A Tumult over Tumblety

[How Brown]

As copied from the Ripperologist forum 'by popular demand'.

Non-Tumblety content (and Howard's ravings) have been edited out for this thread.

[Joe Chetcuti]

If you read the 6th paragraph of the article below, you'll see that Tumblety's pamphlets revealed a response that was quite predictable. Our Ripper suspect here isn't boasting of his Whitechapel guilt, but instead he is holding true to his long crooked history of printing literature which gallantly speaks of his innocence whenever a public accusation gets directed at him.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/washington_post/901118.html

He pulled this same kind of tactic in the Canadian newspapers when he was accused of procuring an abortion in 1857 Montreal and when he was charged with manslaughter in 1860 New Brunswick. Boldly proclaiming his innocence in public ink was always his forte.

[Chris G.]

Hi Don,

I won't need to hold one of those flyers in my hand to know what was really printed on it!! If you read the final paragraph of the Nov 18, 1890 Washington Post, you'll see that one of those pamphlets revealed a response that was quite predictable. Our Ripper suspect here isn't boasting of his Whitechapel guilt, but instead he is holding true to his long crooked history of printing literature which gallantly speaks of his innocence whenever a public accusation gets directed at him.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/washington_post/901118.html (http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/washington_post/901118.html)

He pulled this same kind of tactic in the Canadian newspapers when he was accused of procuring an abortion in 1857 Montreal and when he was charged with manslaughter in 1860 New Brunswick. Boldly proclaiming his innocence in public ink was always his forte.

Hi Joe and Don

Of course just because Tumblety put out a pamphlet proclaiming his innocence in the Whitechapel murders, just as he did after he was wrongly arrested for complicity in the Lincoln assassination conspiracy, does not mean that he committed the murders any more than he had a hand in Lincoln's murder. Both outrages were good publicity for him -- good for business.

All the best

Chris

[Joe Chetcuti]

Chris,

I hear what you're saying, but the point of all of this was to make a friendly rebuttal to Ripperologist Magazine's recent comment:

"I have never given (Tumblety) much credence as a suspect, figuring that if he actually had been Jack the Ripper that consummate publicity hound would have printed up flyers advertising the fact."

What I've been showing you here is that your magazine's comment couldn't have been further from the truth. That statement isn't even remotely in accord with the behavioral history of this suspect. His post-Whitechapel flyers and published books would not have advertised the fact the he was the Ripper, instead the doctor's response would have been in line with the public statements that he made after the death of James Portmore. He fled to the United States and proclaimed his innocence in public ink when that 1860 manslaughter charge was announced.

Tumblety's post-Whitechapel public reaction was in line with his previous response to the James Portmore case: Once again he fled to the U.S. and in 1889 he proclaimed his innocence in newspaper print, not his guilt. Ripperologist Magazine's insinuation missed the mark by a mile.

[Chris G.]

Hi Joe

I know where you are coming from. And I agree that Tumblety putting out the 1889 pamphlet protesting his innocence in the Whitechapel murders is entirely consistent with his earlier behavior. On the other hand, some of his previous proclamations of innocence were clearly false. I am just cautioning against anyone thinking that his publication of the pamphlet was done because he really did have anything to do with the murders. I am not sure he actually did, despite the Littlechild letter.

Chris

[R.J.Palmer]

Both outrages were good publicity for him -- good for business.


Chris --I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I know the above is a popular answer, but it doesn't sound the least bit plausible.

How would being accused of serial murder be 'good for business' for a practicing physican??--if Tumblety was even that (which I personally don't believe he was in 1888).


Further, how could a man implicate himself in murders to such an extent that a Chief Inspector (in Section D, no less!) would think he was a 'very likely' suspect.

How exactly would he do that? Go around with blood on his shirt sleeves? Seriously, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

In all seriousness, wouldn't Littlechild have to be an idiot to fall for something along those lines?

I dont' mean to sound confrontational, and you certainly can draw your own conclusions, but this "answer" is thrown around freely on the internet and I've never felt it has the least bit of credibility in the real world.

All the best, RP

[Paul]

Further, how could a man implicate himself in murders to such an extent that a Chief Inspector (in Section D, no less!) would think he was a 'very likely' suspect.

Hi RP,
When Littlechild said that Tumblety was a 'very likely' suspect, did he mean that Tumblety was a probable Jack the Ripper or that he was suspected for very likely (meaning credible) reasons?

As far as we know, Sims asked Littlechild for information about a Dr D and Littlechild replied saying that he'd never heard of a Dr D but had heard of a Dr T, who he then describes as a 'very likely' suspect. But he later says that
Jack the Ripper was a sadist and that Tumblety was not a sadist. It doesn't matter whether there was any truth in this, as it's what Littlechild believed and from it it seems fair to infer that Littlechild therefore did not think that Tumblety was Jack - and if he didn't think Tumblety was Jack then would he have meant when he wrote 'very likely' that he thought Tumblety a probable Ripper? Is it not more likely that he meant that Tumblety came under suspicion for credible reasons?

The ditinction is important because the words 'very likely' have conferred upon Tumblety a certain status or importance among suspects, even that he was favoured by Littlechild, but this would be misplaced to a degree if Littlechild meant no more than that there were credible reasons (such as a viruent hatred of prostitutes) for suspicion falling on Tumblety. Rather than seemingly advancing Tumblety as a 'very likely' Ripper, all he'd have been doing was responding to Sims request for further infrmation about Dr D by saying that he didn't know of a Dr D but that a Dr T had come under suspicion for credible reasons but was not in his (Littlechild's opinion) Jack the Ripper because the Ripper was a sadist. In other words, he was discounting Tumblety as the Ripper.

[R.J.Palmer]

Paul--I went around and around with Wolf Vanderlinden on this one, and I have to say that I disagree, and disagree rather strongly. With respect, I think you blokes are misreading the Littlechild letter.

Ripper Notes #24, p. 44:

“Although Chief Inspector Littlechild endorsed Tumblety as a “likely suspect” (sic) I have to agree with Paul Begg that Littlechild’s opinion that Tumblety was not a sadist while the Ripper "unquestionably was” would tend to point to Littlechild not actually believing that Tumblety was the Ripper” (Vanderlinden, p. 44)

From my original response:

This strikes me as very convoluted. I think in most people’s minds, when Littlechild states “very likely,” he means “very likely.” And a "very likely" suspect means "very likely" to have been the Ripper.


