Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is it suspected that you are writing a JTR book David? Are you secretly working with Pierre on your Magnum Opus?

[David Orsam]

Another sentence I find rather objectionable in Mike’s book is this:

"Chief Inspector Donald Swanson was placed in full charge of the investigation, and three first-class detective inspectors from headquarters, Frederick Abberline, Henry Moore, and Walter Andrews, were assigned to assist the detectives assigned to the Whitechapel District, called H Division."

Mike doesn't give a source for the statement that Walter Andrews was "assigned to assist" in the case and there is no contemporary support for the idea whatsoever - no known Metropolitan Police or Home Office documents or even domestic press reports from 1888 or 1889 relating to the Ripper investigation mention his name. The informed reader, of course, will know that it is Walter Dew, and Walter Dew alone, who claimed in his memoirs some fifty years after the event that Andrews was one of the officers investigating the Whitechapel murders but Mike knows very well that there is some doubt as to the matter. In his 2016 book he said:

"Some suggest Walter Dew’s memory failed him and Andrews was not involved, at all."

Mike then went on in his 2016 book to attempt to demonstrate that Dew's memory was perfect but, as usual, Mike had mischaracterised the argument against him (especially if when saying "Some suggest" he was referring to me).

My view is that Dew, who was a junior detective constable in the H Division at the time, either saw in the newspapers that Andrews had been sent to pursue Jack the Ripper in America, or was told this as a bit of gossip by a colleague who had himself seen it in the newspapers, and was thus under the mistaken impression that Andrews was part of Scotland Yard’s team working on the Ripper case (something which fooled Guy Logan too). This would make sense of why there is no mention of Andrews in any of the many documents pertaining to the investigation into the Whitechapel murders.

Hawley's insistence on including Andrews in the team, incidentally, seems to me to be a hangover from his previous belief that Andrews went to New York (or somewhere else on 22-23 December 1888) to do something relating to Tumblety which notion has now been comprehensively debunked and doesn't (thankfully) feature in his latest book.

Now, I certainly don't say that my view must prevail about Walter Dew's recollections, and Andrews' involvement in the case, but it is surely wrong for Mike to state, as a confirmed fact, that Andrews was assigned to assist the H Division detectives, especially without providing a source for his readers. It cannot be regarded as a certainty and should not properly have been stated as such.

[David Orsam]

Honesty,

I don't think you saying "Honesty", by which you presumably mean "Honestly", is appropriate here, Mike, bearing in mind what you then go on to say.

I will reply, but only AFTER you write your David Orsam book. I will love to give you the same treatment you've given other authors, such as Jonathan and Simon. Sooo...

I have absolutely no idea what book you are talking about, Mike. Possibly another hallucination? I've already written two books on True Crime, one about the fascinating but little known First World War murder of a lieutenant's wife, Annie Wootten: the other about the more famous murder of Emily Dimmock in 1907. They are The Islington Murder Mystery and The Camden Town Murder Mystery respectively, both excellent and gripping reads! Available from Amazon and all good booksellers!!! Then there is a book published this month called New Romantics Who Never Were: The Untold Story of Spandau Ballet. There's already been some online media interest in this book which you can find here:

https://wp.me/pE8aS-3pE

and here:

https://noisey.vice.com/en_uk/article/vbxwjb/ever-hear-that-one-about-how-spandau-ballet-stole-their-name

If you want to give those three books "the same treatment" as I have given other authors then you can simply go ahead and do it. It will, however, undoubtedly involve you having to do some actual research to check my facts which might come as a bit of a shock to you. I nevertheless look forward to reading your articles.

But before that - as that may take some time - why don't you answer the very reasonable and straightforward questions that I've asked you in this thread?

[David Orsam]

You have a fatal flaw, and if I tell you them, you'll merely change your online article.

So I have "a fatal flaw" which you refer to as "them"? What is it, one fatal flaw or many? And does it relate in any way to your 2018 book which is the actual topic of this thread?

You might have seen that I've already called your bluff and posted the entire online article to which you refer on this site for posterity and I obviously won't be able to change that post. Link to it is here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10790

So, bluff having been called, what's the fatal flaw, or flaws, that you think you have identified then Mike?

