Whitechapel Society Journal October 2010

[The Grave Maurice]

So, you haven't read Roger Palmer's article yet, eh.

Oh no, I've read it alright; but, I still stand by my comment.

[mklhawley]

Oh no, I've read it alright; but, I still stand by my comment.

Which part is a non-starter, the fact that Anderson solicited information on Francis Tumblety from chiefs of police from two cities in the U.S. at the same time his subordinate, Andrews was sent to Canada? Keeping in mind, Francis Tumblety sailed from Toronto, Canada, in the Spring of 1888, the last place he was at before London. Is it a coincidence that Andrews spent so much time in Toronto, Canada, Tumblety's last port of exit to England?

Or is it a non-starter that Tumblety was most likely arrested a third time, specifically for complicity in the Whitechapel murders, as evidenced by no less than four sources with one of the sources NOT from the papers (Deputy Minister Smith)?

Or is it a non-starter that Littlechild's comments conform to Deputy Minister Smiths?

Or is it a non-starter that once Tumblety jumped bail the murders stopped.

Of course non-starters in everyone's book.

Sincerely,

Mike

[The Grave Maurice]

Other than having a Tumblety fixation, you really haven't read a lot about this subject, have you? (Just to give one indication of your misinformation, it was never possible to sail from Toronto to England.)

[mklhawley]

Other than having a Tumblety fixation, you really haven't read a lot about this subject, have you? (Just to give one indication of your misinformation, it was never possible to sail from Toronto to England.)

So true Grave Maurice. I am the first to admit that the saltier Ripperologists know more about the subject, but I am learning. My guess is that I now know a little bit more than you are assuming, though. My plan last year was to focus on one suspect at a time, but what I found with Francis Tumblety was the anti-Tumblety arguments were weak (too tall, too gay, too big of a mustache, etc.). People forget that he led two lives, as evidenced by his arrests. The only arguments that I saw were compelling were from Wolf V. and Simon and their Parnell stuff. Still, I did not get why so many "experts" rejected the idea that Scotland Yard considered Tumblety a serious JTR suspect, especially when other experts still did.

Now with Roger Palmer's article demonstrating that the simplest explanation for Andrews crossing the Atlantic was for Tumblety, it all makes sense. For example, I posted a thread on the Scotland Yard official in New York City watching Francis Tumblety, which no one conveniently replied to. The fact that Scotland Yard had someone watching Tumblety makes no sense if they did not consider him a serious suspect. Now, it makes perfect sense. Go back to the thread and read it.

Now, for your Toronto to London comment. Notice what the Toronto Globe, November 23, 1888 states:

Dr. Tumblety, who was recently acquitted of a charge of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders (sic), was in Toronto last May and sailed for England shortly afterwards . His fellow-passengers became much interested in the doctor, who is a man of striking-presence, pleasant manners and great conversational powers. He had traveled much and had practiced medicine in San Francisco, New York, Toronto, and Montreal. He was in Canada in the fifties and showed an extract from a Montreal paper in which he was spoken of as a candidate in opposition to the late D’Arcy McGee. He had printed copies of letters to himself from Napoleon III, John Bright, and other celebrities, and a letter from President Lincoln introducing him to Lord John Russell. He appeared to have plenty of money, and was lavish in his generosity to the attendants on the steamboat. The impression he left on the passengers was that of a dashing, reckless and adventurous man, but not one who would be guilty of crime.

If you are focused upon an actual sailing trip from Toronto, then you lost the picture. I do apologize for my quick statements, but I was only concerned about his trip from Toronto to England. ... regardless of how it was done.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Ottawa

The point being, no one has shown that Smith did send the letter from London. This seems to be just an assumption. When I wrote about all this back in 2005 all I could discover was that Smith was in Ottawa in early November, 1888, and I didn't find any evidence that he went to London, or anywhere else other than Ottawa, in any of the Canadian or British newspapers I consulted.
Wolf.