The argument here, rather remarkably, is that Littlechild is making a syllogism. In other words, that although Littlechild states his opinon that Tumblety was a very likely suspect he didn’t really mean it, but choses to immediately undermine his own opinion by saying that Tumblety wasn’t a sadist while the Ripper “unquestionably was.”

Ergo: The Ripper is a sadist. Tumblety is not a sadist. Thus, Tumblety was not the Ripper.

But this is misreading the Letter.

Here’s what Littlechild actually wrote:

"Although a “Sycopathia Sexualis” subject he was not known as a “sadist” (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record." (emphasis added).

By paraphrasing Littlechild instead of quoting him, it becomes possible for Mr. Vandelinden to ignore four words: “although”, “but”, and “not known.” And those words utterly alter the meaning of the sentence.

Littlechlid didn’t state Tumblety was not a sadist. He did not make a syllogism. He stated that Tumblety wasn’t known as a sadist, and then ---and here is the key point--- he further qualified this by stating that he was known as a misogynist (ie., holding "remarkable" and "bitter in the extreme" feelings" towards women) --a fact on record.

It’s really quite simple: the sentence is being turned it into a syllogism that doesn’t exist.

Let me put it like this:

“I think Joe was very likely to have ripped off my golf shoes.”

“Although not a golfer, (which the thief undoubtedly was) Joe loved outdoor sports and often hung around the Country Club...a fact on record.”

How on earth does this mean the speaker doesn’t think Joe stole his golf shoes?? He already said quite clearly that he thought Joe was a very likely to have stole his golf shoes.

All he is doing is admitting that Joe wasn’t known to be a golfer...not that he still doesn’t suspect him. In fact, he goes on to give a couple of good reasons why, though not a golfer, Joe still had motives to steal golf shoes...he loved outdoors and hung out a Country Clubs.

Later in the letter, Littlechild goes on to suggest that homosexuals are given to cruelty. A ridiculous notion, clearly, but another indication that he wasn’t implying that Tumblety wasn’t a sadist, only that he didnt’ have any information to that end. I really don't believe Littlechild meant to offer any pscyhological insights into Tumblety, he merely brought the matter up in context to what Sims had stated about 'Dr. D'--Druitt. Sims was obviously asking about sadism or homosexuality, and I personally believe Littlechild only brought up Tumblety because he was genuinely confused as to who the heck Sims was referring to...

In fact, a good conclusion might be that Littlehcild had an entirely DIFFERENT reason for suspecting Tumblety, since he didn’t have any direct evidence of sadism. But of course, some of us wouldn’t wish to go there, I reckon.

All the best, RP

[Joe Chetcuti]

The "Tumblety section" of the Littlechild Letter produced two main points:

1. In Littlechild's mind, Tumblety was a likely Ripper suspect.

2. A large dossier was compiled on this suspect.


There were other points Littlechild made about Tumblety, but those remarks mainly re-substantiated what was generally known about the doctor:

A. He was a frequent visitor to London.

B. The Whitechapel murders stopped when Tumblety left England.

C. Despite not having a sadist's reputation, it was known that the doctor had an extreme bitterness toward women. Even Tumblety's protege, Martin McGarry, admitted that the doctor "could not bear to have (women) near him."

D. He was an American quack doctor.

E. He was arrested and charged at Marlborough Street during the murders for "unnatural offences."

F. He was remanded on bail and got away to France, and continued on from there.


Littlechild's remark about how Tumblety was "never heard from" afterwards was wrong, as was any insinuation that Tumblety committed suicide.

People are free to tinker with the Littlechild Letter to their heart's content, but to me the lesson that we learn from it remains solid. In the mind of this ex-Chief Inspector, Tumblety was a likely Ripper suspect. And there is a large dossier on him that has yet to be revealed.

[Chris G.]

Both outrages [the Lincoln Assassination and the Whitechapel Murders and Tumblety's arrest in connection with both crimes] were good publicity for him -- good for business.





Chris --I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I know the above is a popular answer, but it doesn't sound the least bit plausible.

How would being accused of serial murder be 'good for business' for a practicing physican??--if Tumblety was even that (which I personally don't believe he was in 1888).

Further, how could a man implicate himself in murders to such an extent that a Chief Inspector (in Section D, no less!) would think he was a 'very likely' suspect.

How exactly would he do that? Go around with blood on his shirt sleeves? Seriously, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

In all seriousness, wouldn't Littlechild have to be an idiot to fall for something along those lines?

I dont' mean to sound confrontational, and you certainly can draw your own conclusions, but this "answer" is thrown around freely on the internet and I've never felt it has the least bit of credibility in the real world.

All the best, RP

Hello R.J.

Quite apart from whether or not Tumblety was the Ripper and divorced from whatever shades of meaning we can get out of Littlechild's letter, I really think you need to look at this from the other perspective of what did Tumblety do after his arrests in the Lincoln conspiracy and at the time of the Whitechapel murders. In both cases, he put out a self-promotional pamphlet, declaring his innocence. That is a fact, whether Littlechild is right or not that Tumblety was a credible suspect in the East End crimes.

Let me say this, I don't think Tumblety intentionally got embroiled in the Whitechapel murders in order to promote himself. I think he was picked up on the vice charges and questioned about his possible involvement in the murders. After all, here the police had pulled in a shady foreign doctor, who may or may not have been the lodger in the East End, who may or may not have gone round to medical schools asking for women's uteruses to promote a book, and who was said to have a hatred of women.

Tumblety may not have done those things (lodged in the East End or been the man who was alleged to have gone to the medical schools requesting uteruses), but that doesn't imply that the police might not have thought he did them. Knowing he was a "doctor" they may have also thought he was handy with a knife, not realizing that in fact his trade was in abortifacients, pills to bring off abortions, and other medicines, not in surgery.

Littlechild is saying is that he was a "very likely" suspect, apparently because of a number of things that were believed about him, and maybe on some other evidence that we don't know about, but obviously Tumblety was not the only suspect, which we know from Macnaghten, Anderson/Swanson, and other sources.

