New Findings on Tumblety

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike, well book read, will need to reread later this week.

First impressions:

Good research, well written.

Have to say not entirely convinced, but that’s always going to be the case.

Will say however it has pushed the good Doctor from around No 10 on my list to about equal 6 or 7.

congratulations, very well done.

respectfully

Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks. Now, the facts will act as a tiny sand grain irritating your preconceived beliefs, eventually raising Dr. T to at least number 3!

Sincerely,

Mike

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Thanks. Now, the facts will act as a tiny sand grain irritating your preconceived beliefs, eventually raising Dr. T to at least number 3!

Sincerely,

Mike

Actually Mike, around 10 years back I had him in my top 3.

He sort of slipped down.

anyway very well done.

steve

[mklhawley]

Actually Mike, around 10 years back I had him in my top 3.

He sort of slipped down.

anyway very well done.

steve

Surprisingly, there's even more. But, that's for later...

[Errata]

I've always been curious if Tumblety ranks higher among those in the American South, because when you get a character that bizarre in the South, he likely does have something lurking in the closet. Or something loathsome in his fridge.

Or he knits. But it's one of the two.

[jmenges]

From Joe.


Cook wrote that these broadcasts commenced on 24 August 1937. But a query directed to the New Zealand National Library proved that no such broadcast took place on that date. A few Casebook threads popped up on this subject matter in 2005 & 2008, and some serious questions developed about whether or not Captain Melville actually did make these broadcasts.

I would like to congratulate Roger and thank Joe, Roger and Mike for making me aware of this discovery some months ago, but swore me to secrecy.

Back in 2008 I enlisted the aid of New Zealander and Casebooker Damon Bailey to search the records available at The Alexander Turnbull Library in Wellington (none were then searchable online) in an attempt to locate the Melville radio broadcast. Just to clarify the scope of our search back then, after we confirmed that the very specific date given in Cook's book of 24 August 1937 was incorrect, we had to make a guess (incorrectly as it turned out) that the broadcast may have taken place in the Autumn, we also searched through microfilm records for the time period of 20 August through 24 September 1937, and then the entire months of August and September in the years 1936, 1938 and 1939.

When I spoke to Andrew Cook he stated to me that there was "certainly no record" of the talk existing (?) and was under the belief that the series of talks took place on a "regularly scheduled program rather than being given a slot of it's own". So it makes me wonder from Roger's discovery, that Cook mentioning "sometime between 1936 and 1938", coupled with his comments to me, whether Cook even bothered to locate the broadcasts at all and simply invented the date of 24 August 1937.

In the end what is extremely satisfying is that what once was a claim that had no evidence to support it other than a family story 70 years old now has been proven to have been true. But what is unfortunate, as stated above, is that as far as we know now, the content of those broadcasts are lost.

But this has taught me, at least, never to say never.

JM

[Trevor Marriott]

This is from Joe Chetcuti.

It is good to hear that the Baltimore Ripper Conference was an enjoyable experience for those in attendance. I'm glad that Mike Hawley successfully made his inaugural talk to a Ripper audience. I'd like to go over two of the topics that Mike touched upon.

The arrest of the medical man at the Euston train station on Saturday Nov 17, 1888 has been chewed over by Ripperologists for many years. The suspected man apparently left his boarding house at 109 Rea Street in Birmingham and took the train to Euston where he was promptly taken into custody by Detective Sergeant Stephen White. Old newspapers have been searched for many years, but nobody has come up with any article that publicly named the arrested medical man. It is known that on Dec 1, 1888 a Canadian Deputy Minister revealed in a private letter that Dr. Tumblety was the train traveler from Birmingham who was nabbed upon his arrival in London. Newspapers such as the New York Sun and the Washington Evening Star spoke of an arrest of Dr. Tumblety that had occurred during the weekend of Nov 17-18, 1888. But those news reports did not specifically link Tumblety's arrest with that of the Birmingham man's arrest.

We can now congratulate Mike Hawley who recently discovered a Canadian newspaper article that originated from a London, England news dispatch sent on Sunday Nov 18, 1888. The article informed its readers that "On the arrival of the Birmingham train" a suspect who the report referred to as Dr. Kumblety, "was arrested on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer." This was the first time the arrested Birmingham medical man was identified in newspaper print, and the identification was in agreement with the private letter which was later authored by the Canadian Deputy Minister.