Right, and I am now showing that the letter was sent from Ottawa.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Thank you for that.

I never cease to be amazed at what you've got tucked away in your attic.

Is the name of your house "Tardis"?

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Hi Stewart,
Thank you for that.
I never cease to be amazed at what you've got tucked away in your attic.
Is the name of your house "Tardis"?
Regards,
Simon

It's a big house Simon.

[Stewart P Evans]

Press Reports

I made copies of the press reports on the Euston Station suspect back in 1993 and although Tumblety had lodgings in Birmingham I never believed him to be the Euston suspect.

[mklhawley]

So, since we now know Anderson solicited U.S. authorities for information about Tumblety in Nov 1888 (from U.S. papers), why would it be a surprise that a Canadian authority (Smith) of a city Tumblety lived at would not be solicited by Scotland Yard in the same month? My point is, is there really a significance to where Smith's letter was mailed from?

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Even if it was an assumption on Evans & Gainey's part, your research really does not conflict with it. 3 November is a full month away from December 1.

This has been answered by Stewart. Interesting. I posted “Smith was in Ottawa in early November, 1888…” I didn’t mention the date, which you correctly posted. As I say, interesting.

My point is Smith's source seems to be an official source, i.e., Scotland Yard. Regardless if Smith believed Tumblety was guilty or not, his source certainly took Tumblety seriously enough to discuss this with him:…
…How else would Smith have known about Birmingham, Saturday nights, and nabbing him?

Two things are important here. The first is that there is no evidence that Tumblety was the Euston Station Suspect. In fact the evidence shows that the man wasn’t Tumblety. You have decided to ignore the facts as we have been given them by both Birmingham and London newspapers and argue that the newspapers are wrong. Why are they wrong? Because they prove the suspect wasn’t Tumblety so they must be wrong.

Second, since the man wasn’t Tumblety it seems highly unlikely that any “official source” would contact the Canadian Deputy Minister of Marine in Ottawa and tell him that it was. All of Smith’s information about the Euston Station Suspect’s arrest could be gleaned from the news reports on the arrest which appeared in the Ottawa papers, another fact, posted by Simon already, which you have decided to ignore.

As I stated on the Andrews thread, Francis Tumblety sailed from Toronto, Canada, to England in the spring of 1888. Would Scotland Yard not check on ship information in order to discover where Tumblety was just prior to his Birmingham/Whitechapel escapades?

According to your post to TGM the information that “Tumblety sailed from Toronto, Canada, to England in the spring of 1888” comes from one newspaper source: the Toronto Globe, 23 November, 1888. The Globe states that Tumblety “was in Toronto last May and sailed for England shortly afterwards.”

First. The paper does not say that Tumblety sailed from Toronto only that he was in Toronto in May and then, sometime shortly after, he sailed for England.

Second. You cannot sail from Toronto to England. You, living in Rochester, should know this. Tumblety could take a train to Montreal, where he could take ship in order to sail to England, or to Halifax or some other Atlantic Coast port but he could not sail to England from Toronto. You may want to ignore this fact but it is a fact none the less.

Third. Supposing, for a second, that Tumblety did leave for England from Toronto, as the Globe stated, then it would appear that he left the city sometime in May or early June (depending on your interpretation of ‘shortly afterwards.’) However, according to the New York World, 19 November, 1888, Tumblety was in New York in June of 1888. Now you have to explain why the good doctor would go to Toronto in May, leave and go to New York, where several ships were leaving for Britain everyday but, apparently choose not to take any of these, then travel back to Toronto where he can’t take a ship to England.

The obvious answer is that he didn’t. That you have misunderstood what the Globe actually stated and ignored information which places Tumblety in New York at the time he sailed for England. If you really believe “Would Scotland Yard not check on ship information in order to discover where Tumblety was just prior to his Birmingham/Whitechapel escapades?” then why didn’t Andrews travel to New York?

Wolf.