Again, I don't think Tumblety intentionally involved himself in the murders to get publicity for himself but since he did get linked with them, he decided to make hay out of that connection. So with his 1889 pamphlet he whipped up some publicity for his business and also sought to lampoon the British police in the press, which no doubt amused and pleased his Fenian associates.

R.J., does my reasoning make any more sense to you?

All the best

Chris

[Chris G.]

Hi Paul, R.J., and Joe

IF Francis Tumblety was the Whitechapel murderer, and I do think it is a very big if, my question about him, an American, committing murders in the East End of London would be very much the same as it is with Maybrick -- why would a Liverpudlian travel all the way down to London to commit the murders? Why would an American need to commit murders in London? Of course with Maybrick, it is the contrived hoax Diary that puts the master of Battlecrease in the East End. With Tumblety though it has to be something else, and I don't think it is his alleged hatred of women. I should say that we would be looking for a political motive that might have sent an Irish American on a rampage in Whitechapel.

Best regards

Chris George

[Joe Chetcuti]

Politically, Tumblety was a supporter of Irish causes. Spiritually, he was deeply polluted. If you disrupt a Catholic Mass in a Cathedral for the purpose of mock worship or if you claim you've risen to life after being dead for three days, people are going to eventually figure out which spirit you're genuflecting to.

I would say it was Tumblety's secretive political associations and his own dark-sided spiritual zealousness that compelled his actions in 1888 London. And yes Chris, we should take notice that when Tumblety escaped from morbid trouble in St. Johns and Whitechapel, this Irish-American sought refuge in the United States.

[Paul]

Paul--I went around and around with Wolf Vanderlinden on this one, and I have to say that I disagree, and disagree rather strongly. With respect, I think you blokes are misreading the Littlechild letter.

Ripper Notes #24, p. 44:

“Although Chief Inspector Littlechild endorsed Tumblety as a “likely suspect” (sic) I have to agree with Paul Begg that Littlechild’s opinion that Tumblety was not a sadist while the Ripper "unquestionably was” would tend to point to Littlechild not actually believing that Tumblety was the Ripper” (Vanderlinden, p. 44)

From my original response:

This strikes me as very convoluted. I think in most people’s minds, when Littlechild states “very likely,” he means “very likely.” And a "very likely" suspect means "very likely" to have been the Ripper.


The argument here, rather remarkably, is that Littlechild is making a syllogism. In other words, that although Littlechild states his opinon that Tumblety was a very likely suspect he didn’t really mean it, but choses to immediately undermine his own opinion by saying that Tumblety wasn’t a sadist while the Ripper “unquestionably was.”

Ergo: The Ripper is a sadist. Tumblety is not a sadist. Thus, Tumblety was not the Ripper.

But this is misreading the Letter.

Here’s what Littlechild actually wrote:

"Although a “Sycopathia Sexualis” subject he was not known as a “sadist” (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings towards women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record." (emphasis added).

By paraphrasing Littlechild instead of quoting him, it becomes possible for Mr. Vandelinden to ignore four words: “although”, “but”, and “not known.” And those words utterly alter the meaning of the sentence.

Littlechlid didn’t state Tumblety was not a sadist. He did not make a syllogism. He stated that Tumblety wasn’t known as a sadist, and then ---and here is the key point--- he further qualified this by stating that he was known as a misogynist (ie., holding "remarkable" and "bitter in the extreme" feelings" towards women) --a fact on record.

It’s really quite simple: the sentence is being turned it into a syllogism that doesn’t exist.

Let me put it like this:

“I think Joe was very likely to have ripped off my golf shoes.”

“Although not a golfer, (which the thief undoubtedly was) Joe loved outdoor sports and often hung around the Country Club...a fact on record.”

How on earth does this mean the speaker doesn’t think Joe stole his golf shoes?? He already said quite clearly that he thought Joe was a very likely to have stole his golf shoes.

All he is doing is admitting that Joe wasn’t known to be a golfer...not that he still doesn’t suspect him. In fact, he goes on to give a couple of good reasons why, though not a golfer, Joe still had motives to steal golf shoes...he loved outdoors and hung out a Country Clubs.

Later in the letter, Littlechild goes on to suggest that homosexuals are given to cruelty. A ridiculous notion, clearly, but another indication that he wasn’t implying that Tumblety wasn’t a sadist, only that he didnt’ have any information to that end. I really don't believe Littlechild meant to offer any pscyhological insights into Tumblety, he merely brought the matter up in context to what Sims had stated about 'Dr. D'--Druitt. Sims was obviously asking about sadism or homosexuality, and I personally believe Littlechild only brought up Tumblety because he was genuinely confused as to who the heck Sims was referring to...

In fact, a good conclusion might be that Littlehcild had an entirely DIFFERENT reason for suspecting Tumblety, since he didn’t have any direct evidence of sadism. But of course, some of us wouldn’t wish to go there, I reckon.

All the best, RP

Hi RP,
I think this discussion should probably be moved to a more appropriate thread, however it seems to me that there may be some slight confusion over what is being argued.

My argument is not that Littlechild wrote something he didn’t mean, it’s that what he meant has possibly been misinterpreted: Whilst ‘very likely’ can be interpreted as meaning ‘very likely’ to have been Jack the Ripper, it can also be interpreted as meaning that there were good reasons for suspecting him rather than the insubstantial suspicions arising from someone behaving strangely, making threats during a domestic disturbance, and stuff like that. Seen in the latter context everything he says makes sense. He’s not necessarily endorsing Tumblety as a suspect, he’s simply saying why Tumblety was suspected and why some people might have thought he was Jack the Ripper.

I take your point that Littlechild actually says that Tumblety was not known to be a sadist, leaving open the possibility that he was a sadist, but such a possibility, if taken into consideration, as no doubt it would have been, would only have added to his validity as a suspect. It therefore fits the interpretation of 'most likely' meaning credible. And the fact nevertheless remains that Tumblety was a notorious individual on whom Scotland Yard had a large file and who was not known to be a sadist. That he was or could have been a sadistis is therefore speculation and if he wasn't one then he wasn'tthe murderer - in Littlechild’s eyes the murderer undoubtedly was.