[David Orsam]

How How many times are you going to post when I told you that I'm not going to play your game.

I'm not playing any kind of game with you Mike. My posts are directed as much to other members of this forum as to you, especially as you don't seem to want to engage or answer my reasonable questions. And I believe that I can post as many times as I like if I feel I have something relevant to say. Yesterday I posted clear evidence that the deployment of 12 constables at two train stations in 1889 had absolutely nothing to do Tumblety, in contrast to the false impression given in your latest book. Is there anything you want to say about that?

[David Orsam]

It's not just me he wants to stop the same posting.

Are you talking about Jmenges? Well, yes, I think his post can only really have been directed at you because you are the one who keeps repeating the same long and boring post, despite that post already having been responded to. And, despite his polite request, you have pretty much done it again, with the mere addition of a new paragraph at the start. It's very disrespectful, not just to him but to the administrators of this site and to all its members.

[David Orsam]

How thick are you?

I'm guessing you don't have the capability to see the irony in asking me that question but if you think that repeating the same long post (to which I've already replied) is going to stop me from posting in this thread you are greatly mistaken.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Just a couple of thoughts. Could the bartenders have been working in the same pub? McKenna's saloon. It does seem likely both establishments being described as being on the corner near num 79. He had been hanging around the place all day as one report says. It does seem unlikely that he would go to different bars for then bars to get in touch with different newspapers on the same day. More likely one bar with different reporters talking to different bar staff during the same day. As the detective possibly did. The first one not knowing Tumblety, second one did. Plus could the detective be British but based in New York, perhaps within the employ of Scotland Yard, dealing possibly with/spying on Irish Americans who were sympathetic to the cause. This [to my mind] would make sense.

[mklhawley]

How thick are you? It's not just me he wants to stop the same posting. How many times are you going to post when I told you that I'm not going to play your game. You have a fatal flaw, and if I tell you them, you'll merely change your online article. Honesty, I will reply, but only AFTER you write your David Orsam book. I will love to give you the same treatment you've given other authors, such as Jonathan and Simon. Sooo...

How interesting!

David Barratt changed his online negative article on Jonathan Hainsworth’s book AFTER Jonathan dominated him on Casebook! Now I see what he’s doing. He seems to antagonize the author on the forums until the author is forced to defend his work. It creates a huge thread that no one bothers to read, so no one sees how Barratt’s arguments are an act of minimalizing evidence to the contrary. Barratt then fixes his online article through crafty smoke and mirrors. Sorry, David, I’m not going to play your game.

It is likely why you have not written your book (David Orsam books) yet, since you fear authors will give your book the same treatment. Writing an online article is certainly much safer, since you can edit it immediately. Honestly David, I will give you a thorough and fact-based review of your Tumblety section. When will it come out?

The problem the reader has is, since they are not privy to all the details, your strawman arguments sound convincing. It’s just that they are not valid. Even on this thread, we see Barratt’s minimalizing of the evidence. I’ll give two:

First one: Barratt paraphrases Littlechild’s statement in such a way as to make the reader believe he did not have inside knowledge that Tumblety had escaped to France. Barratt states, “It doesn't then get much better, for in the next sentence we are told that it is "certain" that Chief Inspector Littlechild stated that Tumblety was spotted in Boulogne, with a supporting quote provided in which Littlechild says absolutely no such thing! All Littlechild says is that Tumblety "got away to Boulogne" which is something that the police could have established subsequently. And they could have done so very simply by learning that Tumblety had purchased a ticket, while in England, to travel to Boulogne!”

This is a lie. Littlechild actually stated, "and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne..." The second part does indeed show that Littlechild was privy to something other than purchasing a ticket in England. Besides, he used an alias, Frank Townsend, so how on earth would they have known it was him?