[The Grave Maurice]

Damn. Wolf is so much more erudite than I. As he says, in the late 19th century, you could only take a train to Quebec, and sail from there.

I always enjoy your posts, Mike, but I was just trying to point out that you have a tendency to read a sentence that says "Tumblety left Toronto and sailed for England" and then repeat it as "Tumblety sailed to England from Toronto". You make leaps where historical researchers usually inch forward. If you leap too far, you may suddenly find yourself over a chasm that supports neither you nor your argument.

[mklhawley]

Damn. Wolf is so much more erudite than I. As he says, in the late 19th century, you could only take a train to Quebec, and sail from there.

I always enjoy your posts, Mike, but I was just trying to point out that you have a tendency to read a sentence that says "Tumblety left Toronto and sailed for England" and then repeat it as "Tumblety sailed to England from Toronto". You make leaps where historical researchers usually inch forward. If you leap too far, you may suddenly find yourself over a chasm that supports neither you nor your argument.

I'll be offline a bit, but I will be replying to Wolf's post, so I will reply to yours first.

Well, let's see where your inching forward got you for the last few years. Before Roger Palmer's article came out Wolf and company convinced you that Anderson never solicited any North American official for information about Tumblety, thus giving the impression Anderson had absolutely no interest in Tumblety. We now know that Wolf is dead wrong. Not only did Anderson solicit information, he did it at the peak of the JTR murders and during the time Tumblety was arrested.

Before Roger Palmer's article came out Wolf convinced you that Inspector Andrews' extensive time in Toronto in December 1888 could not have been for seeking information on Tumblety because of the '30-year gap' between the 1888 Whitechapel murders and the last time Tumblety was in Toronto (1858), giving the impression that a Tumblety agenda was rediculous. We now know that Wolf is dead wrong. Multiple Toronto newspaper sources (interesting that this is Wolf's hometown) discuss how Tumblety frequented Toronto in the 1870s and 1880s up until early 1888. Two sources even mention him owning land in the area.

Before Roger Palmer's article came out Wolf convinced you that Monro was in charge when Anderson made the decision to send Andrews to North America, thus giving the impression that the Monro/Anderson anti-Irish team was in full swing. We now know that Wolf was dead wrong . Warren was in charge until December 1, 1888. In the world of science when two competing theories have different conclusions, scientists tend to use the principle of parsimony, or the simplest answer tends to be the correct one (this is a bastardized simplification). It works in science, and it should work here. What is simpler, accepting that Anderson, while going through proper channels, illegally set up a Scotland Yard anti-Parnell conspiracy or that Anderson, working within his job description, sent Andrews over to North America to gather info on Tumblety?

(There is more for those that have not read Roger's article, but that will come later.)

Just think if ripperologists knew this info ten years ago, do you think they would have automatically followed the arguments of Wolf and Tim? I can understand why you still consider this a nonstart, but it's not because of facts, it's actually a case of accommodation v. assimmilation (look it up).

Sincerely,

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Hurry back.

Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

TGM.

Thanks for the compliments but I’m just a hack with a lot of experience.

Mike.

I know that you posted this to TGM but I thought I’d respond to some of the misinformation you’ve posted.

Before Roger Palmer's article came out Wolf and company convinced you that Anderson never solicited any North American official for information about Tumblety, thus giving the impression Anderson had absolutely no interest in Tumblety. We now know that Wolf is dead wrong. Not only did Anderson solicit information, he did it at the peak of the JTR murders and during the time Tumblety was arrested.

Actually I was partially correct. Anderson was not soliciting information from the San Francisco Police, as R.J. Palmer has claimed. Palmer’s laughable “evidence” consists of taking one news report, that supports his theory, and saying that it must be the Gospel truth, while ignoring other news reports which refute his theory and saying that they must be ignored (kinda like what you do). However, Palmer’s discovery of a news report which shows that Scotland Yard contacted Chief Campbell of the Brooklyn Police asking about Tumblety is brand new and important evidence adding to what we already know about London’s interest in Tumblety as a suspect (however, Palmer fails to point out that Chief Campbell, who knew Tumblety for years, ridiculed the idea that he could be the Ripper).

