"I am a British Subject."

[Mayerling]

FO 5/1615

Secretary of War, War Department, to British Secretary of State

6, August 1873

Sir,

"...I have to say that it is shown by the records of this Department that Dr. Francis Tumblety known as "the Indian Herb Doctor", and passing in St. Louis, Missouri under the alias of Blackburn, was arrested in St. Louis, on the 6th of May 1865, on suspicion of complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln; that he was committed to the Old Capitol Prison on the 10th of May 1865, and that he was released on the 31st of May of that year."

(signed William W. Belknap, Secretary of War)

Belknap acknowledged that Tumblety was using the name Blackburn as an alias, but he wasn't arrested for anything in connection with the name Dr. Luke Blackburn or his alleged "yellow fever plot". Instead, Belknap said that Tumblety was arrested on suspicion of complicity in the assassination. - Joe

Which again leads us to the issue - which assassination plot. Yes, it says "on suspicion of complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln", but while that suggests Booth, it could be that scheme of Quantrill's, which originated in Missouri - where Doc. T. was when arrested for illegally wearing a military uniform before the assassination.

And why did he use the alias of "Blackburn". While Luke Blackburn is associated with that "yellow fever plot", he was an actual physician. He was also a Confederate operative in their enclave of agents in Toronto.

Footnote: Belknap would serve as Secretary of War through most of Grant's two terms (he replaced John Rawlins, who died in 1869; Belknap had distinguished himself attached to Sherman on the latter's invasion of Georgia, fall of Atlanta, and "March to the Sea", so Sherman - Grant's friend and replacement as "General-in-Chief" may have recommended him). However, due to a second marriage to a very attractive but social climbing wife, Belknap got involved in a major scandal selling Indian trading posts for personal profit instead of doing normal government contract auctions. Facing impeachment, Belknap resigned in 1876, but Congress decided to hold impeachment proceedings anyway. This action of Congress turned out to be not only pointless, but illegal.

Jeff

[Robert]

Letter from Thornton to Lord Granville




Catskill Station




18 August 1873







My Lord,




...I addressed a note to Mr. Fish, enquiring what had been the ground of Dr. Tumblety's arrest and imprisonment in May 1865. I also wrote a confidential letter to the British Vice Consul at St. Louis, requesting him to make enquiries upon the subject in that city. Mr. Cooke however was unable to obtain any information further than that Dr. Tumblety had been arrested in consequence of orders from Washington, and that the Police were ignorant of the grounds of the arrest.




...I have now the honour to enclose copy of a note from Mr. Fish, in which he transmits communication, copy of which is also enclosed, from the Secretary of War who states that Dr. Tumblety passed at St. Louis under the alias of Blackburn and was arrested on suspicion of complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln.




I had never yet heard that Dr. Tumblety had passed under the alias of Blackburn; but I am addressing a letter to the Vice Consul at St. Louis, requesting him to endeavour to ascertain whether this assertion is well founded; and I shall have the honour to inform your Lordship of the nature of his answer.




I have the honour to be with the highest Respect,




My Lord,




Your Lordship's most obedient,




Humble servant,




Edward Thornton







********************************







This is from Joe.




Who initially gave the order to arrest Tumblety for complicity in the Lincoln assassination? It is interesting to hear all the different answers to that question.




* According to Mr. Cooke, the British Vice Consul in St. Louis, "Dr. Tumblety had been arrested in consequence of orders from Washington".




* According to page 109 of Tim Riordan's biography of Tumblety, "...it is certain that Col. Baker decided to arrest Tumblety on his own, without orders from the War Department."




* According to Captain Peter Tallon's affidavit, "...the (arrest) order was signed by Major-General Dodge, (Commander of the Department of Missouri)."




* Tumblety's first autobiography was advertised as the "Kidnapping of Dr. Tumblety by order of the Secretary of War of the U.S." According to Tumblety, Edwin M. Stanton was the one to blame for the arrest.







An important result of Thornton's Aug 18th letter was that from this point on, the British Government turned a blatant cold shoulder to Tumblety. The news about Tumblety using an alias name in St. Louis did not go over well with the British diplomats.