Second one: Barratt minimalized the evidence for an English detective in New York watching Tumblety. Barratt states, “Mike seems to swallow a bartender's story that this English detective told him he was there "to get the Whitechapel Murderer".” First, note how Barratt minimalized the evidence into ONE bartender’s story. The bartender's story was actually bartenders' stories collected from competing New York newspaper reporters independently and on the same day. This is corroboration! These reporters saw the man too and neither could have picked up the other’s story. Evidence for this is that they have different facts. The following events were published in the New York World on 4 December 1888,

. . . It was just as this story was being furnished to the press that a new character appeared on the scene, and it was not long before he completely absorbed the attention of every one. . . . He could not be mistaken in his mission. There was an elaborate attempt at concealment and mystery which could not be possibly misunderstood. Everything about him told of his business. From his little billycock hat, alternately set jauntilly on the side of his head and pulled lowering over his eyes, down to the very bottom of his thick boots, he was a typical English detective . . .
Then his hat would be pulled down over his eyes and he would walk up and down in front of No. 79 staring intently into the windows as he passed, to the intense dismay of Mrs. McNamara, who was peering out behind the blinds at him with ever-increasing alarm . . .
His headquarters was a saloon on the corner, where he held long and mysterious conversations with the barkeeper always ending in both of them drinking together. The barkeeper epitomized the conversations by saying: 'He wanted to know about a feller named Tumblety , and I sez I didn't know nothing at all about him; and he says he wuz an English detective and he told me all about them Whitechapel murders, and how he came over to get the chap that did it.'

The World reporter’s impression of the man being an English detective corroborates the barkeeper’s comment that, “he says he wuz an English detective,” and the reporter witnessing the detective staking out Tumblety’s residence corroborates the barkeeper’s comments about him being interested in Tumblety. The barkeeper also brought up Tumblety’s name to the reporter, clearly evidence that he received the information from the detective. There is no reason to assume the barkeeper’s account of the English detective’s Whitechapel murder mission as the product of a barkeeper’s lie. Additional evidence confirming the veracity of the barkeeper’s statement comes from the second, separate eyewitness, a New York Herald reporter:

I found that the Doctor was pretty well known in the neighborhood. The bartenders in McKenna's saloon, at the corner of Tenth street and Fourth avenue, knew him well. And it was here that I discovered an English detective on the track of the suspect. This man wore a dark mustache and side whiskers, a tweed suit, a billycock hat and very thick walking boots. He was of medium height and had very sharp eyes and a rather florid complexion. He had been hanging around the place all day and had posted himself at a window which commanded No. 79. He made some inquiries about Dr. Tumblety of the bartenders, but gave no information about himself, although it appeared he did not know much about New York. It is uncertain whether he came over in the same ship with the suspect. (New York Herald, Dec 4, 1888)

There is even further corroboration from Cincinnati:

It has been known for some days past that the detectives have been quietly tracing the career in this city of Dr. Francis Tumblety, one of the suspects under surveillance by the English authorities, and who was recently followed across the ocean by Scotland Yard's men. From information which leaked out yesterday around police headquarters, the inquiries presented here are not so much in reference to Tumblety himself as to a companion who attracted almost as much attention as the doctor, both on account of oddity of character and the shadow-like persistence with which he followed his employer. The investigation in this city is understood to be under the direction of English officials now in New York, and based upon certain information they have forwarded by mail. One of the officers whom current reports connects with this local investigation is James Jackson, the well-known private detective . . . The officials at police headquarters declined to talk about the matter or to answer any questions bearing on this supposed discovery of 'Jack the Ripper's' identity. (Cincinnati Enquirer, Dec. 14, 1888)

Now, does this sound like my point is supported by just one bartender as Barratt minimalized? Sorry David, this is the last reveal I will give you (and I’m sure you will “edit” your article). I will not play into your hand and give you the other areas of your minimalization, but I will repost this every time you post.

Sincerely,
Mike
_____

[David Orsam]

Here is the full text of a letter from Godfrey Lushington at the Home Office to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police dated 16 January 1889 (again with my bold):

"Sir,

I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you that in connection with arrangements which are approaching settlement, for the Customs examination at Euston and St. Pancras Railway Stations instead of at Liverpool, of the baggage of passengers arriving from America, he has sanctioned a temporary augmentation to the Metropolitan Police Force of twelve Constables whose pay is to be defrayed from the Special Police Vote from the date of their appointment to this service.

