explanation of the first sentence…
- that according to the first newspaper reports, the charges of Gross Indecency against Tumblety were trumped up as an excuse to hold him for the Ripper crimes.
Of course this was not true – but this is the first major clue that these newspaper reports were based on a story concocted by Tumblety himself. In other words he provided the newspaper with the Ripper allegation to cover up the fact that he had been arrested for Gross Indecency because he had actually committed acts of Gross Indecency!

This is how the New York World reported the matter on 19th November 1888.

‘A special London despatch to THE WORLD yesterday morning announced the arrest of a man in connection with the Whitechapel crimes, who gave his name as Dr. Kumblety, of New York. He could not be held on suspicion, but the police succeeded in getting him held under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.’

I would suggest that Tumblety sent the despatch or at the very least told his version of events to the New York World London correspondent.
The police did not issue statements like this. More normally newspapers relied on off the record information – probably for a few shillings.
So Tumblety could make the claim about the police holding him with no fear of official contradiction.
The editor in New York would be in no position to contradict the story either.

I would suggest that Anderson reacted to the stories in the American press and made enquiries once it was known that Tumblety had been charged with Gross Indecency and the fled.
Technically this did indeed make Tumblety a brief 'official' suspect.
This brief flurry is what Littlechild remembered. Slightly inaccurately as he believed Tumblety had died soon after. It’s not surprising Littlechild would remember something as he was a close colleague of Anderson and Swanson, even if it wasn’t his area of operation.

Tumblety doesn’t feature in the Special Branch ledgers – the index to their filing system. This suggests that the Scotland Yard file was not Special Branch related.
Furthermore if Tumblety’s file was Fenian related then we should expect Littlechild to be more aware of Tumblety’s fate. But he is not.

Tumblety a Fenian? He supposedly was selected to fight a seat in Canada for the Irish interest. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
Tumblety stayed in a hotel run by an Irish nationalist. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
Tumblety once made a pro Irish and anti Brit remark. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
One Boston newspaper report said he was running around in New York with advanced Irish nationalists. Is that it?
Hardly a dedicated career as a dangerous Fenian. I have yet to see any evidence of Fenianism.
Didn’t Littlechild once complain that over eager informants were always ‘fingering’ innocent Irishmen – just because they were Irish and expressed mildly pro Irish sentiments?

He was a dilettante and an exhibitionist.
The 19th November 1888 story makes it clear that he was still conducting himself in this manner in New York immediately prior to the story breaking.

PS – you provided no evidence for Sir George Arthur giving anyone a hard time.

[Mayerling]

Mike
Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly, but when I said:
‘The initial reports said Tumblety had been arrested for the Babylonian offences as a subterfuge by the authorities as they were really after him for the Ripper crimes. In other words the Gross Indecency charges were trumped up and false.’

The second sentence about the trumped up charges was an explanation of the first sentence…
- that according to the first newspaper reports, the charges of Gross Indecency against Tumblety were trumped up as an excuse to hold him for the Ripper crimes.
Of course this was not true – but this is the first major clue that these newspaper reports were based on a story concocted by Tumblety himself. In other words he provided the newspaper with the Ripper allegation to cover up the fact that he had been arrested for Gross Indecency because he had actually committed acts of Gross Indecency!

This is how the New York World reported the matter on 19th November 1888.

‘A special London despatch to THE WORLD yesterday morning announced the arrest of a man in connection with the Whitechapel crimes, who gave his name as Dr. Kumblety, of New York. He could not be held on suspicion, but the police succeeded in getting him held under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.’

I would suggest that Tumblety sent the despatch or at the very least told his version of events to the New York World London correspondent.
The police did not issue statements like this. More normally newspapers relied on off the record information – probably for a few shillings.
So Tumblety could make the claim about the police holding him with no fear of official contradiction.
The editor in New York would be in no position to contradict the story either.


