Crowley's Request - Howard never got the memo

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

We've known about this for years.

Think about it again.

Regards,

Simon

So, we know Tumblety practiced the art of aliases, and if I have your claim correct, he never used Frank Townsend as an alias (especially since Riordan showed that there was indeed a Frank Townsend on the Le Havre), that was mistakenly given to him. ...yet he decided to use this particlular one for his last alias just a month before he died. Riigghht.

How coincidental 'Frank Townsend' is so similar to 'Frank Tumblety', yet FT didn't make it up.


Sincerely,
Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

We've known about this for years.

Think about it again.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

murder

Hello Stewart. Tumblety aside, your posts #'s 28, 29 & 35 have me intrigued.

Can you add anything?

Is the singular--murder--significant?

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

Howard Brown Nailed It

Hi All,

The Tumblety-as-Ripper-suspect story is poppycock.

Five days before the steamship La Bretagne slipped anchor at Le Havre en route for New York descriptions of Tumblety appeared in the US press—

"His own face is covered with pimples, and although his features are otherwise regular, his appearance on this account is somewhat repulsive. He is a large and heavily built man, standing fully six feet in his stockings." [New York World, 19th November 1888]

"He was of striking personal appearance, being considerably over six feet in height, of graceful and powerful build, with strongly marked features, beautifully clear complexion, a sweeping mustache, and jet-black hair." [New York Times, 19th November 1888]

"He is about fifty-five years old, tall and rather heavy, and looks as if he painted his cheeks and dyed his hair, heavy mustache and side whiskers." [New York Herald, 19th November 1888]

Tumblety would have been hard to miss, yet at Le Havre he managed to escape the attentions of port-watcher William Melville, who in March 1893 took over from John Littlechild as head of Special Branch.

Tumblety travelled under the assumed name of Frank Townsend. This is lent credence by Tim Riordan's discovery of La Bretagne's passenger manifest—

Roll 528, List 1616, Line 36
1888 3 Dec. ship La Bretagne; Havre to New York

No. 36
Name Frank Townsend
Age 45
Sex M
Calling no occ[upation]
Citizenship USA
Destination NY
Loc of Pass[enger]. 1st Place [class]
# of bags 4

La Bretagne docked in New York at 1.30 pm on Sunday 2nd December.

It would have been difficult for anyone not to recognize such an imposing figure as Tumblety disembarking from La Bretagne, yet the Frederick News [Maryland], Tuesday 4th December 1888, reported—

"According to the detectives he arrived on the French steamship La Bretagne, from Havre, and although there were a dozen or more reporters on the pier when he landed, all failed to recognize him."

All except reporters from the New York World.

New York World, Tuesday 4th December 1888—

"When the French line steamer La Bretagne, from Havre, came to her dock at 1:30 Sunday afternoon two keen-looking men pushed through the crowd and stood on either side of the gangplank. They glanced impatiently at the passengers until a big, fine-looking man hurried across the deck and began to descend. He had a heavy, fierce-looking mustache, waxed at the ends; his face was pale and he looked hurried and excited. He wore a dark blue ulster, with belt buttoned. He carried unders his arm two canes and an umbrella fastened together with a strap.

"He hurriedly engaged a cab, gave the directions in a low voice and was driven away. The two keen-looking men jumped into another cab and followed him. The fine-looking man was the notorious Dr. Francis Twomblety or Tumblety, and his pursuers were two of Inspector Byrnes's best men, Crowley and Hickey."

The most intriguing thing about this story [plus those of the New York Times, New York Herald and New York Tribune] is why it didn't break until Tuesday 4th December. One of the most notorious characters of the past thirty years—a charlatan, quack doctor, "suspect" in the Jack the Ripper murders and a $1500 bail jumper on charges under the "Modern Babylon Act"—had arrived in America on Sunday 2nd December, yet nothing appeared in the New York press on Monday 3rd December.

More interesting is the perspective of the New York World story. Who wrote it? Was a New York World reporter standing on the dock watching Crowley and Hickey as they followed the man with "a heavy, fierce-looking mustache, waxed at the ends" [whom no other reporters recognized] as he "hurriedly engaged a cab, gave the directions in a low voice and was driven away"?

Did a New York World reporter follow Crowley and Hickey as they "jumped into another cab and followed him"?

Did a New York World reporter watch as—"Dr. Twomblety's cab stopped at Fourth Avenue and 10th Street, where the doctor got out, paid the driver and stepped briskly up the steps of No. 75 East 10th Street, the Arnold House. He pulled the bell, and, as no one came, he grew impatient and walked a little further down the street to No. 81. Here there was another delay in responding to his summons, and he became impatient that he tried the next house No. 79. This time there was a prompt answer to his ring and he entered. It was just 2:20 when the door closed on Dr. Twomblety and he has not been seen since"?