[Mayerling]

Letter from Thornton to Lord Granville




Catskill Station




18 August 1873







My Lord,




...I addressed a note to Mr. Fish, enquiring what had been the ground of Dr. Tumblety's arrest and imprisonment in May 1865. I also wrote a confidential letter to the British Vice Consul at St. Louis, requesting him to make enquiries upon the subject in that city. Mr. Cooke however was unable to obtain any information further than that Dr. Tumblety had been arrested in consequence of orders from Washington, and that the Police were ignorant of the grounds of the arrest.




...I have now the honour to enclose copy of a note from Mr. Fish, in which he transmits communication, copy of which is also enclosed, from the Secretary of War who states that Dr. Tumblety passed at St. Louis under the alias of Blackburn and was arrested on suspicion of complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln.




I had never yet heard that Dr. Tumblety had passed under the alias of Blackburn; but I am addressing a letter to the Vice Consul at St. Louis, requesting him to endeavour to ascertain whether this assertion is well founded; and I shall have the honour to inform your Lordship of the nature of his answer.




I have the honour to be with the highest Respect,




My Lord,




Your Lordship's most obedient,




Humble servant,




Edward Thornton







********************************







This is from Joe.




Who initially gave the order to arrest Tumblety for complicity in the Lincoln assassination? It is interesting to hear all the different answers to that question.




* According to Mr. Cooke, the British Vice Consul in St. Louis, "Dr. Tumblety had been arrested in consequence of orders from Washington".




* According to page 109 of Tim Riordan's biography of Tumblety, "...it is certain that Col. Baker decided to arrest Tumblety on his own, without orders from the War Department."




* According to Captain Peter Tallon's affidavit, "...the (arrest) order was signed by Major-General Dodge, (Commander of the Department of Missouri)."




* Tumblety's first autobiography was advertised as the "Kidnapping of Dr. Tumblety by order of the Secretary of War of the U.S." According to Tumblety, Edwin M. Stanton was the one to blame for the arrest.







An important result of Thornton's Aug 18th letter was that from this point on, the British Government turned a blatant cold shoulder to Tumblety. The news about Tumblety using an alias name in St. Louis did not go over well with the British diplomats.

Interesting point on who actually ordered Doc. T.'s arrest in May. I can see the earlier arrest being of a secondary nature (the reason supposedly being Tumblety wearing a military uniform illegally) that Baker or Dodge were behind those (or more likely Baker got Dodge's okay for it), but when it came to the murder of Lincoln Stanton did call all the final shots in the tracking down and gathering of the suspects. Stanton has been suspected by sensationalists as being behind Lincoln's murder as a power grab, but although he had initially thought Lincoln second-rate, after working with the President from 1862 onward he realized the man's brilliance and appreciated it - and became quite friendly and concerned about the President's safety. The assassination was something he had feared might befall his chief and friend for some time, and he actually interfered with the size of the "Ford's Theater" party (he forbade some military friends from going) in the hopes Lincoln would change his mind and not attend the play. After the killing he was determined to get Booth and his associates wherever and whoever they were. Note how after the execution of Mrs. Surratt, Atzerodt, Powell, and Herold he continued to press for the extradition and return of John Surratt from Canada, England, Italy (the Vatican), and finally Egypt, for his trial - but it occurred in 1867 and by that time Stanton was beginning to have problems as Secretary of War with the new chief, Andrew Johnson.

My guess is that it was a Stanton directive to send Tumblety to Washington as a prisoner regarding Lincoln's Assassination in May 1865. But again the same problem - was he cogniscent of Booth's conspiracy or of the one by Quantrill?

Jeff

[Robert]

This is from Joe.



I appreciate all your input, Jeff. You shared some cool stuff about Belknap & William Clarke Quantrill. As for the directive that sent Tumblety by train from St. Louis to the Old Capitol Prison, we know that command was issued by the Assistant Secretary of War, Charles A. Dana. Well, let's get back to the story...





Tumblety arrived in England on 21 July 1871 and he eventually checked into a hotel in London. He mailed the following two letters to Lord Granville from London.







255

Langham Hotel

Langham Place

Regent Street




Sept 2nd 1873




My Lord,




I beg respectfully, to call upon your Lordship's attention to a copy of a letter received from Sir Edward Thornton by me and to request that your Lordship will cause me to be furnished with a copy of any communication that Sir Edward Thornton may have made to your Lordship in this matter and also of your Lordship's reply thereto. My stay in England is protracted at much cost and I am sure I may rely upon your Lordship's direction that prompt attention shall be given hereto.




I have the honor to be




Your Lordship's most




obedient & humble Servant




Francis Tumblety M.D.







