Crowley's Request - Howard never got the memo

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting

It's interesting to see you two (an odd couple) repeating errors to suit your own madcap theories. But carry on, you obviously amuse someone. Apropos of Tumblety, you both obviously look upon him as a very serious suspect otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't be wasting so much of your valuable time on him. As I do not engage in long debates about suspects I shall not carry on with this one. By the way Trevor, do grow up, your antics do not become a man of your age.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's interesting to see you two (an odd couple) repeating errors to suit your own madcap theories. But carry on, you obviously amuse someone. Apropos of Tumblety, you both obviously look upon him as a very serious suspect otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't be wasting so much of your valuable time on him. As I do not engage in long debates about suspects I shall not carry on with this one. By the way Trevor, do grow up, your antics do not become a man of your age.

Oh contraire

I think Tumblety is a non starter for all the reasons I have documented.So you are mistaken there. However you clearly have an agenda to suggest he is.

I don't have any mad cap theories the facts coupled with police and court procedures in 1888 corroborate what you perceive to be madcap theories.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

You're right. The fantasists do reign supreme.

The real madcap theory is that perpetuated by those people who, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever, believe hook, line and sinker that there was such a person as Jack the Ripper, that the police wore white hats, that their reports reflect the true state of affairs and that there was no official jiggery-pokery going on during the ten weeks of the Whitechapel murders.

Watch this space.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Madcap

Oh contraire
I think Tumblety is a non starter for all the reasons I have documented.So you are mistaken there. However you clearly have an agenda to suggest he is.
I don't have any mad cap theories the facts coupled with police and court procedures in 1888 corroborate what you perceive to be madcap theories.

Actually it's au contraire. However, you may like to get your English straight before moving on to French.

As regards the granting of bail by an officer in charge of a police station in Victorian times you may wish to consult the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, section 9; the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, section 71; and the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, section 38. The offence of gross indecency under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, was a misdemeanor, not a felony, and was punishable with a maximum of two years imprisonment. It is necessary to understand what may have been going on in 1888. Don't forget, the Victorian police had a 'ways and means act' the same as you did.

As I described, Tumblety was initially arrested on suspicion of 'being concerned in' the Whitechapel murders, as a Ripper suspect. He tells us this much in his January 1889 interview. As we know, there were dozens of suspects arrested in 1888 on suspicion of the murders on the flimsiest excuse, and just as many released within a day or so when they were either cleared or nothing could be proved. So it would be nothing unusual, in that climate, for Tumblety to be arrested in the same way, as he described.

As I have also endlessly pointed out, they had no hard evidence against Tumblety for the murders and were probably hoping to gain an admission by interrogation which they failed to do. But they had suspicion only and, as you should know, no one can be kept or charged on suspicion not backed by any evidence. That's why so many Ripper suspects were released after arrest on suspicion.

In Tumblety's case, I suggest, they wanted to hold on to him but had nothing, other than the alleged indecency offences that he could be charged with. And they were probably still gathering evidence on those offences. The problem with the offence is well understood when it was looked on as a 'blackmailer's charter'. The 'victims', in Tumblety's case the four named males, were probably willing participators being paid by Tumblety for their services (such as the telegram boys who often provided homosexual favours for money). The problem for the police would be to persuade these males to say that Tumblety had forced them to do what they did (hence the 'by force' wording of the charge), otherwise they would be co-offenders in an indecent act and prostituting themselves. In other words the police needed them as witnesses against Tumblety and not as co-offenders.

My argument is, failing their being able to hold Tumblety as a Ripper suspect (no hard evidence) they released him for the arrest on suspicion as the Ripper then re-arrested him for the gross indecency offences; for which offences he was bailed (and possibly initially failed to answer this bail). Tumblety himself stated he had been held for a couple of days on the Ripper suspect arrest.

The most uncomfortable fact for you is that a Chief Inspector of the Special Branch in 1888 stated, categorically, that 'amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T.' Obviously, you as a madcap modern theorizer think you know better than that well respected department head who was there at the time and knew more than you ever will. The madcap theories I speak of are your weird ideas such as the theft of organs and the use of half an apron as a sanitary towel (or was it as toilet paper?). And you say he does not appear in the Special Branch log (how complete or detailed is it?), but there is that Met index reference to involvement of the Irish party in the murders - and Tumblety was Irish.