The story reads more like a clumsily-constructed police communique.

The New York Herald added a detail to the NY World story, saying that Tumblety had "a small steamer trunk placed on the box" of his cab. Presumably, after paying off the cab, Tumblety hauled this and his "two canes and an umbrella fastened together with a strap" up and down East 10th Street as he searched for lodgings, starting at No. 75 before doubling back on himself by calling at No. 81 before going to No. 79. And why was Mrs. McNamara at No. 79, "a fat, good-natured old lady and a firm believer in the doctor who is an old friend" his third choice of landlady? Why didn't Tumblety go straight to her house?

La Bretagne docked at 1.30 pm. By 2.20 pm Tumblety was inside Mrs McNamara's lodging house in mid-Manhattan, door closed, never to be seen again. The ship carried 390 1st Class passengers. Forty minutes to disembark, clear immigration and customs and reach mid-Manhattan when all baggage had to be gathered together on the dock for inspection and signed declarations of ownership presented to the customs inspector? That's good going.

Tumblety could have speeded things up by opting to have inspection of his baggage [except for the small steamer trunk] postponed. Such baggage was sent to the appraiser's store for later inspection.

This he may have done, for on Monday 3rd December "the bell of No. 79 was kept merrily jingling all day long . . . Mrs. McNamara at first said the doctor was stopping there. He had spent the night in his room, she said, and in the morning he had gone downtown to get his baggage. He would be back at 2 o'clock." This tallies with the entry on La Bretagne's passenger manifest which records that Frank Townsend had "4 bags".

Mrs McNamara next told the New York World that "the doctor had not been in her house for two months; that he was abroad, poor dear gentleman, for his health; she had heard some of those awful stories about him, but bless his heart, he would not hurt a chicken! Why he never owed her a cent in his life, and once he had walked up three flights of stairs to pay her a dollar!" And later the same day that "she had no idea who Dr. Twomblety was. She didn't know anything about him, didn't want to know anything about him, didn't want to know anything and could not understand why she was bothered so much."

So who was the person Crowley and Hickey followed from the docks to Mrs McNamara's house, the six-foot-tall man with the "heavy, fierce-looking mustache, waxed at the ends" who had crossed the Atlantic aboard the steamship La Bretagne?

New York World, Tuesday 4th December 1888—

"He [Tumblety/Townsend] must have kept himself very quiet on the La Bretagne, for a number of passengers who were interviewed could not remember having seen any one answering his description."

And on a more circumspect note the New York Times, same day, reported—

"The man who is supposed to be Tumblety came over on the steamship as 'Frank Townsend', and kept in his stateroom, under the plea of sickness."

New York Herald, Tuesday 4th December 1888—

"Although he shipped under a false name, Chief Inspector Byrnes knew of his coming and had the arrival of the French vessel watched."

Tumblety had obviously succeeded in slipping unnoticed past French and British security at Le Havre, so from whom or where had Byrnes and the US press got this information? Who other than Tumblety himself could have known he was travelling under an assumed name?

In a Casebook dissertation "Tumblety Talks" Roger Palmer opined—

"Over the next several weeks [following his arrival] Tumblety's exact whereabouts remained unknown. It is sometimes argued that he sat cozily and openly in New York City and could have been easily contacted by Scotland Yard. Such was not the case. Tumblety did not resurface in New York for nearly eight weeks . . ."

So where was Tumblety during this period? Not only had he outwitted Scotland Yard; it seems he had also outwitted New York's finest, who had been so scathing about the failure of London's Metropolitan Police to catch Jack the Ripper.

On 6th December a New York World headline read "Dr. Tumblety Has Flown," the story reporting a carpenter living opposite Mrs McNamara as saying that in the early hours of the previous day a man answering Tumblety's description left Mrs McNamara's house, walked to Fourth Avenue and took an uptown [trolley] car."

The next address we have for Tumblety is Mrs Helen Lamb's lodging house at 204 Washington Street, Brooklyn. A report in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 28th January 1889, stated that Tumblety, under the name of Mr Smith, had booked in on or about 17th January 1889.

This leaves us a seven-week period during which to account for Tumblety's whereabouts.

Happily, a clue was provided by the Syracuse Daily Journal.

On 4th December 1888, the day before he was seen leaving Mrs McNamara's boarding house at 79 East 10th Street and seven weeks before he reappeared in Washington Street, Brooklyn, the newspaper reported—

"Dr. Francis Tumblety, the [?] American suspected by the London authorities of being implicated in the Whitechapel atrocities, arrived at New York Sunday from Havre . . . As there was no charge or indictment against him he was not taken into custody.