Your analogy does not seem comparable to me – your starting premise, ‘“I think Joe was very likely to have ripped off my golf shoes.”’ presupposes that Littlechild meant ‘I think Tumblety was Jack the Ripper’, which meaning is in dispute - still has the same problem: no matter how good the evidence was that made Joe a suspect, the fact is that the personwho took the shoes was undoubtedly a thief, whereas there was no evidence that Joe was.

Moving into the realms of inference, I'd just point out that we could infer from the reference to Major Griffiths that he was Sims' source about Dr D, who, if Littlechild believed meant the similar-sounding Dr T, he would seem to be cautioning Sims about believing, saying that Griffiths' source was Anderson (presumably meaning MAcnaghten) who only thought he knew. We should obviously be cautious about infering too much, but if Littlechild was indeed cautioing Sims for believing that Dr T was Jack the Ripper, it hardly suggests that Littlechild himself believed he was.

Overall, in saying that the murderer was undoubtedly a sadist and that Tumblety was not known to be one, I think it more likely that Littlechild meant that there were good reasons for suspecting Tumblety rather than the expression of belief in Tumblety's guilt.

Sorry, this was very hastily written and I hope it makes sense.

[admin tim]

Here it be, copied, edited, and ready for 'spirited discussion'.

[Chris G.]

Here it be, copied, edited, and ready for 'spirited discussion'.

Thank you, Tim and Howie. I agree that this is an important topic and deserves its own thread. :thumbsupbud:

All the best

Chris

[Paul]

Hi Paul, R.J., and Joe

IF Francis Tumblety was the Whitechapel murderer, and I do think it is a very big if, my question about him, an American, committing murders in the East End of London would be very much the same as it is with Maybrick -- why would a Liverpudlian travel all the way down to London to commit the murders? Why would an American need to commit murders in London? Of course with Maybrick, it is the contrived hoax Diary that puts the master of Battlecrease in the East End. With Tumblety though it has to be something else, and I don't think it is his alleged hatred of women. I should say that we would be looking for a political motive that might have sent an Irish American on a rampage in Whitechapel.

Best regards

Chris George

Hi Chris,
I think your question is valid when it comes to James Maybrick because the Manchester murder aside the diary suggests that he only killed in London, although the diary tries to explain this by suggesting some sort of symbolism between Whitechapel, Liverpool, and Whitechapel, London. With Tumblety, however, I don't recall any suggestion that he cametoLondon to kill (if he killed at all that is). Tumblety apparently visited London often, apparently on business, or so I think he claimed, and whilst there he accosted young men. I don't know that he specifically came to London to do that, it was just something he did when he was there, and I can only suppose that likewise he didn’t specifically go to London to murder prostitutes, it was just something he did when he was there.

[Robert Linford]

Something I find so strange about the Littlechild letter : we're only three years on from Anderson's book and magazine article, yet he is dismissed in one sentence.

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris,
I think your question is valid when it comes to James Maybrick because the Manchester murder aside the diary suggests that he only killed in London, although the diary tries to explain this by suggesting some sort of symbolism between Whitechapel, Liverpool, and Whitechapel, London. With Tumblety, however, I don't recall any suggestion that he cametoLondon to kill (if he killed at all that is). Tumblety apparently visited London often, apparently on business, or so I think he claimed, and whilst there he accosted young men. I don't know that he specifically came to London to do that, it was just something he did when he was there, and I can only suppose that likewise he didn’t specifically go to London to murder prostitutes, it was just something he did when he was there.


Hi Paul

The question is why did he kill in London, if he did. He lived a long time. Why no Ripper murders in the United States, for example, that could be tied to Tumblety? I am among the researchers who has looked at Tumblety's movements and has come up empty-handed trying to find other murders elsewhere that might be attributed to him. There is the Carrie Brown murder but it would seem that a likely suspect is available to whom to attribute that killing, and there are also the Austin murders but they were killings of black servant girls, using an axe, and so that series is unlike the Whitechapel murders to the extent that it seems a stretch to think one man did both the Austin and East End murders.

All the best

Chris

[Paul]

Hi Chris,
Why did he kill in London is a slightly different question from why did he travel to London to kill. But do you think the Ripper series were his first kills or not.

[Paul]

Something I find so strange about the Littlechild letter : we're only three years on from Anderson's book and magazine article, yet he is dismissed in one sentence.

Hi Robert,
It seems likely that Littlechild meant Macnaghten, not Anderson. Sims' letter was asking about a Dr D, assumed, probably rightly, to be Druitt,who was Macnaghten's suspect and Macnaghten would appear to be the source of most and probably all Griffiths, Sims, and so on information. Macnaghten also acknowledged that he only thought he knew, whereas Anderson apparently had no such doubts (his dogmatism is one of the main criticisms of him).

[Robert Linford]

OK Paul, but then Littlechild's not having heard of a Dr D is a bit odd.

Robert

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris,
Why did he kill in London is a slightly different question from why did he travel to London to kill. But do you think the Ripper series were his first kills or not.

Hi Paul

I would assume if he was a sexual serial murderer as most of us think the Ripper was, that the killer would have killed elsewhere before he came to Whitechapel - that he came as a fully formed serial killer. That is the conventional view of Tumblety as a Ripper candidate, as promulgated by Evans and Gainey. Joe Chetcuti's ultimate theory about the Ripper might take a diffent angle, I don't know, but the articles he has so far published linking Tumblety as the Ripper to William Stead, Sir Francis Burton, and Rochester Member of Parliament Colonel Hughes-Hallett would suggest to me that he is looking for a political motive rather than a lust-murder one. In that case, no previous killing experience might have been necessary. Yes Tumblety had business reasons to be in London, but if he was the murderer, why did he do his killings in the East End? Was there some connection to the Fenians and that is why Littlechild knew about him and suspected him? Were the murders done to embarrass and perhaps unseat the Tory government of Lord Salisbury?