******************************




No. 58 Margaret Street




Cavendish Square




Sept 9th 1873




My Lord,




Having removed my quarters from 255 Langham Hotel, I beg very respectfully to call your Lordship's attention to my letter under date 2nd inst. with respect to which I am of course most anxious to learn that it has reached your Lordship's hands as I am sure I may be satisfied that is tantamount to its receiving your immediate consideration.




May I beg the favour of your Lordship's acknowledgment hereof at your early convenience.







***************************




Letter from Foreign Office to Tumblety




F.O. Sept 12 1873




Sir,




I am directed by Earl Granville to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd and 9th instant relative to your claim against the United States Govt. and I am to state to you that His Lordship cannot decide as to the course he should pursue in the matter until he hears further from H.M. Minister at Washington on the merits of your case.




I am to add that Lord Granville cannot furnish you with copies of his correspondence with Sir E. Thornton.

[Robert]

From Joe.




Tumblety sure had plenty of audacity by asking Lord Granville to mail him a copy of the private correspondences that Lord Granville had with Sir Edward Thornton. The following week, Tumblety pestered Lord Granville again with a letter. That was the last straw. Lord Granville decided to put an end to the matter.







Letter from Foreign Office to Tumblety




Dr. Tumblety




F.O. Sept 29 1873




Sir,




With reference to your letter of 18th instant I am directed by Earl Granville to inform you that nothing has been heard from Sir E. Thornton on the subject of your claim since the date of my last letter to you and until his report is received His Lordship cannot make any other communication to you.







**********************







As far as we could tell, Thornton did not offer any additional material to Lord Granville in regards to Tumblety's use of the alias Blackburn or of anything else concerning the May 1865 arrest. There were no further communications between Tumblety and Lord Granville that we know of. The same goes for Thornton.




<script id="gpt-impl-0.775660696992342" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_78.js"></script>Here are a couple of extra tidbits:



* There actually is a "William Clarke Quantrill Society." They have a web site.



* Tumblety was unabashed to ask Lord Granville for a copy of his private communications. But an even bigger display of Tumblety's nerve and audacity occurred during the Feb 19, 1861 New York City parade in honor of President-Elect Abraham Lincoln. It was reported that Tumblety decided to join the procession when the Presidential barouche traveled down Broadway. Right in front of thousands of onlookers, Tumblety (dressed in fake military attire, of course) rode his horse "...immediately behind the carriage containing Old Abe. He attracted as much attention nearly as did Lincoln himself..."

[Mayerling]

From Joe.




Tumblety sure had plenty of audacity by asking Lord Granville to mail him a copy of the private correspondences that Lord Granville had with Sir Edward Thornton. The following week, Tumblety pestered Lord Granville again with a letter. That was the last straw. Lord Granville decided to put an end to the matter.





Letter from Foreign Office to Tumblety




Dr. Tumblety




F.O. Sept 29 1873




Sir,




With reference to your letter of 18th instant I am directed by Earl Granville to inform you that nothing has been heard from Sir E. Thornton on the subject of your claim since the date of my last letter to you and until his report is received His Lordship cannot make any other communication to you.







**********************







As far as we could tell, Thornton did not offer any additional material to Lord Granville in regards to Tumblety's use of the alias Blackburn or of anything else concerning the May 1865 arrest. There were no further communications between Tumblety and Lord Granville that we know of. The same goes for Thornton.




<script id="gpt-impl-0.775660696992342" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_78.js"></script>Here are a couple of extra tidbits:



* There actually is a "William Clarke Quantrill Society." They have a web site.



* Tumblety was unabashed to ask Lord Granville for a copy of his private communications. But an even bigger display of Tumblety's nerve and audacity occurred during the Feb 19, 1861 New York City parade in honor of President-Elect Abraham Lincoln. It was reported that Tumblety decided to join the procession when the Presidential barouche traveled down Broadway. Right in front of thousands of onlookers, Tumblety (dressed in fake military attire, of course) rode his horse "...immediately behind the carriage containing Old Abe. He attracted as much attention nearly as did Lincoln himself..."

