Two reasons AGAINST Tumblety being the Ripper

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

I'm reassured you're not a postcode specialist - you'd be amazed at some of the narrow fields of interest I've come across in the philatelic field (some far narrower than that) together with the strange creatures who populate the field. Makes Ripperworld look quite sane I can tell you.

The Wikipedia entries (I've found three so far - one on the EC postal district, one on the Eastern postal district and one on the London Postal Districts generally) are quite interesting and contain a map I've not seen before...the newspaper one you mention. I'd have thought it's a bit small to make out the EC boundaries though, beyond showing the same general shape as present.

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

You can tell it doesn't spread down to WhItechapel Road though.

[Robert]

Hi Mike

I don't have a map, but then a map to me is a cumbersome thing that you unfold and then can never get it folded up again the way it was.

I looked at the London Gazette, which I suppose is a fairly authoritative publication.

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/search

I searched under 'with the exact phrase' between 1st January 1870 and 1st January 1880, using terms like "Whitechapel E," "Commercial Street E" and "Spitalfields E" and there are results for this (there are also results for "Spitalfields NE"). When I tried with "EC" instead of "E" there were no results. I guess it would be a matter of entering various street names to try to get a fix on where the boundary was.

I was hoping the east end traders petition might be online, to see if that had postcodes, but no luck. My Sourcebook, which does have it, is currently packed away.

[Steve S]

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

I shall await with interest He's certainly interesting enough to be worthy of study for himself........

[Lechmere]

Robert gave me an idea
I do like maps and my reproduction OS map of Whitechapel, Spitalfields and the Bank 1873 has an extract from a contemporary Post Office Directory on the reverse side.

Whitechapel High Street – which is further west than Whitechapel Road is in E.

Houndsditch, on the eastern edge of the City of London is listed as E – although my 1972 Kelly’s Directory map shows it as being in EC.

Leadenhall Market is in EC as would be expected.
This should make it clear that Whitechapel Road was in E.

[Lechmere]

Here’s my unfolded 1972 Kelly’s Post Office London Directory map with the relevant streets underlined in orange:

Whitechapel Road
Whitechapel High Street
Houndsditch
Leadenhall Market
I highlighted the boundary between EC and E in light blue.

[Ginger]

[ATTACH]15651[/ATTACH]

Leech importers!

[Robert]

Indeed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2410234/Leeches-moustache-grease-arsenic-pint-blood-The-everyday-essentials-Victorian-shopping-basket-revealed.html

[mklhawley]

Hi all,

Some good stuff has been posted, but I won't be able to be on the computer for a couple of days. Till then.

Sincerely,
Mike

[mklhawley]

Thanks Robert and Hi Lechmere,

I believe you nailed the EC boarder. Now, what I’m about to post is not going to negate your point, or points actually, I merely want to show you where I’m coming from. I apologize for being caustic in my earlier responses. I should not do that. The gross indecency case was under the jurisdiction of Magistrate Hannay, who presided in Rochester Row, which is a West End district. This means that the activities of Francis Tumblety with his four young men occurred in the West End, in the same area where the Cleveland Street male prostitute scandal occurred the next year (Abberline was in charge of it). At that time, there was a significant male prostitute business in the West End, which included Hyde Park, and it’s clear Tumblety took part in it. The gross indecency case has no connections with the East End. I would say this does not hurt your argument at all, but for me it reveals a few things. First, the EC post is far from the West End and it does butt up to Whitechapel Road. This demonstrates that Tumblety did not just hang out in the West End, and it certainly doesn’t conflict with the article stating that Tumblety had a store near Whitechapel Road. When Tumblety admitted being on the Whitechapel streets during the murders, he gave an explanation as to why he was there; ‘slumming’. As you know, slumming was the thing for West Enders during the Ripper murders. If Tumblety indeed hung out with the West End crowd, he may have joined in on the fun and slum, …but he did it by himself. To me, this leads to his real agenda for going there and supports him visiting the East End. He had a taste for slums. In the late 1880s and 1890s, Tumblety would find himself in trouble in US cities in the slums, and one New Orleans article even mentions his habit of spending his evenings in the slums.