All the best

Chris

[Paul]

Maybe. Littlechild resigned in 1893 and Macnaghten wrote the memorandum in 1894,so Littlechild would never have seen it (assuming anyone did), and Macnaghten apparently received his private information about Druitt some years after he joined the Metropolitan Police in mid-1891, so it's possible that he didn't receive it until after Littlechild had resigned. But even if he received it when Littlechild was still in place, it depends on how widely he circulated it, assuming he circulated it at all, as to whether Littlechild ever knew of it or heard of the name. Littlechild was writing in 1913, the year of Macnaghten's retirement, when the Daily Mail reported him as saying ‘Of course he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea who he was and how he committed suicide...', which could be where Littlechild got the idea that Macnaghten only thought he knew. Or maybe Littlechild knew Macnaghten thought he knew but didn't knoiw what it was he thought. As Sims had correspondence with Macnaghten we may wonder why he didn't ask him for further information about Dr D (or maybe he did and Macnaghten declined to give it).

[Robert Linford]

I think that Joe's looking at a satanic explanation rather than a political one, but I don't want to misinterpret him.

Paul, I know this is a bit nit-picking, but if Littlechild was referring to Macnaghten's statement of 1913, one would have expected the present tense "only thinks he knows". But then, Littlechild seems to express himself a little imprecisely, confounding sadism with masochism in the case of Wilde.

Robert

[Paul]

Hi Chris,
If Tumblety was a practicing serial killer then either he had committed murders in the United States which so far nobody has identified and killed when in London because he was overcome by the urge to do so whilst there. The only alternative is that he chose to come to London to kill, which, like you, I doubt. Fenian sympathies would certainly have brought him to the attention of Littlechild, thought I personally doubt that the murders were inspired by the Fenians - the Fenians could not have known that the murders would cause the sensation they did or that the murderer would escape uncaught, so there was no guarantee that the crimes would affect the Salisbury administration at all.

However, Douglas G. Browne, who saw the official files, wrote in The Rise of Scotland Yard, ‘A third head of the CID, Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office.’ Tthere were Fenians conspiring to assassinate Balfour. Anyway,this belief of Macnaghten's was presumably expressed before receipt of information about Druitt (or it sheds an interesting light on Druitt himself). So, how many Jack the Ripper suspects do we know about who were also Fenians or Fenian sympathisers?

[Paul]

I think that Joe's looking at a satanic explanation rather than a political one, but I don't want to misinterpret him.

Paul, I know this is a bit nit-picking, but if Littlechild was referring to Macnaghten's statement of 1913, one would have expected the present tense "only thinks he knows". But then, Littlechild seems to express himself a little imprecisely, confounding sadism with masochism in the case of Wilde.

Robert

I seem to recall that 'thought he knew' is in italics and underlined as if a quote from somewhere. Maybe Sims himself wrote something like, 'I was led to believe that he thought he knew...' and Littlechild quoted him on it.

As for the Wilde thing, Littlechild actually says that 'It is very strange how those given to “Contrary sexual instinct and degenerates” are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about.' (My emphasis) Cruelty would embrace both sadism and masochism.

It is, I think, possibly a mistake to assume that this stuff relates directly to Tumblety and the Ripper being a sadist. I probably does, though all the stuff about Bullen separates it from Tumblety and appears to be in answer to another question. The stuff about Wilde and Thaw could therefore be in answer to yet another question and only be indirectly related to Drs D and T.

[Chris G.]

I seem to recall that 'thought he knew' is in italics and underlined as if a quote from somewhere. Maybe Sims himself wrote something like, 'I was led to believe that he thought he knew...' and Littlechild quoted him on it.

As for the Wilde thing, Littlechild actually says that 'It is very strange how those given to “Contrary sexual instinct and degenerates” are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about.' (My emphasis) Cruelty would embrace both sadism and masochism.

It is, I think, possibly a mistake to assume that this stuff relates directly to Tumblety and the Ripper being a sadist. I probably does, though all the stuff about Bullen separates it from Tumblety and appears to be in answer to another question. The stuff about Wilde and Thaw could therefore be in answer to yet another question and only be indirectly related to Drs D and T.

Hi Paul

First, I am not sure I know of any other Ripper suspect who had Fenian sympathies other than Tumblety.

I am not sure we can infer the part of the Littlechild letter about sadism where he talks about the Ripper, Harry Thaw, and Oscar Wilde after mentioning Tumblety is "in answer to yet another question and only be indirectly related to Drs D and T."

To me it reads as if he is saying that Tumblety along with these other individuals was known for unnatural practices just as these other men were, and they are the type of men who could have committed the Ripper crimes. That's kind of fuzzy logic as well as shaky psychology but that's how I read what Littlechild was saying.

Chris

[Paul]

Hi Paul

First, I am not sure I know of any other Ripper suspect who had Fenian sympathies other than Tumblety.

I am not sure we can infer the part of the Littlechild letter about sadism where he talks about the Ripper, Harry Thaw, and Oscar Wilde after mentioning Tumblety is "in answer to yet another question and only be indirectly related to Drs D and T."

To me it reads as if he is saying that Tumblety along with these other individuals was known for unnatural practices just as these other men were, and they are the type of men who could have committed the Ripper crimes. That's kind of fuzzy logic as well as shaky psychology but that's how I read what Littlechild was saying.

Chris

Hi Chris,
The letter breaks down into three parts: (1) the stuff about Drs D and T, (2) the stuff about the Jack the Ripper letter and Bullen, (3) the stuff about homosexuals and cruelty, and (4) the stuff about Griffiths and Anderson (Macnaghten). (1) and (2) seem to be responses to specific questions from Sims, whilst (3) does indeed look like an afterthought which by rights should have been a continuation of (1). But it might be profotable to consider whther it could have been a response to something else Sims had said and that it related to Dr D. Suppose Sims wrote something like: 'According to Major Griffiths, Dr D, who was homosexual, had a reputation for over-enthusiastic use of the cane, and one savage beating led to his dismissal.' To this Littlechild observes, 'It is very strange how those given to 'Contrary sexual instinct' and 'degenerates' are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about.' This perhaps then makes a little more sense of (4), the reference to Griffiths, which otherwise seems like another afterthought.

What do you think?

[R.J.Palmer]

Suppose Sims wrote something like: 'According to Major Griffiths, Dr D, who was homosexual, had a reputation for over-enthusiastic use of the cane, and one savage beating led to his dismissal.'....What do you think?

Hi Paul. Well, for me, I think that is exactly what is going on, and made a similar point on Ryder's site some time ago. But I don't think it could have had anything to do with Valentine's school, because Macnaghten appears to have been unaware of it. He thought Druitt was a doctor, so I assume the 'sexual insanity' event was at some flogging house in the West End.