"He is now stopping at a Washington Street boarding house. Inspector Byrne [?] will keep an eye on him for a time in case he is wanted."

Clearly a case of journalistic clairvoyance.

I would respectfully submit that Tumblety was not the passenger who arrived in New York as Frank Townsend; that Tumblety arrived in New York some time later in January 1889.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

It looks like Howard Brown resolved this issue. When Tumblety checked into the St. John's Hospital to die, he used the alias of 'Frank Townsend'.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=19343

Sincerely,
Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Thank you.

What was Brampton's advice to constables regarding bail in the edition of the Police Code current in 1888?

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Absolutely correct Simon,

Apologies to Trevor and his researcher.

Though the granting of bail is clearly stating as appearing in later editions.

Monty

Actually I retract that apology Simon,

Seeing as the line Trevor uses reads -

"No questions should be put to a person after he has been arrested, or indeed after it has been decided to arrest him, except such as may be necessary to ascertain whether he is the person wanted"

This does not appear in Bramptons address but in the 1912 Police code. It also does not appear in the 1889 or 1895 editions of the code and therefore not applicable to Tumblety

The quote is not connected to 1882 but after 1895.

So yeah, misleading.....and no cigar.

Monty

[mklhawley]

The other side don't have an argument. All the other side say is that yes he was bailed and they say prove he wasn't.

But of course if you are going to argue then the other side should produce proof to prop up their contention which they have not done in any way.

They have simply relied on Stewart Evans saying he was bailed and giving an explanation which is wrong both in law and in practice.

If you want to rely on the balance of probability then putting all the evidence together coupled with the legal procedures the evidence clearly without question tip the scales in favor of him not being bailed.

Trevor, your trolling. By your own admisison, you didn't read my article, so how on earth can you say that I don't have an argument? This is proof that you're in denial.

I, on the other hand, have no issues with you posting, because it reveals to other readers your convoluted logic.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Chris]

That is why it is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

That is just your opinion !

That's a nice surrealistic touch to end our discussion on.

[Monty]

Hi All,

The "Address to Police Constables on their Duties" by Justice Henry Hawkins [later Lord Brampton], was written in 1882.

Regards,

Simon

Absolutely correct Simon,

Apologies to Trevor and his researcher.

Though the granting of bail is clearly stating as appearing in later editions.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

The issue is not so much what the legal situation was - there is no doubt that he could legally have been bailed. The issue is what the surviving records can tell us about what actually happened. It's clear from the previous discussion that there isn't enough information in those records to tell us whether Tumblety was bailed - as you agreed in the post I linked to above.

So what it comes down to is speculation about whether it would have been likely for him to be bailed, given the circumstances we know of. That is why it is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

That is just your opinion !

Not speculation at all. I would suggest you go back read it all again and come back to me if there is anything you then don't understand. Because clearly there are things you cant comprehend or don't want to comprehend.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The "Address to Police Constables on their Duties" by Justice Henry Hawkins [later Lord Brampton], was written in 1882.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

The problem with the issues surrounding Tumblety and his bail is the the legal aspects which clearly cause the everyday researcher to become confused. To me being in the legal system its crystal clear.

The issue is not so much what the legal situation was - there is no doubt that he could legally have been bailed. The issue is what the surviving records can tell us about what actually happened. It's clear from the previous discussion that there isn't enough information in those records to tell us whether Tumblety was bailed - as you agreed in the post I linked to above.

So what it comes down to is speculation about whether it would have been likely for him to be bailed, given the circumstances we know of. That is why it is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

[Monty]

Posted by Trevor Marriott -

6. This arrest and interview with regards to the murders doesn't sit well i refer to the police code and refer you to Lord Brampton address to police officers

http://www.forgottenfutures.co.uk/policecode/code2.htm

"No questions should be put to a person after he has been arrested, or indeed after it has been decided to arrest him, except such as may be necessary to ascertain whether he is the person wanted"

This is in connection to the 1912, 15th Edition of the Police Code, many years after the 1888 Whitechapel Murders and Tumblety's arrest.

Here is the full link - http://www.forgottenfutures.co.uk/policecode/code0.htm

Therefore holds no direct relevance to the topic in hand.

Again, another attempt to mislead.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you really not understand what I mean when I say it is a matter of opinion?

I think there is enough there for people to readily accept or reject the facts and not have to form an opinion.

The problem with the issues surrounding Tumblety and his bail is the the legal aspects which clearly cause the everyday researcher to become confused. To me being in the legal system its crystal clear.

[Chris]

If you want to rely on the balance of probability then putting all the evidence together coupled with the legal procedures the evidence clearly without question tip the scales in favor of him not being bailed.

Do you really not understand what I mean when I say it is a matter of opinion?