Back to the West End gross indecency case. I believe you now agree that the story came from the New York World foreign correspondent, but did he hear it from Tumblety as opposed to the police? If Tumblety did tell the reporter that the real reason why they arrested him was not because of the gross indecency case, but because of the Ripper case (in hopes of convincing the US public that his gross indecency case is bunk), why wouldn’t the reporter doubt and question this? The case before the Magistrate was gross indecency. The East End is far removed from the West End, especially if it’s true that Tumblety never stepped foot in the East End. Remember, the reporter was informed by whomever that Tumblety was arrested ‘on suspicion’ for the Whitechapel murders, and in the same article ‘on suspicion’ meant being arrested from the very same streets the victims came from. Keep in mind that if the story did come from Tumblety himself, it must have been so convincing that Littlechild called him ‘a very likely suspect’ AND Anderson spent his own time contacting US chiefs of police and causing them to waste their time. But there’s more…

Regardless of how the US papers got it, if Tumblety was not a suspect in the Ripper case, we must use a large brush stroke argument and believe that US papers were one untrustworthy entity, efficiently distributing news but all too capable of causing viral untruths. In my Yellow journalism article, I explain why the New York World owner, Pulitzer, in the 1880s believed accuracy in reporting was paramount, but I want to focus upon how London news was cabled to the US. The New York papers fought for the same NYC readers. Even though the Yellow journalism war was a few years away, competition was fierce for these readers. Pulitzer increased NY World circulation in the 1880s to 300,000, and this adversely affected the other New York papers. They were competitors and if one paper got it wrong, I’m sure the others would capitalize upon the mistake, especially against the New York World since they were now the top dog.

In London during the murders, the Boston Herald’s London correspondent was Arthur Warren, the NY Times correspondent was Harold Frederick, NY Tribune’s was Smalley, NY Herald’s was Oakey Hall, NY Sun’s was Frank White, and NY World’s was Tracy Greaves (chief correspondent), and the Associated Press London correspondent was James Maclean. Besides the Boston Herald and the Associated Press, the New York papers were competitors. Although friendly to each other, they knew who their respective bosses were. Also, they all had a working relationship with the British journalists, as well. The famous TC Crawford, the correspondent who reported on the Hatfields and McCoys feud, was the NY Worlds London chief correspondent until August 1888, and discussed this relationship.

So, the other New York papers, the Boston Herald, and even every US newspaper (receiving info from the associated press), were not dependent upon the New York World for their Tumblety in London stories. Also, by looking at the reports coming out of London in November AND December, it’s clear the ‘Tumblety was a Ripper suspect’ stories did not all connect only to one November 18 New York World cable dispatch.

Lastly, as I stated earlier, FOR ME, a truth filter for stories coming out of London would have been the other competitor New York newspaper reporters keeping Greaves and company honest.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Lechmere]

That’s a nice map!

First - to nail Tumblety’s alleged East End connections…

The EC link up is based on a postmark on a letter from Tumblety dated back in 1875. As the EC postcode encompassed London’s central business district, nothing really can be read into this. It was and is the sort of respectable area where tourists would feel comfortable.

What we are trying to do is establish whether there is any evidence that Tumblety had any familiarity with the East End and this letter does not cut it in that regard.
If Tumblety enjoyed slumming then the EC district abutted areas that were considerably poorer than Whitechapel. The South Bank, Bermondsey and Finsbury for starters.
He also slummed it in New Orleans.
Yet all the murders happened in the East End of London.
Is there an explanation for Tumblety’s supposed behaviour in selecting the East End for his murder spree?

On 29th January 1889, in the New York World, Tumblety admitted to visiting Whitechapel as a tourist – to gawp at a murder scene. This is what he said:

‘I happened to be there when these Whitechapel murders attracted the attention of the whole world, and, in the company with thousands of other people, I went down to the Whitechapel district.’

He did not admit to going there to slum it! Admittedly he did also claim:

‘I had been going over to England for a long time-ever since 1869, indeed-and I used to go about the city a great deal until every part of it became familiar to me.’

Did Tumblety literally mean that he was familiar with every part of London? With Balham? With Hackney? Deptford, Poplar, Hoxton, Battersea, and so on?
I doubt it.
The likelihood is that he meant every part of central London. The parts that tourists and non-locals would frequent. The City of London and the West End.

Incidentally the three part New York World cable does not say that any of the score of arrests were made on the street nor in Whitechapel. It is totally non-specific as to the circumstances of these arrests.

Let’s look at the other piece of evidence provided by the Bucks County Gazette, a small town newspaper for Bristol Pennsylvania, stated on 13th December 1888:

‘He calls himself "Doctor Francis Tumblety”… His "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. His oddity of manner, dress and speech soon made him notorious as the "American doctor"; but he enjoyed notoriety and turned it into money, till the Whitechapel horrors caused a general overhauling of suspicious characters.’