I am,
Sir,
your obedient servant,

[Signed: Godfrey Lushington]"

[David Orsam]

This is the full text of Colonel Pearson's letter of 20 November 1888 to the Under Secretary of State, with bold added by me:

"Sir,

With reference to your letter of the 13th inst., A49500M, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has to transmit, for the information of the Secretary of State, the accompanying Return shewing the number of Officers of each rank who will probably be employed at the cost of the special vote between the 1st March, 1889, and the 28th February 1890.

This Return does not take into account the 12 Police Constables who will be required for duty at Euston and St. Pancras Stations for the proposed examination of the luggage of passengers from America.

I am,
Sir,
Your most obedient servant,

[Signed R.L.O. Pearson]

Assistant Commissioner -
For the Commissioner"

[David Orsam]

As Mike Hawley seems to be suffering from hallucinations and paranoid delusions that my articles "vanish" or get mysteriously edited, perhaps I should post for posterity the section in my article, "The English Detective", which deals with the 12 constables and which comprehensively demonstrates that they had nothing to do with Tumblety. This is the same as it was when it was first published on 29 September 2016:

For Hawley, however, it is important that Tumblety fled on the 20th. The reason for this is explained by him as follows:

'Police constables were reassigned to watch train stations on November 20. Researcher and biographer Andrew Cook...reported a correspondence between Scotland Yard senior official Lieutenant Colonel Pearson and the home secretary, which pertained to deploying twelve extra constables in order "to examine the belongings of passengers arriving from America"...The timing of this reassignment combined with the fact that the American would likely escape on the train is suggestive that the deployment of extra constables was for Tumblety'.

What Andrew Cook actually said in his 2011 book, M: MI5's First Spymaster, was this (underlining in original):

'What is certain, though odd, is that around 20 November, twelve extra constables were deployed at Euston and St Pancras Stations in order to examine the belongings of passengers arriving from America'.

(A footnote reference is given by Cook here to a letter from Colonel Pearson to the Home Office Under-Secretary dated 20 November 1888).

Hawley is troubled not at all by the fact that the deployment of these twelve constables is said by Cook to have been 'around' 20 November (not on that date) nor by the fact that this deployment was specifically in order to examine the luggage of passengers arriving in England from America, and thus not in any way to identify individuals fleeing from England to America (although, from his use of quotation marks, Hawley appears to think that this was some form of cover story).

The reason for the deployment of these twelve extra constables at Euston and St Pancras (which did not, in fact, occur on 20 November or 'around' that date) is to be found in a communication from a railway company to the Board of Customs some eight months earlier. As we shall see, It has nothing whatsoever to do with Francis Tumblety.

By way of background, the British Government, on 8 March 1884, had ordered that the baggage of all passengers arriving in the United Kingdom from foreign countries would be searched for dynamite or other explosives. This, inevitably, created inconvenience at customs for passengers arriving in the U.K, and, some four years later, on 22 March 1888, Richard Prowse, Secretary to the Board of Customs, wrote to the Home Secretary informing him that:

'...the Board of Customs have under consideration an application from the London and North Western Railway Company requesting that the Baggage of Passengers arriving at Liverpool from America and proceeding over the company's line to London may, if registered for London, be sent thither fromLiverpool, in locked vans and undergo the requisite customs examination at the Euston Square terminus in London; and that there is reason to believe that an application to the same effect will be received from the Midland Railway company with respect to the Baggage of passengers from America who may come to London by that company's line to St Pancras terminus' (HO 45/9686/A48584).

The views of the Assistant Commissioner of the C.I.D. were sought on the railway company's application and, on 2 April 1888, James Monro, who did not like the idea, wrote to the Home Office saying:

'If it was considered necessary that police should be present at the examination of luggage, this could not be effected without employing a considerable number of constables' (HO 45/9686/A48584).

On 20 April 1888, Edward Leigh Pemberton of the Home Office replied to the Secretary of Customs to say that Mr Monro had put forward objections to the arrangement being proposed by the railway company (HO 45/9686/A48584).