He was a dilettante and an exhibitionist.
The 19th November 1888 story makes it clear that he was still conducting himself in this manner in New York immediately prior to the story breaking.

PS – you provided no evidence for Sir George Arthur giving anyone a hard time.

Since there is this concentration on the gross indecency that brings up reminders of the "Modern Babylon" Scandal of 1885, has anybody checked "The Pall Mall Gazette" for any comments made by it's editor, Mr. Stead, referring to Doc Tumblety and his arrest for indecency. Stead was at the center of the "Modern Babylon" Scandal, and actually served some time in prison as a result. He would have followed a new scandal about this afterwards to see what it was all about. And if he saw nothing about Doc. T. and Jack the Ripper would have possibly said as much.

Jeff

[mklhawley]

This is how the New York World reported the matter on 19th November 1888.

‘A special London despatch to THE WORLD yesterday morning announced the arrest of a man in connection with the Whitechapel crimes, who gave his name as Dr. Kumblety, of New York. He could not be held on suspicion, but the police succeeded in getting him held under the special law passed soon after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.’

I would suggest that Tumblety sent the despatch or at the very least told his version of events to the New York World London correspondent.
The police did not issue statements like this. More normally newspapers relied on off the record information – probably for a few shillings.
So Tumblety could make the claim about the police holding him with no fear of official contradiction.
The editor in New York would be in no position to contradict the story either.

Lechmere, nowhere does it say the police issued a statement. You are misreading it. It certainly was 'off the record' info but not from 'Kumblety', it was from exactly who the correspondent stated it was from 'the police'. Why can't you accepted what the correspondent said? There is evidence who this police officer was. Recall that one of the detectives who signed Tumblety's charge sheet was Detective Frank Froest. He was recorded in his later life to say he was the only detective involved in the Whitechapel crimes to get into hot water with Scotland Yard. There are not too many times we see Froest's name involved in the Whitechapel crimes other than on the suspect Tumblety's charge sheet. The story making the US press certainly would have pissed of the brass.

Note how the November 19 New York World aricle conforms to the November 18 New York World dispatch reported in the SF Chronicle:

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.

He was arrested on the streets of Whitechapel on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes BEFORE they even knew who they had. It was police procedure to identify suspects 'on suspicion' and determine their residence. Once they ID'd the person, they had 24 hours to either send him off to the magistrate for conviction OR let him go. Once they realized who they had that's when Scotland Yard checked their files and that would have been the time Anderson and Littlechild would have realized Tumblety was arrested on suspicion.

Lechmere, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I would suggest that Anderson reacted to the stories in the American press and made enquiries once it was known that Tumblety had been charged with Gross Indecency and the fled.

Huge problems with this. Anderson was involved BEFORE any stories connecting Tumblety with the Whitechapel crimes. You never did read Roger Palmer's articles did you. Also, I don't think you know when Tumblety fled the country do you. Recheck that one.

Technically this did indeed make Tumblety a brief 'official' suspect.
This brief flurry is what Littlechild remembered. Slightly inaccurately as he believed Tumblety had died soon after.

Sooo, you're saying Littlechild read the New York World cable dispatch and that's where he got the info? If so, where in the dispatch does it talk about Tumblety's large dossier or his unusual hatred of women? Or, could it be that Littlechild, having access to Tumblety's file learned of this info from Scotland Yard? Lechmere, you are rejecting corroborating evidence, for what? To deny the reality that Anderson considered Tumblety such an important suspect that he personally contacted US chiefs of police for info regarding him SPECIFIC TO THE RIPPER CASE! If Tumblety was just a BS side thought, then why didn't he have a subordinate do all of the leg work? Also, Littlechild never said HE believed Tumblety died soon after. You'd better recheck that as well.

It’s not surprising Littlechild would remember something as he was a close colleague of Anderson and Swanson, even if it wasn’t his area of operation.

We almost agree upon something, accept that fact that Special Branch certainly was involved in the Ripper case.