What I don't think can be inferred is the point made by Chris (and Natalie on another thread) that Littlechild was engaging in "fuzzy thinking" about homosexuals.

There is no doubt that much of the context of the Littlechild Letter is about homosexuals and sadism---so I can go along with them part way---- but it takes a leap of faith to conclude that this had anything to do with the original suspicions against Tumblety (or Druitt). I think that Chris and/or Natalie would have to show that the police were specifically targetting gays in 1888 in order to make that argument. There is no historical evidence for it--not that I know of. Yes, Tumblety was arrested for gross indecency, but I would agree with Stewart Evans that this was merely the result of a broader investigation. The temptation is for the historian to put too much stock in what is, afterall, only one brief snapshot written many years later, and assume, because Sims and Littlechild were talking rather loosely about gays, that homosexuality was sum total of the suspicions. That's a big assumption. We know that that wasn't the case with Druitt. To my mind, Littlechild was merely responding to Sims' earlier letter, and, I think, genuinely puzzled by who Dr. D was. I don't agree with Robert that this was particulary unsual; Littlechild was evidently in retirement before Macnaghten got his "private information."

That said, I do sometimes wonder if the Special Branch may have kept an eye on homosexual clubs/brothels/rent boys. Littlechild's rather tawdry surveillance of C.S. Parnell's affair with Kitty O'Shea suggests that Scotland Yard might have used sexual indescretions to political advantage.

Finally, please note that Littlechild is doing what Swanson and Macnaghten did. He associated Tumblety's departure with the end of the murders. This is not the observation of a man who didn't really believe in his suspect.

Ciao.

[Paul]

Finally, please note that Littlechild is doing what Swanson and Macnaghten did. He associated Tumblety's departure with the end of the murders. This is not the observation of a man who didn't really believe in his suspect.

We are possibly nearer in our thinking, or certain areas of thinking, than might otherwise appear to be the case. As for the quoted bit above, if Littlechild was simply stating why somone would have suspected Tumblety and given credence to his guilt, his would have mentioned Tumblety's flight and possible death coinciding with the end of the murders as a factor. His statement wouldn't necessarilly reflect a personal belief in the guilt of Tumblety.

Cheers
Paul

[A.P. Wolf]

I've said it before, RJP, but I'll say it again for your edification once more.
It is entirely possible that the gross indecency offences laid against Tumblety were in fact the normal attempts of social and sexual blackmail as practised by many young men of the LVP against older men who attempted to pay them for their sexual favours.
There is persuasive - and massive - evidence from this exact period that gentlemen, like Tumblety, Wilde and Thaw, were embroiled in such attempts at blackmail when they approached young men in such a manner... rather than sexual favours they were rewarded with demands for money or face exposure in the courts and press. They almost always paid up.
Tumblety himself in the 1870's was involved in exactly this type of sting operation, and it cost him his handsome gold watch, and the threat of court action.
This peculiar situation was certainly not lost on the police of the time, although it seems to have been forgotten by you, and others... and I feel it remiss of you not to take this into consideration when you spout off about the Littlechild letter, for was not Litlechild himself involved in collecting clandestine information about the sexual habits of people, men, whom he was investigating for relatives who wanted to make a few pounds out of the strange sexual habits of their partners?
Littlechild would have also be well aware of the amount of cash that could be gained by the threat of exposure, and must have done well out of his decision not to use the material he had on Thaw at the time of his trial for murder.

[Chris G.]

Hi Paul. Well, for me, I think that is exactly what is going on, and made a similar point on Ryder's site some time ago. But I don't think it could have had anything to do with Valentine's school, because Macnaghten appears to have been unaware of it. He thought Druitt was a doctor, so I assume the 'sexual insanity' event was at some flogging house in the West End.

What I don't think can be inferred is the point made by Chris (and Natalie on another thread) that Littlechild was engaging in "fuzzy thinking" about homosexuals.

There is no doubt that much of the context of the Littlechild Letter is about homosexuals and sadism---so I can go along with them part way---- but it takes a leap of faith to conclude that this had anything to do with the original suspicions against Tumblety (or Druitt). I think that Chris and/or Natalie would have to show that the police were specifically targetting gays in 1888 in order to make that argument. There is no historical evidence for it--not that I know of. Yes, Tumblety was arrested for gross indecency, but I would agree with Stewart Evans that this was merely the result of a broader investigation. The temptation is for the historian to put too much stock in what is, afterall, only one brief snapshot written many years later, and assume, because Sims and Littlechild were talking rather loosely about gays, that homosexuality was sum total of the suspicions. That's a big assumption. We know that that wasn't the case with Druitt. To my mind, Littlechild was merely responding to Sims' earlier letter, and, I think, genuinely puzzled by who Dr. D was. I don't agree with Robert that this was particulary unsual; Littlechild was evidently in retirement before Macnaghten got his "private information."

That said, I do sometimes wonder if the Special Branch may have kept an eye on homosexual clubs/brothels/rent boys. Littlechild's rather tawdry surveillance of C.S. Parnell's affair with Kitty O'Shea suggests that Scotland Yard might have used sexual indescretions to political advantage.

Finally, please note that Littlechild is doing what Swanson and Macnaghten did. He associated Tumblety's departure with the end of the murders. This is not the observation of a man who didn't really believe in his suspect.

Ciao.

Hi R.J. and Paul

You know one of the things that I find off putting in British writing and reminiscences, particularly pre-mid-twentieth century, is the anecdotal style of writing that is often encountered in memoirs or indeed in the Littlechild letter. It's as if they are gathered around the fire in their smoking jackets just shooting the breeze. That having been said, I find it hard to analyze the Littlechild letter as a criminological, evidence-based piece, as we would wish it to be. Also as I have commented before, all Littlechild is saying is that Tumblety was in his view a better suspect that "Dr. D" just as all Macnaghten was saying was that certain other men were better suspects than Cutbush.

Because both the Macnaghten memoranda and the Littlechild letter were private documents not meant to be read by the public and in that respect not designed to be the final word on the case, it's hard to make hard conclusions based on them. All they do is give us indications of what Scotland Yard was thinking.