Subsequently, on 22 June, representations were made to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office by the Inman & International Steam Ship Co. Limited, which ran a steamer service between New York and Liverpool, explaining that searches of baggage at Liverpool (by customs officers under the supervision of officers on special duty from the Royal Irish Constabulary) were causing long delays for passengers which, in turn, was causing American travellers to seek alternative means of travel to England (using foreign shipping companies which did not dock at Liverpool) or not to come to England at all.

After further correspondence clarifying the procedure for the possible transportation of luggage from Liverpool to London (where it would then be searched), the proposed arrangement was agreed in principle and, James Monro having by now resigned as Assistant Comissioner, advice was sought from Sir Charles Warren, who stated, on 22 October 1888, in respect of searches at Euston Station:

'I have directed the necessary enquiries to be made and have ascertained the particulars as to the number of trains which will arrive at Euston daily with passengers from America, and the hours of their arrival; and as two Police Constables must be present at each examination of luggage, I find it necessary to have three reliefs, thus requiring an augmentation of six Police Constables.' (HO 45/9585/A484584).

He added that:

'The Midland Railway Company will no doubt apply to have similar arrangements made at St Pancras Station, and this will necessitate my seeking a still further increase of six Constables for that duty'(HO 45/9686/A48584).

The arrangements were agreed for six constables to conduct the searches at Euston and six constables to conduct them at St Pancras, which is where the total of twelve extra constables comes from.

These twelve constables were referred to in a letter from the Home Office to the Commissioner dated 30 October 1888 in which Sir Charles was asked if he had 'any objection to the Inman and International Steamship Company being informed that twelve constables will be required to perform the duty at the two stations' (HO 65/62).

The total of twelve constables was confirmed in a further letter from the Home Office to the Commissioner on 15 November which stated that this would be the number required 'when the arrangement is in full working at both Euston and St Pancras Stations' (HO 65/62).

The only significance of 20 November is that, on that date, Colonel Pearson (on behalf of the Commissioner) stated in a letter to the Home Office that a projected return of police numbers for the period 1 March 1889 to 28 February 1890 'does not take into account the 12 Police Constables who will be required for duty at the Euston and St Pancras Stations' (HO 144/222/A49500M).

This is what Cook evidently picked up on, and has given the impression that those constables were suddenly introduced into the London stations on that day (although, as we have seen, Cook did not say that) which has misled Hawley into thinking that this had something to do with Tumblety, which it most certainly did not.

As of 20 November 1888, none of the twelve constables had been deployed at Euston or St Pancras, nor would they be at any time prior to Tumblety's departure from France four days later or, indeed, for some time afterwards. The Board of Customs was only informed on 23 November 1888 of the Secretary of State's approval to the new arrangements with the practical details still to be worked out (HO 65/63). As late as 16 January 1889, the arrangements were still only 'approaching settlement' and, on that date, the Home Secretary sanctioned a temporary augmentation of the Metropolitan Police Force for the twelve constables (HO 149/3).

[David Orsam]

Hi guys. You know I love you but...
Try to keep the re-posting just for the hell of it to a minimum. It eats up precious server space that can be better utilized in service of important threads, like about the Maybrick Diary. Plus its kind of annoying. Admins are vacationing in Europe at the mo' otherwise I'd just clue Ally in on the madness but I know Mike would probably rather hear it from me.

Thank you!

[Steadmund Brand]

Hi guys. You know I love you but...
Try to keep the re-posting just for the hell of it to a minimum. It eats up precious server space that can be better utilized in service of important threads, like about the Maybrick Diary. Plus its kind of annoying. Admins are vacationing in Europe at the mo' otherwise I'd just clue Ally in on the madness but I know Mike would probably rather hear it from me.

Thanks

JM

The Maybrick diary.....hahaha Jonathan you slay me!!!!

Steadmund Brand

[jmenges]

Hi guys. You know I love you but...
Try to keep the re-posting just for the hell of it to a minimum. It eats up precious server space that can be better utilized in service of important threads, like about the Maybrick Diary. Plus its kind of annoying. Admins are vacationing in Europe at the mo' otherwise I'd just clue Ally in on the madness but I know Mike would probably rather hear it from me.

Thanks

JM