Tumblety doesn’t feature in the Special Branch ledgers – the index to their filing system. This suggests that the Scotland Yard file was not Special Branch related.
Furthermore if Tumblety’s file was Fenian related then we should expect Littlechild to be more aware of Tumblety’s fate. But he is not.

This is an 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' fallacy.

Tumblety a Fenian? He supposedly was selected to fight a seat in Canada for the Irish interest. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
Tumblety stayed in a hotel run by an Irish nationalist. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
Tumblety once made a pro Irish and anti Brit remark. That doesn’t make him a Fenian.
One Boston newspaper report said he was running around in New York with advanced Irish nationalists. Is that it?
Hardly a dedicated career as a dangerous Fenian. I have yet to see any evidence of Fenianism.
Didn’t Littlechild once complain that over eager informants were always ‘fingering’ innocent Irishmen – just because they were Irish and expressed mildly pro Irish sentiments?

Who ever said Tumblety was a Fenian? I certainly didn't and I'm sure the large dossier on him didn't say he was. It certainly showed him being a sympathizer, though.

He was a dilettante and an exhibitionist.
The 19th November 1888 story makes it clear that he was still conducting himself in this manner in New York immediately prior to the story breaking.

Who ever said Tumblety wasn't still operating a store? I didn't. I don't think you realize when the last time we have record of him advertising in the papers. I'm still waiting for you to prove he self-promoted in the 1880s to such an extent that he was self-promoting specific to the Ripper case.

PS – you provided no evidence for Sir George Arthur giving anyone a hard time.

I believe Ben charged that there was no hint for both Tumblety or Arthur, so why didn't you claim this with Tumblety? Notice how both Tumblety AND Arthur was involved with harlots, which was one of the reasons for their similar arrest.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Lechmere, nowhere does it say the police issued a statement. You are misreading it. It certainly was 'off the record' info but not from 'Kumblety', it was from exactly who the correspondent stated it was from 'the police'. Why can't you accepted what the correspondent said? There is evidence who this police officer was. Recall that one of the detectives who signed Tumblety's charge sheet was Detective Frank Froest. He was recorded in his later life to say he was the only detective involved in the Whitechapel crimes to get into hot water with Scotland Yard. There are not too many times we see Froest's name involved in the Whitechapel crimes other than on the suspect Tumblety's charge sheet. The story making the US press certainly would have pissed of the brass.

Note how the November 19 New York World aricle conforms to the November 18 New York World dispatch reported in the SF Chronicle:

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.

He was arrested on the streets of Whitechapel on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes BEFORE they even knew who they had. It was police procedure to identify suspects 'on suspicion' and determine their residence. Once they ID'd the person, they had 24 hours to either send him off to the magistrate for conviction OR let him go. Once they realized who they had that's when Scotland Yard checked their files and that would have been the time Anderson and Littlechild would have realized Tumblety was arrested on suspicion.

Lechmere, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.



Huge problems with this. Anderson was involved BEFORE any stories connecting Tumblety with the Whitechapel crimes. You never did read Roger Palmer's articles did you. Also, I don't think you know when Tumblety fled the country do you. Recheck that one.



Sooo, you're saying Littlechild read the New York World cable dispatch and that's where he got the info? If so, where in the dispatch does it talk about Tumblety's large dossier or his unusual hatred of women? Or, could it be that Littlechild, having access to Tumblety's file learned of this info from Scotland Yard? Lechmere, you are rejecting corroborating evidence, for what? To deny the reality that Anderson considered Tumblety such an important suspect that he personally contacted US chiefs of police for info regarding him SPECIFIC TO THE RIPPER CASE! If Tumblety was just a BS side thought, then why didn't he have a subordinate do all of the leg work? Also, Littlechild never said HE believed Tumblety died soon after. You'd better recheck that as well.



We almost agree upon something, accept that fact that Special Branch certainly was involved in the Ripper case.



This is an 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' fallacy.