As for Littlechild's point at the end of his letter that the murders ended after Tumblety left. . . well since Scotland Yard was looking at the later murders of Rose Mylett, Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles as "Whitechapel murders" that really is a sweeping statement contrary to what was believed at the time, and written by him 25 years later in retrospect.

It also only states as a fact what Littlechild may have believed, Tumblety left and the murders ended, and does not particularly point to Tumblety having been the man. R.J., you may be right that it was "not the observation of a man who didn't really believe in his suspect." But I would like you to look at the statement from these other perspectives as well if you would. Thanks.

Best regards

Chris George

[Paul]

Yes, Tumblety was arrested for gross indecency, but I would agree with Stewart Evans that this was merely the result of a broader investigation... that homosexuality was sum total of the suspicions. That's a big assumption.

I don't know that the gross indecency charges were the result of a broader investigation. Littlechild doesn't mention any such investigation, although it might be inferred from the reference to the large file on Tumblety at Scotland Yard. He could simply have been a notorious individual, as he was in the United States, who came under suspicion because of his extreme views about women.

[Paul]

all Littlechild is saying is that Tumblety was in his view a better suspect that "Dr. D"

Er, no he wasn't, Chris. He'd never heard of Dr D, so he was hardly in a position to think that Tumblety was a better or worse suspect, and he might never even have mentioned Tumblety had not D and T sounded so similar.

[Paul]

It is entirely possible that the gross indecency offences laid against Tumblety were in fact the normal attempts of social and sexual blackmail as practised by many young men of the LVP against older men who attempted to pay them for their sexual favours.

Hi A.P.,
Is it equally fair to say, do you think, that the gross indecency offences were genuine?

You've no doubt done it elsewhere, but what evidence do you have of men being embroiled in blackmail or even of arrests for gross indecency. A good selection of similar cases might shed light on what Tumblety was accused of.

[Chris G.]

Er, no he wasn't, Chris. He'd never heard of Dr D, so he was hardly in a position to think that Tumblety was a better or worse suspect, and he might never even have mentioned Tumblety had not D and T sounded so similar.

Hi D

Yes I have mistakenly said that before, so thanks for pointing that out. The following may be a bit of a nuanced objection to what you have just said, but what if Littlechild had heard of a "D" i.e., Druitt, but not a "Dr. D". In any case, when he said "very likely" suspect he was certainly pushing Tumblety into a front rank position compared to whomever else, was he not?

Chris

[Spiro]

Littlechild would have also be well aware of the amount of cash that could be gained by the threat of exposure, and must have done well out of his decision not to use the material he had on Thaw at the time of his trial for murder.

Maybe Ap,

Littlechild did have family to support in private investigation by that date but I doubt sexual blackmail was his currency for retirement. As is known he acted for clients after 1893 as a private enquiry agent. Clients who owned the gathered material by way of payment for his services.

Perhaps you were thinking of the riches to be made from penny dreadfuls and shilling shockers such as this...

[A.P. Wolf]

Oh yes, Paul, I have done that thing, many a time. Just bung 'Bird Cage Walk' into the Old Bailey search engine and you'll be rewarded handsomely.
It was tradition.

Spiro, the fact that Littlechild never offered his evidence against Thaw in a court of law trying him for murder speaks volumes; especially considering that the person paying his wage wanted this evidence read in court.
It seems someone had a better offer.
You must remember that Thaw sat in a passenger liner in the straits of Dover after his release and was refused entry to England.
I wonder who might have been behind that little game of shadows?

[R.J.Palmer]

especially considering that the person paying his wage wanted this evidence read in court?

That's not in evidence, AP. It's not really clear if Littlechild was working for the defence or for the prosecution. You're assuming the latter, but most the money for the investigation was actually coming from Old Lady Thaw.

I've got to slip away for a few days, but let me leave you with this.

There is persuasive - and massive - evidence from this exact period that gentlemen, like Tumblety, Wilde and Thaw, were embroiled in such attempts at blackmail when they approached young men in such a manner...

AP - I don't disagree, except for Thaw, as there is no evidence that he was gay, though there is abundant evidence that he was a creep. I just don't see the relevance. What are you getting at?

I mean, who cares what Tumblety did or did not do with the rent boys? Who cares if they were after a few bob?

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but it appears that you (and evidently Paul, and possibly Chris) are assuming that Tumblety got caught out with the boys, and then somehow was morphed into a Whitechapel suspect by homophobes at Scotland Yard.

I find that highly unlikely. What other gay punters were turned into Ripper suspects in 1888-1894? Can you name any? Surely F.T. wasn't the only man in Victorian London who took a bath with a boy? Was Oscar Wilde a Ripper suspect? And if this was all there was to it, why is he still being mentioned as a very likely suspect by a Chief Inspector twenty years later?

We're not after Druitt because of his poor batting at cricket, or after Tommy Cutbush because his paper dolls are a sloppy. Why do you assume Tumblety's fling with the rent boys is relevant, other than a way to assert leverage against him?

I'm still seeing a leap of faith, connecting the gross indecency charges to suspicions for murder. There is no indication that this is how it 'went down.' It's not uncommon for the police to settle for lesser charges when investigating a man for a felony. Indeed, that's what the initial press reports said Scotland Yard was doing. What can you show me that indicates that those reports were inaccurate? Indeed, Aliffe's discovery of the court calendar confirmed their general accuracy.

The trouble with all the suspects --Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety, Cutbush, Sadler, etc.-- is that were are all theorizing from a position of profound ignorance. The files have gone missing. If the police were idiots, then we are idiots once removed, because we are stuck guessing at their thought-processes. If you are trying to get to the bottom of it, I don't see that dismissiveness is a particularly wise tool. It's better to keep an open mind and think of the evidence creatively, and then hope you can find source materials that might verify/disprove any given theory.

[A.P. Wolf]

Well, RJP, my dear chap, I am in absolute agreement with your latest thoughts, but it does seem to me that the more we look at Tumblety as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders then the more fragile and precarious the situation appears to become, whilst when we look at young Thomas as a suspect the solid information just keeps firming up a mild suspicion.

I know you are keen to make this a one horse race, RJP, but quite honestly I find it demeaning to both of us to make it so.
You are a wonderful personage; and as I have said before if I had to defend the Alamo I would certainly want you on my side.
But please, RJP, drop this business with Tumblety, for the deck is cleared and cannon will fire.
And in the smoke and mirrors of history I would like to count you as one of the few good men.
I strike me flag in the blood of dawn, and the black spot will be many.