In 1873 British and American relations were slowly resuming a friendlier atmosphere after the anger of the British government losing the Alabama Claims Arbitration to the U.S. in 1871. That a so-called British citizen was demanding action from the British government on his own personal demands for restitution on his claims from the U.S. probably annoyed Granville and Her Majesty's Government (Gladstone's ministry), especially as the more that was learned the more dubious Doc. T was becoming. Fortunately later in 1873 relations between the two countries improved, when Sir Austen Layard, Minister for Britain in Madrid, gave his help to the U.S. (still under Secretary of State Hamilton Fish's diplomatic guidance) in settling the "Virginius" Affair with the Spanish government.

I'm not surprised that there is a William Quantrill fan club. To many Missourians he was a misunderstood Confederate patriot, not a bloodthirsty killer. One man who surprisingly spoke up for Quantrill (I take it was due to being in his dotage) was former President Harry S. Truman in his last book, "Plain Speaking". Truman, if you recall, was from Missouri, and lived in Independence.

Assistant Secretary of War Charles Dana later was better known as the owner and editor of the New York "Sun" in the 1870s - 1897 (when he died). Under his editorialship the "Sun" was widely considered the best proofread and edited daily newspaper in the U.S.

Jeff

[mklhawley]

From Joe.


There is a slight correction to be made on Post 64. A sentence was typed:


"Tumblety arrived in England on 21 July 1871..."


That year was 1873, not 1871.


As for Post 65, I'm sorry for the computer glitch that appeared toward the end of that post. Sometimes things pop up unexpectedly when a message travels from my computer to Robert's computer to the Casebook message boards !!


There are only a small handful of letters that remain to be posted. We will get back to doing that next weekend. We should be finished with everything before Christmas.

[David Orsam]

From Joe.

Tumblety opened a medical office in Liverpool in Sept 1874 and he rapidly made money there. Things were going his way, so he decided to resurrect his old case against the U.S. Government. There was a new Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in London at this time, so Tumblety tried his luck with him.

Letter from Tumblety to the Earl of Derby

177 Duke Street
Liverpool

30 September 1874

My Lord,

Earl Granville having informed me in a letter dated, Jan 9 1873 that my claim against the United States Government, for having arrested and imprisoned me on two occasions in the year 1865, would be investigated by the Claims Commission, will your Lordship be good enough to inform me if my claim was included in the award recently made by that commission.

I am,

My Lord,

Your Lordship's most Obedient Humble Servant,

Francis Tumblety, M.D.


*******************************

Letter from the Earl of Derby to Tumblety

7 October 1874

I am directed by the Earl of Derby to transmit to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo relative to your claim against the United States Government and I am to state to you that the claim in question was not included in the award made by the Mixed Commission.

That portion of your claim which was founded on your arrest in March 1865, was as you are aware, brought before the Commission but by the advice of your Counsel, you did not offer any testimony with regard to it, and it was disallowed.

The second part of your claim arose out of acts committed in the month of May 1865 and could not therefore be brought before the Commission the jurisdiction of which was limited by the Treaty to claims originating between the 13th of April 1861 and the 9th of April 1865.

[David Orsam]

From Joe.

In March 1875, Tumblety resided in London at Cavendish Square. During that month, he wrote a lengthy letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty, George Ward Hunt. He pleaded his case to Hunt, but all Hunt did was pass the letter on to the Foreign Office. Sir Philip Currie stepped in at this point and wrote the following note of advice to the Foreign Office.

"This does not seem to require any notice from the (Foreign Office). We have told Dr. Tumblety that we can do nothing for him and that his only chance is to bring his case before a court of claims if it should be established. He applied to the Treasury the other day and is trying all departments of the Govt in turn. Let it alone."

[Mayerling]

From Joe.


Letter from the Earl of Derby to Tumblety

7 October 1874

I am directed by the Earl of Derby to transmit to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo relative to your claim against the United States Government and I am to state to you that the claim in question was not included in the award made by the Mixed Commission.

That portion of your claim which was founded on your arrest in March 1865, was as you are aware, brought before the Commission but by the advice of your Counsel, you did not offer any testimony with regard to it, and it was disallowed.

The second part of your claim arose out of acts committed in the month of May 1865 and could not therefore be brought before the Commission the jurisdiction of which was limited by the Treaty to claims originating between the 13th of April 1861 and the 9th of April 1865.