[Stewart P Evans]

Agree

Hi Stewart,
You're right. The fantasists do reign supreme.
The real madcap theory is that perpetuated by those people who, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever, believe hook, line and sinker that there was such a person as Jack the Ripper, that the police wore white hats, that their reports reflect the true state of affairs and that there was no official jiggery-pokery going on during the ten weeks of the Whitechapel murders.
Watch this space.
Regards,
Simon

At least we agree on something.

Ah, I was forgetting that it was all a police conspiracy and there was no unknown prostitute murderer in 1888.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

I don't recall saying that it was all a police conspiracy.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi all,

We'll begin with this:

Simon asked a question about why there were no New York news reports on Monday Dec 3, 1888 in regards to Tumblety's arrival on the previous day. That same question was once raised in an article which was printed in the Ripperologist Journal in January 2010. The article was entitled A Splendid Record: The Journalistic Career of Isaac White. The article considered Isaac White (Joseph Pulitzer's top journalist) to have been the lead reporter who covered the Tumblety story for the New York World. Here is an excerpt from that Ripperologist article:

A significant question is: Why didn't The World print anything about this important story in its Monday 3 December issue? The news reports concerning the Sunday afternoon arrival of the La Bretagne did not appear until Tuesday 4 December.

The reason for this may have been that on the night of Sunday 2 December Isaac White was packing his suitcase. He boarded a train in New York on the morning of Monday 3 December and headed west. Two days later he was in Council Bluff's, Iowa, where he transferred to a train known as the Golden Gate Special. He arrived at his final destination at 9:45pm on Friday 7 December, when the Golden Gate Special pulled into the San Francisco railroad station.

In the light of the foregoing, Isaac could not have been The World newsman who reported from outside Mrs. McNamara's property in Manhattan from Monday 3 December to Wednesday 5 December. A colleague of his must have done this. But Isaac certainly must be considered as the leading candidate for writing news reports about Tumblety in November 1888, being at the dock for the La Bretagne's arrival on 2 December and interviewing Tumblety in late January 1889. It is even possible that the reason why The World printed nothing about the Littlechild Suspect on Monday 3 December was because the newspaper was in the midst of a change of lead reporter for this story following Isaac's departure from New York.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Blimey. That's an elaborate hammer to crack a walnut.

Any old hack could have parked himself outside Mrs MacNamara's house. If, indeed, the incident took place.

It has been suggested to me that Isaac White wrote the 7th October NY World H-H story, thus implying that John Paul Bocock appropriated it, sexed it up a bit, flogged it to the Atlanta Constitution and had the temerity to slap his own name on it.

Any thoughts on this?

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

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

Simon, you get an inkling of something and then for some reason in your mind it's true, even though it contradicts the evidence.

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.

Latest evidence contradicts this.

Tumblety had obviously succeeded in slipping unnoticed past French and British security at Le Havre

...and this.

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.

Then why did the British papers even report him leaving in late 1888?

The Sheffield and Rotterdam Independent, 5 December 1888
...It is reported by cable from Europe that a certain person, whose name is known, has sailed from Havre for New York, who is famous for his hatred of women, and who has repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character. Whether this will throw any light on the Whitechapel tragedies I must leave the London detectives to decide.

Pall Mall Gazette, 31 December 1888
The supposed inaction of the Whitechapel murderer for a considerable period and the fact that a man suspected of knowing a good deal about this series of crimes left England for this side of the Atlantic three weeks ago, has, says the Telegraph correspondent, produced the impression that Jack the Ripper is in that country.


Sincerely,
Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Let's not forget the Echo, 3rd December 1888—

"There is a reference by a New York Correspondent to the reported sailing from Havre to New York of a "certain person" who is famous for his hatred of women. His name is said to be known. Do the Whitechapel police know of it?"

By the way, it's the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent. Rotterdam is in the Netherlands.

You certainly didn't miss your calling in the world of secret intelligence.

Regards,

Simon

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Let's not forget the Echo, 3rd December 1888—

"There is a reference by a New York Correspondent to the reported sailing from Havre to New York of a "certain person" who is famous for his hatred of women. His name is said to be known. Do the Whitechapel police know of it?"

By the way, it's the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent. Rotterdam is in the Netherlands.