[Paul]

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but it appears that you (and evidently Paul, and possibly Chris) are assuming that Tumblety got caught out with the boys, and then somehow was morphed into a Whitechapel suspect by homophobes at Scotland Yard.

I hope I'm not assuming that! What I meant was that Scotland Yard would have checked out suspicious characters, as, for example, they checked out the three medical students, and that Tumblety, on whom they had a large file, suggesting that he was a notorious character, would have thus been thrown up because of the extreme views he had expressed about women, especially if he was 'famous for his hatred of women' and had 'repeatedly made threats against females of dissolute character' as claimed in the Monmouthshire Merlin and South Wales Advertiser, 7 December 1888, for example. If it was learned that he was in England then surveillance may have been maintained on him and the acts of indecency been observed because of that.

When you wrote that the arrest for gross indecency 'was merely the result of a broader investigation', I thought it right not to give the impression that Tumblety was the subject of a major investigation and thereby inadvertantly confer upon him an importance greater than may be warranted. Tumblety was perhaps being routinely investigated as a known and extreme misogynist.

Cheers
Paul

[Paul]

but what if Littlechild had heard of a "D" i.e., Druitt, but not a "Dr. D". In any case, when he said "very likely" suspect he was certainly pushing Tumblety into a front rank position compared to whomever else, was he not?

It's possible that Littlechild had heard about 'D' and failed to connect him with 'Dr D', but if he'd heard about Druitt at all then wouldn't it have been via Macnaghten, who thought him a doctor and therefore so would Littlechild?

My point about 'very likely' is that we may be wrong in assuming that it conferred any significance on Tumblety. Let's suppose that he was a notorious character, well-known to the police, who famously hated women and had threatened prostitutes (as claimed in the Monmouthshire Merlin and South Wales Advertiser, 7 December 1888), then one can see why he would have come under suspicion and why he would have been a more likely suspect than, say, someone who was suspected because he behaved strangely in a pub and had a few splashes of what looked like blood on his shirt cuffs.

So, I don't think that that 'very likely' comment does elevate Tumblety into a front rank position. It simply means that there were good reasons why he was suspected, but Littlechild may no more have thought him a front runner than Florence Nightingale and, as said, might never have mentioned him had not he been asked about the similar sounding Dr T.

It is possibly telling, I think, that when Sims wrote his autobiography, My Life in 1917, he reiterated that Jack the Ripper 'drowned himself. His body was found in the Thames after it had been in the river for nearly a month.' This is obviously a reference to Druitt. Sims evidently didn't prefer Littlechild's comments about Tumblety. We don't know why, but the possibility must exist that he sought further information and clarification from Littlechild.

Cheers
Paul

[Chris G.]

Hi Paul. Well, for me, I think that is exactly what is going on, and made a similar point on Ryder's site some time ago. But I don't think it could have had anything to do with Valentine's school, because Macnaghten appears to have been unaware of it. He thought Druitt was a doctor, so I assume the 'sexual insanity' event was at some flogging house in the West End.

What I don't think can be inferred is the point made by Chris (and Natalie on another thread) that Littlechild was engaging in "fuzzy thinking" about homosexuals.

There is no doubt that much of the context of the Littlechild Letter is about homosexuals and sadism---so I can go along with them part way---- but it takes a leap of faith to conclude that this had anything to do with the original suspicions against Tumblety (or Druitt). I think that Chris and/or Natalie would have to show that the police were specifically targetting gays in 1888 in order to make that argument. There is no historical evidence for it--not that I know of. Yes, Tumblety was arrested for gross indecency, but I would agree with Stewart Evans that this was merely the result of a broader investigation. The temptation is for the historian to put too much stock in what is, afterall, only one brief snapshot written many years later, and assume, because Sims and Littlechild were talking rather loosely about gays, that homosexuality was sum total of the suspicions. That's a big assumption. We know that that wasn't the case with Druitt. To my mind, Littlechild was merely responding to Sims' earlier letter, and, I think, genuinely puzzled by who Dr. D was. I don't agree with Robert that this was particulary unsual; Littlechild was evidently in retirement before Macnaghten got his "private information."

That said, I do sometimes wonder if the Special Branch may have kept an eye on homosexual clubs/brothels/rent boys. Littlechild's rather tawdry surveillance of C.S. Parnell's affair with Kitty O'Shea suggests that Scotland Yard might have used sexual indescretions to political advantage.

Finally, please note that Littlechild is doing what Swanson and Macnaghten did. He associated Tumblety's departure with the end of the murders. This is not the observation of a man who didn't really believe in his suspect.

Ciao.

Hi RJ

Let me clarify that I certainly don't think that the whole case for Tumblety revolved about his homosexuality and any prejudice against "unnatural practices." There had to be more to the case about him than that. Although I do think that Littlechild is in essence in the letter to G. R. Sims saying this is the type of behavior these perverts get up to, as if the type of man that would do such things could be a serial killer (quite a leap in logic that most of us would not buy). Practically speaking though, apart from the line he takes in the letter, I do think the charge of unnatural practices could have been a means of detaining Tumblety while the police had a chance to trace his movements and gather other evidence about him.

Best regards

Chris George

[A.P. Wolf]

I don't think I can agree with the 'broader investigation' idea, Chris, for you have to remember that Tumblety already had a police record before 1888 in the United Kingdom, as a warrant was issued for his arrest in the 1870's (1876 I think), and a gold watch that was the subject of much tarnation was left by him at Scotland Yard when he fled to Paris.
For all we know the police in 1888 may have originally questioned him in this regard.

[Chris G.]

I don't think I can agree with the 'broader investigation' idea, Chris, for you have to remember that Tumblety already had a police record before 1888 in the United Kingdom, as a warrant was issued for his arrest in the 1870's (1876 I think), and a gold watch that was the subject of much tarnation was left by him at Scotland Yard when he fled to Paris.
For all we know the police in 1888 may have originally questioned him in this regard.

Thanks, AP. I think that previous scrape with the law could have been another reason why he was a "person of interest" in 1888.

All the best

Chris