Fascinating - The second part of Doc T.'s claim is regarding the arrest in May 1865 regarding the assassination of Lincoln (14th of April 1865) but the treaty gave the Claims commission only jurisdiction from the date of the firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor beginning the war in 1861 to the date of the surrender of General Robert E. Lee's Army to General Ulysses S. Grant's Army at Appomattox Court House, Virginia on the 9th April 1865. It does not stretch to the surrenders of Generals Joseph E. Johnston's and William Hardee's armies to General William T. Sherman in North Carolina on 26th April 1865, nor to the final surrenders of Generals Richard Taylor in Alabama on 8th of May 1865 and Edmund Kirby-Smith in Texas on 25th of May 1865, both to General Edward R.S. Canby. Technically those are the orders of the final surrenders of the main Confederate forces in 1865*.

[*At sea, Captain James Waddell of the C.S.S. Shenandoah was in the Pacific Ocean and would continue to attack Union whaling ships until the fall of 1865 when a friendly British ship brought him newspapers that informed him that the South's land forces had surrendered, Lincoln had been assassinated and replaced by Vice President Andrew Johnson, and Jefferson Davis captured in Georgia in early May 1865. Waddell never officially surrendered, as there was the possibility his post May attacks on United States ships might make him and his crew liable as pirates (as late as 1860, one Albert Hicks had been hanged in New York City for "piracy on the high seas" when he had murdered his Captain and fellow crewmen on an oyster boat beyond the three mile limit off Brooklyn, New York). He sailed to the nearest British port where he surrendered the Shenandoah to them. Then he and the crew headed for Europe (eventually they all did get home, and were never prosecuted).]

The point is that the cut-off date for the claims the treaty gave the Commission was a bit too early in some respects. One wonders why it was not extended to at least the end of May 1865. Had it been so, Tumblety would have been covered.

Jeff

[Scott Nelson]

From Joe.


Tumblety was back in the United States in 1876, and he had his attorney write a letter to the Earl of Derby on May 3rd. But the letter was a bit over the top. Here are some excerpts from it.

My Lord,

"...in the case of Dr. Tumblety who, eleven years ago, was arrested at St. Louis, USA., taken from thence to Washington, incarcerated for three weeks in a Government prison, and then (when it was discerned to be a case of mistaken identity) liberated after undergoing an ordeal, the effect of which has utterly prostrated his nervous system."

"Thus, a British subject (for Dr Tumblety has ever maintained his fealty to the Crown) who eleven years ago was, without the slightest cause, outraged, robbed, and imprisoned, by the action of the American Government, is coolly informed by the representative of his own country that he is powerless to protect him, or, in plain words, that a British subject has no rights which American officials are bound to respect."

"I enclose your Lordship a copy of the depositions, and I trust that for the honor and dignity of Great Britain, as well as in justice to an innocent subject of the Empire, you will give this matter serious consideration."


*******************************


The Foreign Office responded to Tumblety's attorney on May 22, 1876. It was a respectful letter, but nothing was going to be done to help Tumblety's cause. That was the final correspondence that David Barrat found at the National Archives.

[Scott Nelson]

From Joe.

Appreciation goes out to Scott, Robert, Mike, and David for posting these old letters on this thread. A big 'thank you' obviously goes to David for finding this material at Kew, organizing it, and allowing me to publicly share it here and in the Whitechapel Society Journal.

A 'thank you' also goes out to all who posted on this thread. Especially Jeff who provided us with extra details about many of the 19th century personages who popped up along the way during the story.

I thought this thread would be a cool holiday treat for those who are interested in this Ripper suspect. These letters gave us an understanding at what was going on behind the scenes of this lengthy legal dispute. Tumblety failed in his quest to obtain $100,000 of settlement money. In fact, he didn't receive a dime. In his autobiographies, he publicly derided Edwin Stanton and Colonel James Baker for causing his troubles in 1865. But in these private letters that David found, Tumblety was engaged in an eleven-year duel with British diplomats, not American ones. It ended with Tumblety coming up empty-handed and probably feeling bitter about how the U.S. Government mistreated him and how the British Government eventually dismissed him.

I hope everyone has a joyous Christmas season and good luck to all in 2016.

[Mayerling]

From Joe.


Tumblety was back in the United States in 1876, and he had his attorney write a letter to the Earl of Derby on May 3rd. But the letter was a bit over the top. Here are some excerpts from it.

My Lord,

"...in the case of Dr. Tumblety who, eleven years ago, was arrested at St. Louis, USA., taken from thence to Washington, incarcerated for three weeks in a Government prison, and then (when it was discerned to be a case of mistaken identity) liberated after undergoing an ordeal, the effect of which has utterly prostrated his nervous system."

