Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[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 ?

[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".

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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)

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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
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