The account says Tumblety was based ‘near the Whitechapel road and for a while did a big business’ and that his ‘oddity of manner, dress and speech soon made him notorious as the "American doctor"… till the Whitechapel horrors caused a general overhauling of suspicious characters.’

But where did the Bucks County Gazette get their information from?

I would suggest it was from the New York Star which I believe ran a report on 7th December 1888, which was reproduced in the good old Wheeling Register – a small town newspaper based in West Virginia on 8th December 1888.

‘The Star publishes a lady's story as to the past life of Dr. Twomblety who is suspected of the Whitechapel murders. She is a friend of the Doctor's and says she knows of his whereabouts….
‘According to her story the Doctor was living quietly in Charing Cross, doing quite an excellent business with his "pimple eradicator."... When the English detectives had been baffled on every hand, and could not find any one in answer the description of "Jack the Ripper," they finally swooped down on quack surgeons and cranks in every walk of life. It was in one of these general hauls that Dr. Twomblety was arrested.’

In this account Tumblety was based ‘in Charing Cross, doing quite an excellent business’ but he ‘appeared on the streets clad in old-style garments’, so when the Ripper crimes were perpetrated and the police were baffled until ‘they finally swooped down on quack surgeons and cranks in every walk of life. It was in one of these general hauls that Dr. Twomblety was arrested.’

The Wheeling Register story features the same elements as that in the Bucks County Gazette:
• Tumblety does excellent business in London.
• He dressed eccentrically and attracted attention.
• He was arrested as part of a general hauling in of suspicious characters.

One account specified Charging Cross as his location. The other, near Whitechapel Road.
I would suggest that the Bucks County Gazette would not be very familiar with the proximity of Charing Cross to Whitechapel Road and they were merely using artistic licence.

I would suggest that the lady friend who provided the New York Star with this story would probably have been Mrs MacNamara, in whose establishment Tumblety stayed when he arrived in New York in early December 1888.
Whoever it was, they were clearly acting as Tumblety’s cypher.
One way or another this was one lady who he didn’t appear to have hatred for.

I think it is fairly obvious that the unattributed Bucks County Gazette article is based on the Wheeling Register article which in turn was based on the New York Star interview with Tumblety’s lady friend, who was almost certainly Mary MacNamara.
Hence the story originated with Tumblety, who placed his shop in Charing Cross not Whitechapel Road.
To a Pennsylvanian no doubt Charing Cross was a Yankee stone’s throw from Whitechapel Road.

[mklhawley]

Well, that's unconvincing, especially since your connection to the two articles has no corroboration.

Recall, the Boston Herald's London correspondent, Arthur Warren. Note the comments in the Boston Herald, November 25, 1888.

A Whitechapel Suspect.
One of the Whitechapel murder suspects is a curious character known as Dr. Tumblety... When the London police arrested him the other day on suspicion of being the murderer he said that he belonged in New York. The police found that they could not get enough evidence against him to hold him for trial, but they succeeded in getting some sort of a charge sufficient to hold him under one of the sepcial laws passed after the "modern Babylon" exposures, which created so much excitement a couple of years ago. The doctor's identity was for a time concealed after his arrest, but the police, who took the liberty of hunting up his lodgings and ransacking his private effects, discovered easily who he was, and they say that he has been in the habit of making two trips yearly to this side of the water...

So, did the Boston Herald merely take information from the NY World's london correspondent? There certainly are matching factoids, but then again, it could be a case of Warren hearing the same thing... but from Tumblety? Note the factoids that the NY World did not have about the doctor's identity being concealed for a time after his arrest and the ransacking of his residence. This conforms exactly to what I've been saying all along, that Tumblety was arrested on the streets WITHOUT A WARRANT. The requirement would then be to establish his identity AND his place of residence before releasing him or charging him.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Hi Lechmere,

I have to go offline for a bit again. Family health issues are going in the wrong direction. Keep up the research.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Lechmere]

Was the Metropolitan Police’s response to Tumblety suggestive of him being:

(1) a major Ripper suspect who had been arrested for Gross Indecency as a holding charge but who had managed to give the authorities the slip and escape to the United States, which led to a senior officer being sent to Canada to check him out although the case against him was soon thereafter dropped for no apparent reason (and please, Mackenzie wasn’t killed until 17th July 1889); or

(2) charged with Gross Indecency, fleeing and concocting a story that he was suspected of being Jack the Ripper as a cover that could be debunked at a later date, with the furore created by his fake story ironically if briefly attracting the attention of the Metropolitan Police who had noticed that he fitted one of their suspect types as he as an active homosexual?