As for the boarding house on Rea Street, I asked a reference librarian to check the 1888 & 1889 Birmingham City Directories. They are stored at the Library of Birmingham. The librarian reported that the address of 109 & 110 Rea Street was listed as a Model Lodging House with John Eades as its superintendent. No names of the tenants were given.

As for Tumblety's whereabouts during Nov 17-18, he was free on bail when the weekend began. Also at that time, he had no intention of facing the music for his alleged indecent assault crimes. David Barrat has shown that Tumblety did not even make an appearance at the Old Bailey to render a plea to the misdemeanor charge against him, despite the fact that he was expected to be at that court on Monday Nov 19th.

If you are going to present the argument that Tumblety could not have been the arrested train commuter from Birmingham, then you will certainly have some mountains to hurdle. Especially if your contention is based upon the notion that, "Tumblety would have been much too busy on that weekend making legal preparations for his imminent court appearance in London." Tumblety's preparation for his court date at the Old Bailey was probably limited to having a brief message sent to his defense counsel, Archibald Bodkin. That message would have amounted to something as simple as, "Do whatever is necessary to get me a postponement." As it turned out, a postponement request was indeed granted without fuss by the court on Nov 20th. Tumblety obviously did not tie himself down with this legal matter on the weekend of Nov 17-18, and he disregarded any prospect of having to make a mandatory appearance at the Old Bailey.

Thats conjecture on Joes part and should be ignored by posters on here

Tumblety`s barrister would not have been able to obtain a postponement see below

"Where the application is made by the defendant, he will be remanded and detained in custody until the next assizes or sessions; but where the application is made by the prosecutor, it is in the direction of the court either to detain the defendant in custody or admit him to bail, or to discharge him on his own recognizance’s."

An additional item I'd like to share on this Euston topic comes from the Birmingham Daily Post. (Chris Phillips helped me find it a few years ago.) The Daily Post's article on Nov 19, 1888 hinted that the Euston train station had been under surveillance for a period of time:

"The Press Association believes that police authorities have received some information to the effect that the Whitechapel Murderer is supposed to travel up from Manchester, Birmingham, or some other town in the Midlands for the purpose of committing the crimes. Detectives have been engaged at Willesden and Euston watching the arrival of trains from the Midlands and the north..."

The Daily Colonist of Victoria, British Columbia was the newspaper that printed the London news dispatch that identified the arrested Birmingham man as having been Dr. Kumblety. The date on the Canadian newspaper was Thursday Nov 22, 1888.

Within the hour, I will go over a second topic that Mike presented at the Baltimore Ripper Conference.

I raise some concerns as to whether this is the same man

The article suggests that the killer travels from the north to London to commit the crimes. No evidence of Tumblety being in the North of England on a regular basis ,and he was not a Birmingham medical man

The article also says the railway station had been under surveillance for a period of time. Tumbelty had only been out 3 days from his previous arrest.

If as Mike Hawley previously suggested that Tumblety was arrested for the murders on Nov 7th what evidence did the police have for the second arrest which wasn't available to them on Nov 14 the when he was released from prison?

I think the reality is that had they suspected him of being the ripper when in custody the first time, on his release they would have kept him under surveillance. in an attempt to perhaps catch him red handed,

So all those who moved Tumbley up the list of suspects should move him back down

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mklhawley]

If as Mike Hawley previously suggested that Tumblety was arrested for the murders on Nov 7th what evidence did the police have for the second arrest which wasn't available to them on Nov 14 the when he was released from prison?

Keep raising your concerns, Trevor. People read when you post (not sure why?)! However, your above statement is incorrect. I do not believe Tumblety was arrested on suspicion on November 7, he was arrested for gross indecency and indecent assault. Also, the November 14 committal hearing had nothing to do with the Ripper case.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Keep raising your concerns, Trevor. People read when you post (not sure why?)! However, your above statement is incorrect. I do not believe Tumblety was arrested on suspicion on November 7, he was arrested for gross indecency and indecent assault. Also, the November 14 committal hearing had nothing to do with the Ripper case.

Mike

Well I am sure you did say that, but in any event it matters not because we know he was in custody up until Nov 14, 3 days before this arrest as reported. So they had every opportunity to arrest him, or speak to him, either on his initial arrest, any time up to Nov 14, or even re arrest him on Nov 14 when he got bail. Had they suspected him they would have moved heaven and earth to try to prove him to be the killer.