"Thus, a British subject (for Dr Tumblety has ever maintained his fealty to the Crown) who eleven years ago was, without the slightest cause, outraged, robbed, and imprisoned, by the action of the American Government, is coolly informed by the representative of his own country that he is powerless to protect him, or, in plain words, that a British subject has no rights which American officials are bound to respect."

"I enclose your Lordship a copy of the depositions, and I trust that for the honor and dignity of Great Britain, as well as in justice to an innocent subject of the Empire, you will give this matter serious consideration."


*******************************


The Foreign Office responded to Tumblety's attorney on May 22, 1876. It was a respectful letter, but nothing was going to be done to help Tumblety's cause. That was the final correspondence that David Barrat found at the National Archives.

Hi Scott,

Please send my complements to Joe his complement to me for my postings of information on some of the people mentioned. And my thanks to David and the rest of you for the new research and postings on this thread.

I emphasized the comment from Doc. T. in his last pleading letter that I hope someone can explain. He said that he was held in prison in Washington for three weeks, and then released because it was a case of mistaken identity. Does anyone know for whom Tumblety was mistaken for?

Jeff

[Robert]

From Joe,




In the May 3, 1876 letter, Tumblety's attorney wrote the bracketed statement about how Tumblety's May 1865 arrest was eventually "discerned to be a case of mistaken identity". I'd bet the house that Tumblety himself dictated that statement to his attorney. As for Jeff's question about who Tumblety was supposedly mistaken for, we can find that answer in Tumblety's autobiography. He wrote:




"My arrest appears to have grown out of a statement made in a low licentious sheet, published in New York, to the effect that Dr. (Luke) Blackburn, who had figured so unenviously in the hellish fever plot, was no other person than myself. In reply to that statement I would most respectfully say to an ever generous public that I do not know this fiend in human form, named Dr. Blackburn, nor have I ever seen him in my life."




So Dr. Luke Blackburn probably was the man who Tumblety's attorney made reference to in the May 3, 1876 letter. For what it is worth, Sanford Conover would later write:




"(Tumblety) was arrested in St. Louis on suspicion of being Luke P. Blackburn...It is perfectly clear that Tumblety purposely brought about his own arrest by sending anonymous letters to the Federal authorities to the effect that Blackburn and himself were identical."




Those alleged "anonymous letters" have never surfaced.

[Mayerling]

From Joe,




In the May 3, 1876 letter, Tumblety's attorney wrote the bracketed statement about how Tumblety's May 1865 arrest was eventually "discerned to be a case of mistaken identity". I'd bet the house that Tumblety himself dictated that statement to his attorney. As for Jeff's question about who Tumblety was supposedly mistaken for, we can find that answer in Tumblety's autobiography. He wrote:




"My arrest appears to have grown out of a statement made in a low licentious sheet, published in New York, to the effect that Dr. (Luke) Blackburn, who had figured so unenviously in the hellish fever plot, was no other person than myself. In reply to that statement I would most respectfully say to an ever generous public that I do not know this fiend in human form, named Dr. Blackburn, nor have I ever seen him in my life."




So Dr. Luke Blackburn probably was the man who Tumblety's attorney made reference to in the May 3, 1876 letter. For what it is worth, Sanford Conover would later write:




"(Tumblety) was arrested in St. Louis on suspicion of being Luke P. Blackburn...It is perfectly clear that Tumblety purposely brought about his own arrest by sending anonymous letters to the Federal authorities to the effect that Blackburn and himself were identical."




Those alleged "anonymous letters" have never surfaced.

Hi Robert,

Merry Christmas to you, Joe, David, and the others who have made a thread on this website (in recent days) wonderful for dealing intelligently with real new information about one of our suspects, even if not exactly dealing with the events of 1888. Perhaps that is why this thread has not been polluted with suggestions that when Tumblety's chambers were ransacked (as he claimed) there was no hidden doorway that materialized for the Union soldiers, nor was the bed in all kinds of crazy positions and sizes. I really am thankful for that.

Currently I am reading Edward Steers' excellent account of the assassination, "Blood on the Moon". Although Tumblety is not mentioned Steers does mention Luke Blackburn's biological warfare scheme in some detail, and hopefully as I progress in the book possibly Tumblety may appear (he is not in the index though).

Obviously, if those letters of Doc. T., claiming he's Blackburn, ever turn up - a big if - they'd be more likely in some archives on this side of the pond, not in England's.

Jeff