As for saying that I gave “the impression Anderson had absolutely no interest in Tumblety,” well, to use your term, this is dead wrong. Here is what I wrote:

Francis Tumblety was a suspect in the Whitechapel murders. In the opinion of Chief Inspector John George Littlechild he was even “a likely suspect.” There are two other items which show an interest in the American quack by Scotland Yard. The first is the fact that the British authorities contacted Chief Inspector Byrnes of the New York City Detective Bureau and asked him to keep an eye on the doctor while in the city. There was even reports of an English detective doing the same thing. The second is that when San Francisco Chief of Police Crowley sent a telegram to Scotland Yard stating that he could supply examples of Tumblety’s handwriting, the London police didn’t respond by cabling back the response “Who?” Instead Assistant Commissioner Dr. Robert Anderson, the head of the overall Ripper investigation, himself asked Crowley to send the samples along with any details about Tumblety. It is therefore impossible to refute the fact that Dr. Francis Tumblety was suspected of being Jack the Ripper but what kind of suspect was he?
On the Trail of Tumblety? Inspector Andrews’ Trip to Toronto Part 2, Ripper Notes No. 24, October, 2005.

You seem to like to suggesting some sort of a conspiracy that is intent on covering up Tumblety’s guilt in the Whitechapel Murders. In reality it is the facts that disprove Tumblety’s involvement in the murders and prove the man innocent.

Before Roger Palmer's article came out Wolf convinced you that Inspector Andrews' extensive time in Toronto in December 1888 could not have been for seeking information on Tumblety because of the '30-year gap' between the 1888 Whitechapel murders and the last time Tumblety was in Toronto (1858), giving the impression that a Tumblety agenda was rediculous. We now know that Wolf is dead wrong. Multiple Toronto newspaper sources (interesting that this is Wolf's hometown) discuss how Tumblety frequented Toronto in the 1870s and 1880s up until early 1888. Two sources even mention him owning land in the area.

Tumblety visited a lot of places in his travels: Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans etc., etc. Scotland Yard didn’t send Inspectors to any of these places did they? Tumblety lived for the most part in either New York or Brooklyn and he landed and was staying in New York after he fled London but Andrews wasn’t sent there was he? Tumblety only lived in Toronto, as opposed to visiting it, in the late 1850’s, or, thirty years before Inspector Andrews traveled there. Why did Scotland Yard only send telegrams to the two cities to which Tumblety was most connected, and where he was in fact hiding, but sent an Inspector to Toronto and Southern Ontario, where Tumblety didn’t live, when a telegram would have done just as well? Why didn’t Scotland Yard send any telegram to the Toronto Police regarding Tumblety? There was absolutely no communications regarding Tumblety in the letter books of the Chief Constable of Toronto for the period covering March, 1888, to April, 1889. Tumblety’s name isn’t mentioned once. Scotland Yard didn’t even ask Toronto to aid Andrews in his task. Why? (Oh, by the way, my home town is a small town in Saskatchewan, not Toronto)

Before Roger Palmer's article came out Wolf convinced you that Monro was in charge when Anderson made the decision to send Andrews to North America, thus giving the impression that the Monro/Anderson anti-Irish team was in full swing. We now know that Wolf was dead wrong . Warren was in charge until December 1, 1888.

Monro was in charge of anti-Irish terrorism, which is a fact, and which, by its very nature, was a secret undertaking. His good friend Robert Anderson was a life long anti-Irish terrorist spy master who had only obtained his position in Scotland Yard a short time before he seems to have manipulated the extradition of a wanted fugitive. Both men were no friends of Warren (and, actually, Warren was in charge until November 30). Did Robert Anderson send Inspector Andrews on a secret mission to Southern Ontario in order to aid the Times against Parnell? You and Palmer say no but what did Andrews himself say about it?

