Come Fly With Me

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Tumblety was bailed on 16th November 1888. It is said that a hearing was held on 20th November 1888 at the Old Bailey, and the trial postponed until 10th December.

Francis Tumblety didn't wait for justice on four charges of gross indecency. He flew the coop, and by 24th November 1888 was aboard La Bretagne, a steamship belonging to the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, bound for New York under the assumed name of Frank Townsend.

Tumblety's quickest route to New York was to sail direct from Liverpool or Southampton, but instead he chose to cross the channel and sail from Le Havre.

This is interesting, because ostensibly we are dealing with a man who had skipped bail—a fugitive on the run—for whom speed was of the essence.

Having first purchased tickets through a company such as Thomas Cook, Tumblety's quickest route to Le Havre was by train from Waterloo to Southampton [2½ hours] and onto Le Havre by night ferry [7—8 hours]. Total journey time—10+ hours.

But the Littlechild letter tells us that Tumblety travelled to France via Boulogne, a fact also recorded in Andrew Cook's biography of William Melville.

On this route Tumblety would have travelled from either Charing Cross or Cannon Street to Folkestone [2 hours approx.] and onto Boulogne by ferry [1 hour 40 minutes]. At first glance this looks the quicker route, for Le Havre was only another 100 miles [as the crow flies] from Boulogne.

However, on landing at Boulogne, Tumblety now faced a problem. The only speedy way of getting by train from Boulogne to Le Havre was via Paris. His only alternative means of transport was on the slow train through a 100+ mile maze of branch lines or by taking a diligence [stage coach].

The rail journey from Boulogne to Paris took around 5—6 hours. Tumblety then had to change train stations, taking a cab from the Gare du Nord to the Gare St. Lazare.

The rail journey from Paris to Le Havre took 4½ hours by express train, 6 hours by "quick train" and 7¾ hours by "ordinary train".

The Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lit ran dining cars on the Paris to Le Havre route, so let's say that Tumblety took the express, on which [depending on the time of day] he could have enjoyed lunch from 2½—4 francs or dinner from 3½—6 francs, all washed down with a half-bottle of wine at an extra 1 franc.

On reaching Le Havre transatlantic passengers were advised to use one of the hotels on the Grand Quai, such as the Amirauté, Indes, Louvre or Londres, and to ascertain at once from the bills posted up along the quay the time of sailing, which varied with the tide.

As a guide to this, on Saturday 20th October 1888 La Bretagne slipped her berth in Le Havre at 10.00 am.

This gives Tumblety a total journey time from London to Le Havre of 14+ hours, plus transfer time in Paris and a possible overnight stay in Le Havre.

Does this sound like the itinerary of a fugitive from justice?

Regards,

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

Well noted and recorded, Simon, and not to forget he had a tumble of heavy suitcases with him, both of which do seem to indicate he was travelling at his leisure and pleasure.

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

I thought it might amuse you.

Passengers on French railways were permitted a free allowance of 66 lbs [around 30 Kg for the Imperially challenged]. And transatlantic passengers were allowed three steamer trunks before the excess baggage tariff kicked in.

I can't imagine Tumblety travelling light.

Regards,

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

Indeed, Simon, I can well imagine the scene in Tumblety's swank West-End hotel as Littlechild and McIntyre helped pack his steamer trunks.
'Did you want your slouch hat and American Cloth packed in the cabin trunk or the cargo trunks, old boy?' asks Littlechild.
'oh just put it in cargo,' replies Francis. 'Along with that bloody knife and small white dog.'
'What about your white charger?' asks McIntyre.
'Present it to the Horse Guards,' avows Tumblety. 'They seem to like that sort of thing.'
'Will you write, Dr D?' asks Littlechild.
'It's Dr T, you nut job,' replies Dr T.
'What year is it?' asks Littlechild.
'1906, you daft twaddle,' replied Dr D&T. 'Now telegraph that Irish ijit police chief in New Yank and tell him that I need three good men to carry me bags, and a suitable room for the night.'
'Very good, sir,' says Littlechild, jumps out of third floor window and lands on Dr Bond's head.
'Good evening Dr A,' he says. 'Have you seen Dr C?'

[SirRobertAnderson]

Indeed, Simon, I can well imagine the scene in Tumblety's swank West-End hotel as Littlechild and McIntyre helped pack his steamer trunks.'

There are some that believe I am ignorant on all matters Ripper, but one suspect I readily concede the point on is Tumblety. So if this has been discussed before, I apologize.

One way to reconcile all the apparent contradictions of the strange case of Dr. T would be if he was a double agent of some sorts on matters Fenian, and had a "get out of jail free" card with the Special Branch. Is that a possibility ?

Or is that my hookah talking ?

[How Brown]

Dear Simon:

Thanks very much for providing another Tumbelty related thread,sor.

Quick question...

You stated:

Does this sound like the itinerary of a fugitive from justice?

It does in a way to me if he left England, period. Again,I am not defending him as fleeing justice as a fugitive for the Whitechapel Murders, but ANY charge...specifically the gross indeceny charges.

Let me put it this way,since I am not up to speed on the jurisdictional powers of the British Constabulary in 1888.....

If he had left ( fled as we percieve ) London and attempted to leave Middlesex County for Wales...Ireland...or Scotland...would the British police been able to nab him and drag him back to London since these three nations are still in the United Kingdom?

If he leaves England and goes east to France, what would the procedure be to extradite him ? Could the Brits have extradited him on the indecency charges ?

Back to you,old bean....

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Meet the Bourdier-Mongruet detective agency. Who said the French were uncooperative?