So either the newspaper article is wrong or its not Tumblety.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Keep raising your concerns, Trevor. People read when you post (not sure why?)! However, your above statement is incorrect. I do not believe Tumblety was arrested on suspicion on November 7, he was arrested for gross indecency and indecent assault. Also, the November 14 committal hearing had nothing to do with the Ripper case.

Mike

Did you forget to mention this newspaper article it reads different to the one you cite it refers to Sat Nov 17th

ST JAMES GAZETTE
19th NOVEMBER 1888

THE EAST-END MURDERS.

On Saturday afternoon the Birmingham detectives informed the police at Scotland-yard that a man suspected of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders had left that town by train for London. Detectives Leach and White, of the Criminal Investigation Department, proceeded to Willesden junction and Euston respectively, and at the latter station Inspector White detained the person in question, and conveyed him to Scotland-yard. It was stated that he had been staying at a common lodging-house in Birmingham since Monday last. The suspected person was a medical man who was some years ago practising in London, He was of gentlemanly appearance and manners and somewhat resembled the description given by witnesses at the late inquest. After being closely questioned as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders, and supplying a satisfactory account of himself, he was liberated.

Look at the date if this is correct it couldn't be Tumblety because on the Monday he was still locked up not released until Nov 14th

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[wigngown]

Mike,
I'm buying it at a very reasonable price (under £4.00) & look forward to reading it.

Best of luck, & hope the sales go well.

Best regards.

[PaulWilliams]

The Birmingham Post of 19 November informs us that the suspect had been in Birmingham since the previous Monday, 12 November, and watched by the Police from two days after that, when they were told of his presence. It was not the idea of the Birmingham police to arrest him but they telegraphed that he should be watched. He had previously practised medicine in London with another gentleman of some repute. After giving a satisfactory account of himself he was liberated. Almost destitute it was believed that he had borrowed the money for his fare to London.

Mr Eades, manager of the lodging house, in Rea Street wrote to the Birmingham Post to complain of the way they spoke about his establishment. The following day the paper acknowledged his letter, commenting that "a model lodging house is, of course, a strange place for a medical man to stay at." It also noted that the establishment was a respectable specimen of its class.

[mklhawley]

Mike,
I'm buying it at a very reasonable price (under £4.00) & look forward to reading it.

Best of luck, & hope the sales go well.

Best regards.

Thank you, wigngown. There is a subtle difference between The Ripper's Haunts and my Baltimore lecture; i.e., target audience. My lecture was directed towards those with a good understanding of the Whitechapel murders, thus, I focused specifically on Tumblety being considered a suspect by Scotland Yard AND his viability as a credible candidate for Jack the Ripper by modern standards. The Ripper's Haunts does this also, but a publisher is keenly interested in marketing to a broader base. In short, I made it a fun read (Chamber of Horrors wax museums, elixir of life theories, Jekyll and Hyde, etc), but it's still loaded with evidence.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

For your perusal

1)

The Star
LONDON. MONDAY, 19 NOVEMBER, 1888.

WHITECHAPEL
The London Police Blunder Over a Birmingham Suspect.

Considerable excitement was caused in London yesterday by the circulation of a report that a medical man had been arrested at Euston, upon arrival from Birmingham, on a charge of suspected complicity in the Whitechapel murders. It was stated that the accused had been staying at a common lodging-house in Birmingham since Monday last, and the theory was that if, as was supposed by the police, he was connected with the East-end crimes, he left the metropolis by an early train on the morning of the tragedies. The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been

SEEN IN COMPANY WITH KELLY

early on the morning that she was murdered. Upon being minutely questioned as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders, the suspect was able to furnish a satisfactory account of himself, and was accordingly liberated. It has since transpired that he has been watched by Birmingham police for the last five days, and when he left that town on Saturday the Metropolitan police were advised to continue to "watch" him, not to arrest him. But, in spite of this warning, the London police seem to have stupidly warned the man that he was suspected.

my emphasis

2)

http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-5093.html

On this thread.. a few things stand out..

Mike Hawley wrote the following in 2010..

"The October 2010 issue of Whitechapel Society Journal has an article written by Joe Chetcuti where he contends that a THIRD arrest of Francis Tumblety took place on Saturday afternoon November 17, 1888 at the Euston train station in London. As he stepped off the train from Birmingham, he was immediately arrested. "

Robert.. on the same thread writes...