"Inspector Andrews of the Scotland Yard force, who brought Barnett for trial, left last night for Europe. Before his departure he stated to a reporter that since he had been in Toronto he had obtained some important clues in the Parnell case, facts that he did not dream had existed, but he refused to discuss the mysterious things he had discovered..."

"Ever since his arrival in the country and his subsequent lengthy stay in Toronto rumors have been current to the effect that he was one of many men in the employ of the British government, arrayed against the representatives of the Irish people in the search for the least evidence that will seemingly injure the Parnellites, but until now Andrews has flatly denied it.
This morning, however, on the eve of his departure for home the emissary of Scotland Yard admitted that he could not deny the charge,"

“It is generally understood, Mr. Andrews, that your stay in this country has been lengthened by certain work you have been doing in connection with the Parnell commission. Is there any truth in the rumor?”
“I had rather not answer that question,” he replied.
“Will you deny that such was your mission or part of your mission here?’
“Why do you press me? You ought to know that I cannot divulge the secrets of my office.”
“But wont you say yes or no?’
“No, I will not deny the statement.”
“It is said that you have been very unsuccessful in your efforts; that to try and find bona-fide evidence detrimental to the League is lost time in this country. What has been you experience?”
“I may not have been as successful as could be wished, neither do I think, from my experience, that I have been unsuccessful. As for its being lost time to look for evidence in America, that is all rot. I am pretty certain that a continual correspondence has gone on for years between Parnell, O’Donovan Rossa and others in this country and western America, whom I am not prepared to name, and much of this correspondence will naturally fall in line as evidence against Parnell when the proper time comes to present it.”

Who to believe, who to believe. You and Palmer or Andrews himself? Not a hard choice, really.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

If Tumblety was the Ripper and the subject of a transatlantic Scotland Yard manhunt, why was this guy being arrested on the evening of 23rd November 1888, the day before the good doctor sailed from Le Havre aboard La Bretagne?

Old Bailey, 7th January 1889–

Trial of ALFRED DODD (26), HARRY FIFE (38), GEORGE SAUNDERS (39), and THOMAS COOK (60). Stealing a quantity of silk, the property of Walter Evans and another.

THOMAS STACEY (Detective H). I belong to Commercial Street station.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. Conter and I work together round Whitechapel—no one asked me to come here to-day; I am here in another case—I was at the station a month ago, when Fife came in with two men, one of whom Fife pointed out as having acted very suspiciously, and he was charged with behaving in such a strange manner that Dew thought he might be the Whitechapel murderer—he was brought in between seven and eight, and was there half-an-hour—the Police-station is three-quarters of a mile, from Baker's Row—he was detained, and afterwards discharged on the ground that he was suffering from religious mania—Fife was, I believe, not present when he was discharged—Fife said that he had followed him for some time, or "a long time"—it may have been after eight o'clock when Fife left—it is five or six weeks ago—I made a note, and can refer to it, but my diary is at the station—Fife would not have been in the station on the night of his arrest—after they were arrested I knew that this was on or about November 23rd, but I did not turn to my diary to see whether White was there that day.

WALTER BECK (Police-Inspector H).

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I was on duty in the charge room on November 23rd—it is my duty to enter in the occurrence-book the particulars of the visits of persons who come to the station—this entry is my writing. (This stated that on November 23rd at 6.45 a man was brought to the station by the police who was supposed from his conduct in the street to be the Whitechapel murderer, and that the prisoner Fife came to the station to charge him)—there is not a doubt that Fife came to the station to give information—this was written down from information partly from Fife and partly from Skeete, and from the constable too.

EDMUND REED (Detective Inspector H).

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I do not know that on the night the van was stolen Fife was in the station charging a man with being the Whitechapel murderer, but I can find out before this case is finished—something was said by Mr. Evans about a reward of £50, and I said, "No, don't you do it."

Regards,

Simon