Who ever said Tumblety was a Fenian? I certainly didn't and I'm sure the large dossier on him didn't say he was. It certainly showed him being a sympathizer, though.




Who ever said Tumblety wasn't still operating a store? I didn't. I don't think you realize when the last time we have record of him advertising in the papers. I'm still waiting for you to prove he self-promoted in the 1880s to such an extent that he was self-promoting specific to the Ripper case.



I believe Ben charged that there was no hint for both Tumblety or Arthur, so why didn't you claim this with Tumblety? Notice how both Tumblety AND Arthur was involved with harlots, which was one of the reasons for their similar arrest.

Sincerely,
Mike

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”

[Lechmere]

Mike
I didn’t say the police did make a statement - I said they didn’t!
I accept what the correspondent says – but I think the correspondent either was actually or was in effect Tumblety
The New York World report doesn’t say that any information was provided by the ‘police’. It says:
‘the police succeeded in getting him held’.
Tumblety himself could very easily have provided this information.

As for the San Francisco Chronicle report of 18th November (via the New York World Cable Service):

‘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.’

This at least says ‘the police say’ but again this could just as easily be Tumblety relaying what he claimed the police said.

The Froest issue could be in connection with anything. You are guessing that the hot water issue involved Tumblety.

Where does it say anywhere that Tumblety was arrested on the streets of Whitechapel before he was arrested for Gross Indecency?

After being arrested a prisoner is not sent to a Magistrate with just the option of the person being convicted or released. They can be remanded pending a trial for example.

Palmer’s articles? You mean the ones about Andrews’ trip to Canada? I have read them.
I also know when Tumblety fled.
I am not denying that Anderson contacted US police chiefs – I am establishing an alternative reason why he contacted them – what was it that prompted him to contact them.
The timeline fits.

No I’m not saying Littlechild read the New York World.
Nor am I saying that the Littlechild Letter was based on the New York World.
I’m suggesting he listened to high end office gossip.

By stating:
‘It was believed he committed suicide’.
Littlechild was saying what the belief was. It clearly wasn’t a random statement he plucked out of thin air. It is slightly qualified – it wasn’t so far as he knew a cast iron certainty that Tumblety had committed suicide. Yet it was the belief.
If the large dossier at Scotland Yard was held by Special Branch then, yes, Littlechild would have been very negligent in passing on beliefs that Tumblety had committed suicide soon after fleeing.
This cannot be denied or got around just because of the use of the word ‘believed’.

If the Tumblety dossier was about his sexual activities then it is understandable that mistaken beliefs were entertained as Tumblety never came back to Britain and the police’s interest in him would have evaporated as soon as the brief Ripper floury dissipated. This was probably when the police realised the implication of Tumblety being in prison when Mary Kelly was murdered.

You simply cannot say that the dossier ‘certainly’ had information in it about Tumblety’s occasional pro Irish sentiments. Do you imagine that Special Branch kept files on everyone in the world who expressed vaguely pro Irish sentiments?

You keep asking for more and more specific examples of things…
‘I'm still waiting for you to prove he self-promoted in the 1880s to such an extent that he was self-promoting specific to the Ripper case.’

I gave you an example of the New York World discussing his self-promotional activities. I never specified that they had to be in connection with his business. Now you are saying they have to be on the scale of the Tumblety-Ripper stories!
That obviously, for Tumblety, was a special case – it made him engage in a major damage limitation exercise to stop it from being widely reported that he had been arrested and fled charges of Gross Indecency.
It worked for Tumblety very well.
You obviously won’t find Tumblety acting in a similar manner – although yes he was a practised self-publicist, which I presume you will not deny.

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.

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.
If he was given bail against their wishes, then they would have been remarkably incompetent not to follow him and to allow him to get away to France.
And then even more incompetent to entertain the belief that he may have committed suicide soon after.
None of this adds up.

[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 Ł2 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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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 Ł2 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,

[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

[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]

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

[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?