You certainly didn't miss your calling in the world of secret intelligence.

Regards,

Simon

The point is that each year, revelations invariably point towards the reality of Tumblety being a significant suspect, but some people still hold onto old beliefs based upon defunct arguments, such as Ivor Edwards' 1988 piece (just one example).

[Stewart P Evans]

Just to clear up...

With respect Scotland Yard had Tumblety on their radar for the gross indecency offences going back to June 1888. In fact that would even suggest they had him under surveillance from then until his arrest on Nov 7th.
At this point I wil again mention the fact that as is know he was charged on Nov 7th with three offences of gross indecency one fo those was committed on Aug 31st the date of the Polly Nichols murder.
Now if Tumblety was ever spoken to about the murders and I don't believe for one moment that he was then surely that fact alone might have gone a long way to eliminate him.
I would have expected the police to have known all about Tumblety by the time they arrested him. After all those issues you mention above would be easy to acquire in quick time. They wouldn't wait till he was arrested and besides what relevance would some of those facts be with regards to his indecency offences? or for court use.?
His financial means were established following his arrest by details he provided in order to subsequently get bail, and those details would have been confirmed by the police as was the requirement where sureties were asked for or offered up.

You fail to see the situation. Just to clear up a point or two.

Tumblety had been under the notice of the Metropolitan Police for years, not just 1888, hence Littlechild's comment, '...Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard'. The fact that Littlechild states this, and that a dossier was maintained, indicates that this was almost certainly connected with his supposed Fenian connections and activities as an Irish sympathizer, not just homosexual proclivities.

He was not charged on 7 November, that was the date of his initial arrest. Why mention the fact that one of the charges related to an alleged offence committed on 31 August 1888? Surely you are not suggesting that if a person committed a murder in the early hours, Nichols' body was found at around 3.40 a.m., there would not be time over the next twenty hours twenty minutes remaining that day for him to commit an indecency offence?

Of course the police would not 'have known all about him' by the time they arrested him (note the points I mentioned). This is rather a naïve thing for an ex-policeman to say and you surprise me. How would they acquire this knowledge 'in quick time'? They weren't all relevant to indecency offences, they were relevant to suspicion of him being concerned with the murders. His financial means were complicated and knowing them would be needed for the fuller picture, not merely for ascertaining that he had enough to cover a bail surety.

[Stewart P Evans]

Crime Register

The Metropolitan Police crime register index entry showing 'Suggested complicity of Irish Party'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspects

Ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild, to his credit, did not even try to say that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper. To his credit (and unlike Anderson) he stated merely that he was 'amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one.' Also, it cannot be denied that the police had a suggestion that there was 'complicity of [the] Irish Party' (see above). Putting these two together we can see that this is no fanciful theory.

What amazes me is that the anti-Littlechild/Tumblety-ites don't just say that he wasn't 'Jack the Ripper' (which is a fair enough argument), they take it a stage further and say that he wasn't even a suspect - a nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was. Of course, to do so they then have to discredit Littlechild (he was mistaken, prevaricating, etc.) in order to advance their own theories. There were dozens of Whitechapel suspects arrested (of varying degrees of credibility) and Tumblety was one of them. That requires no stretch of the imagination and there is evidence to support it.

[Stewart P Evans]

Tedious

One of the most tedious aspects of 'discussions' like this is that you have to keep repeating yourself, even when your arguments have already appeared in print in the past, but others choose to ignore them.

Apropos of Tumblety arriving in the USA as a fugitive 'from British justice' it is, again, necessary to get this into the correct context. The press reports stated that Inspector Byrnes of the NYPD had been asked by Scotland Yard to watch Tumblety on his arrival. First off, we have to realize that Byrnes, like Tumblety, was an Irish-American and that his sympathies were unlikely to lie with the London Police. It was also noted that Byrnes was not exactly a paragon of virtue (there were reports of corruption against him).

Secondly we have to note that the legal situation regarding Tumblety as a fugitive was not as a Whitechapel suspect (there was no hard evidence) but as a fugitive from bail for offences of gross indecency which was a misdemeanor and for which there were no powers of extradition - Byrnes couldn't therefore arrest Tumblety anyway. The English police's only hope was that they could get Tumblety if he stepped on Canadian soil where British law applied.