Initially I will just look at the initial phase – prior to Tumblety’s arrival in the US on La Bretagne.

We know that Tumblety was arrested on 7th November 1888 for the Gross Indecency charges. One way or another he was under the eye of the Met until his flight to France, some time between 20th and 24th November.

Those who propose Tumblety as the Ripper claim he was arrested in connection with the Whitechapel crimes prior to his arrest for Gross Indecency. According to this theory the Gross Indecency charges were levied as an afterthought in order to hold Tumblety, or perhaps they only became apparent after his initial arrest for suspicion of being the Ripper.

This means he must have come under suspicion and been arrested as the Ripper prior to 7th November. It means he was either swiftly released so he could commit the Kelly crime on 9th November, or he was held on remand in jail and the Kelly crime was done to another hand.

The first evidence we have that the Met took any interest in Tumblety for Ripper related matters was Anderson’s cable of 22nd November to the San Francisco Chief of Police asking for a sample of Tumblety’s handwriting.

This means Anderson delayed at least 15 days before contacting anyone in the United States about Tumblety.

But it is clear that Anderson’s cable:
Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety. ANDERSON, Scotland Yard.
was in response to one sent by Chief Crowley.

And Crowley was prompted to initiate enquiries into Tumblety by the San Francisco Chronicle story (based on the New York World cable) published on 18th November 1888 that named Tumblety as Kumblety.

The sequence of events was:
17th November – London correspondent of the New York World sends his cable.
18th November – Story printed in the San Francisco Chronicle.
19th November – San Francisco Chief of Police, Patrick Crowley sends telegram to Anderson offering samples of Tumblety’s handwriting.
22nd November – Anderson replies.
23rd November – the whole episode is reported in the San Francisco Chronicle.

But Anderson didn’t just contact Crowley. He also sent a cable to Superintendent Campbell of the New York police.
This was reported in for example the Brooklyn Citizen on 23rd November.
Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault. Tumblety is referred to in the dispatch in the following manner: “He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty.”

This makes it plane that Anderson sent his cable on 22nd November.
This time it is clear that Anderson initiated the communication, unlike the circumstances with Crowley in San Francisco.
The Brooklyn Standard Union made it explicit that Anderson ‘wants some information as to his life in Brooklyn’.

So Anderson sent two cables on one day – one to Crowley on San Francisco and one to Campbell in New York.
Clearly the Crowley telegram was sent in response to an approach from Crowley himself.
It can be no coincidence that the Campbell cable was sent the same day (22nd November), just after the New York World had published (19th November) details of Tumblety’s connections to that city.

Incidentally the delay in Anderson replying to Crowley - between 19th and 22nd November – was probably occasioned by the Met researching Tumblety via its representatives in New York.

One small point. I raised the prospect earlier in this thread that perhaps Anderson didn’t personally sent the cable, but allowed his name to be used as it would lend weight in a communication between different forces from different countries.
For some reason, to me:
‘He says he is known to you, Chief, as Brooklyn’s Beauty’
doesn’t sound like Anderson’s voice.

It is fairly obvious that the New York World cable led to ‘Anderson’ sending both telegrams. Tumblety had been either in custody or under investigation since 7th November. Yet Anderson delayed until 22nd November to contact the United States, on which day he communicated with both San Francisco and New York, just after the publicity had appeared about Tumblety being a Ripper suspect.

I think it is fairly obvious that Anderson’s ‘Brooklyn Beauty’ cable to Campbell was promoted by Crowley’s cable of 19th and the brouhaha that was generated in the United States following the publication of the New York World cable sent on 17th November.

The big question is, who provided the information found on that cable?

The 17th November New York World cable claimed that Tumblety was identified by letters he had in his possession. Mike has claimed that this lends authenticity to the New York World cable because Tumblety did have a habit of going around with testimonial letters about his person.

Tumblety had appeared at the Magistrate’s court on 16th November and was ordered to attend the Old Bailey from 19th November. Is it likely that the New York World’s London correspondent would now about such a minor legal event?

[Stewart P Evans]

Advice

A bit of advice for posters who indulge in interminable and repetitive (not to say boring) posts, why don't you toddle off and devote your time and energy into writing the book you so obviously wish to produce.