Joe and I have been e-mailing each other today. He said that the story about the arrest of the medical man at Euston Station on Nov 17, 1888 was not a "discovery" on his part. The news reports of that arrest were originally posted years ago on the Casebook. And the letter written by Canadian Deputy Minister William Smith has been known for decades.

"(Tumblety) had been living in Birmingham and used to come up to London on Saturday nights. The police have always had their eyes on him every place he went, and finally the Birmingham Police telegraphed to the London Police that he left for London, and on his arrival he was nabbed accordingly." - Deputy Minister Smith.

my emphasis

Wolf Vanderlinden writes the following...

According to the information in the Birmingham (and other) newspapers the man arrested at Euston Station was not Tumblety.

First, the suspect had arrived in Birmingham on Monday, the 12th of November, and had stayed in that city, watched by the Birmingham Police, until he left for London on the 11:45 London and North Western train on Saturday, 17th of November. Tumblety, however, was re-arrested in London sometime between the 14th, when a warrant was re-issued for his arrest, and the 16th of November, when he was remanded on bail of £300 before Magistrate J. L. Hannay. So Tumblety was demonstrably in London when the Euston Station suspect was in Birmingham.

Second, nowhere was the Euston station suspect described as an “American” or an “American doctor.” He was described as “a medical man who was some years ago practicing in London with another gentleman of some repute.” And was described as having “a sandy moustache and whiskers and is, in point of height and otherwise, like the man with whom Kelly is stated to have passed her last night alive.” (The Birmingham Daily Post, 19 November, 1888.) The Euston Station suspect, therefore, fit the man described by George Hutchinson (i.e. 35 or 36 years old and about 5 feet 6 inches tall). Tumblety didn’t practice in London with a doctor “of some repute,” didn’t have “sandy” coloured hair and didn’t fit Hutchinson’s general description of the man he saw with Mary Kelly on the night of her murder.

Third, the Euston Station suspect was “minutely questioned as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders,” and “was able to furnish a satisfactory account of himself, and was accordingly liberated.” (The Daily News, 19 November, 1888.) The Birmingham Police themselves stated “that there was no special reason to suspect the medical assistant…but the fact that a man of his appearance and position was staying at a low lodging-house, and that he had come from London…” (The Belfast News Letter 19 November, 1888). In fact the Birmingham Police didn’t tell Scotland Yard to arrest the man but only that they might want to watch him. The Belfast News Letter finished by stating “he is now believed to be a medical man in reduced circumstances, and had no connection with the Whitechapel outrages.”

Wolf.


my emphasis

3)

http://new-brunswick.net/new-brunswick/ghoststory/ghost1.html

found by Chris Scott and posted on this thread

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/5915.html

from 2003

all this and more... as well as the previously mentioned St. James Newspaper report.

For your perusal.





Phil

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,

Thanks for reminding us of the information prior to the new discovery.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

I'm all for new work and articles being found.. but being totally neutral here....I really have to say here that one swallow does not make a summer.
This Birmingham suspect may well have been arrested.

There is no real evidence it WAS Tumblety. There are reports it was not. (That's a counter argument of sorts I suppose)

Additionally. Lets boil this down to the nitty gritty shall we?

Even if Tumblety WAS arrested on suspicion of involvement in (the Whitechapel murders) or of being the Whitechapel murderer himself...

Many many many were likewise arrested. Of being exactly the same thing.

And many many many were... like Tumblety.. this Birmingham train suspect...RELEASED from Police custody.

In other words.. I cannot add further weight on this man's veracity of being the Whitechapel murderer I'm afraid. Perhaps you do. I do not.

The nitty gritty is quite simple Mike. You can talk and explain for as many hours as you see fit, but there is simply no evidence he was the murderer. None at all. I mean that in all respect. No evidence Mike.

Especially when you very quietly jump over the very first article I presented... the Euston train suspect...

"The suspected man was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description of the person declared by witnesses at the inquest to have been

SEEN IN COMPANY WITH KELLY

early on the morning that she was murdered. Upon being minutely questioned as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders, the suspect was able to furnish a satisfactory account of himself, and was accordingly liberated."


From The Star. on that particular day.. the 19th. ..resembled ...seen with Kelly by witnesses...early on the morning she was murdered...satisfactory account of himself... accordingly liberated.

No one can get around this Mike. Because Tumblety looks NOTHING LIKE any of the witness accounts we know of. Nothing like him. I'm sorry. And even IF he was.. he was set free.... liberated. just like many many others Mike.

No evidence.

Sorry.


Sincerely


Phil