This is from The Times, 27th January 1885—

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/FRENCH20DETECTIVES202720JAN201885.jpg

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Dear Simon:

Okay,so the French were assistive to the British constabulary. Thanks for this interesting article...very much,mon ami. No need to ask whether flight from justice inside the U.K. was a problem since he didn't attempt to stay in the U.K. after November 16th. That answers that question.

Now...before I ask any more questions ( Everyone else please feel free to do so...) let me ask you point blank:

Do you think it is more likely that of the three prevailing theories on his flight from Britain...which do you think....

A. Fenian activity
B. Homosexual offenses which seemed like a slam dunk sentence
C. I won't ask about the WM. :)

........was the most likely ?

Or is it possibly a combination of more than one.

Back to you...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

In answer to your question I would say that SirRobertAnderson [post #5] is spot-on in his analysis of Dr. T.

I guess that puts him in your [A] category.

Regards,

Simon

[Tim Riordan]

Hi to all,

It is my opinion, and nothing more, that Tumblety was offered the same deal they tried to get Oscar Wilde to take - get out of the country and we will not worry about it. Whether this was tacit or explicit, intentional or unintentional, I could not say.

Best,

Tim

[How Brown]

Thats a damned good suggestion,Tim ! Thanks for bringing this up.

I know you're busy...but if you had the chance ( I'd even get our caption judge to let any caption you entered this week be the winner...I still have a few teeth in my head)....could you condense the Wilde issue for us ?

Thanks for the post once again Tim.

Simon'

And thank you for your ideas as well..

Where's our A.P. at?

[Tim Riordan]

Does this sound like Tumblety and his case?

"Wilde had no chance of winning this action. For years he and Douglas had cavorted with "rent boys," young men little different from prostitutes. Predictably, the Marquess hired investigators who located several of these young men and arranged for their testimony. Realizing what was happening, Wilde dropped his action before the Marquess could present his defense. But the libel suit had brought Wilde's behavior to official public attention. It was now too late to prevent a criminal prosecution."


"After his libel action failed, and prosecution loomed, Wilde had several opportunities to flee the country. Although his mother and brother insisted he stand trial, few wanted him to stay--not his friends, not his wife, not the government; even the Marquess was willing to see him go. One friend had a yacht ready to take Wilde to France."

Hardly anyone wanted Wilde prosecuted but he just would not leave

[A.P. Wolf]

One has to remember that Tumblety was freed from an American jail on the say so of a British diplomat, which does seem to indicate some kind of connection and relationship between himself and HMG.
Like wise his ability to skip and dodge very serious criminal charges in British courts can only be marveled at; and also indicate some sort of cosy liason with the secret arm of the British law.
McIntyre was quite blunt in his series of articles, and scathing indeed of the illicit relationship between certain individuals at Scotland Yard and known criminal informers who - in his own words - were allowed to get away with murder when encouraged by the Yard to flee for France.
I said a long time ago that I thought Tumblety was put on that ship to America by Scotland Yard to avoid the scandal that would have been presented at his Old Bailey trial.
Oscar was at least not in the pay of HMG when he faced Babylon at the Old Bailey, I reckon Tumblety was.
Anyways he was so happy that he left the boys his gold watch as a souvenir.

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Two questions—

What watch?

Do we know anything about Littlechild's cohort in the Oscar Wilde case, retired detective inspector Frederick Kearley?

Regards,

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

Simon, the gold watch story eludes me, but I did post it somewhere on the Tumblety threads.
If my memory serves me well, in an earlier case where complaints of Babylon were directed against the good doctor, he in turn accused the young man of stealing his gold watch.
Said gold watch ended up at Scotland Yard and I don't believe it was ever collected by Tumblety who had done one, so to speak.
Tumblety probably marched into Scotland Yard in August 1888 - some ten years later - and said 'oy! where's me watch?'
And the A.C. of Scotland Yard probably rubbed his hands together in sheer delight and replied 'Ah, Dr Babylon, we have some work for you...'
But Tumblety with a dismissive nod of his magnificent six foot head retorted 'not on your Nellie, mate!'
At this point the A.C. unfurls his charge sheet to ask Tumblety if he knows the young man concerned, intimately you must understand. Tumblety raises his eight foot hands in despair and offers the A.C. his patent pimple banisher.
The A.C. pins a deputy dawg badge on the good doctor's 72 inch chest.
This explains the mysterious gap in the filed charges, from August till November... sort of.
Simon, are you sure you have the name right for Littlechild's accomplice in Oscar's Babylon?

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

I grabbed this from the trial transcript—

"FREDERICK KEARLEY, examined by Mr. GILL —

I am a retired detective-inspector. I examined the documents left behind by Taylor at 3 Chapel Street . . ."

Regards.

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

Such a good man should never have been casted to the damned wolves of the Yard. It were an indecency.

“All trials are trials for one’s life, just as all sentences are sentences of death, and three times I have been tried. The first time I left the box to be arrested, the second time to be led back to the house of detention, and the third time to pass into prison for two years. Society as we have constituted it, will have no place for me, has none to offer; but Nature, whose sweet rains fall on just and unjust alike, will have clefts in the rocks where I may hide, and secret valleys in whose silence I may weep undisturbed. She will hang with stars so that I may walk abroad in the darkness without stumbling, and send the wind over my footprints so that none may track me to my hurt: she will cleanse me in great waters, and with bitter herbs make me whole.” [Oscar Wilde, De Profundis]

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Indecent indeed.

It's interesting in our more enlightened times that such a shameful episode as the Wilde trial is nowhere to be found on the Old Bailey website.

There are some weasel words about its absence on the FAQ page.

Regards,

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

Indeed, Simon
and it also leads one to the conclusion that Tumblety was perhaps offered the opportunity to flee whilst he still could... but not from a British port, eh? That would not have looked too kosher.

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Hence Dr T not taking the direct route from Liverpool or Southampton.

That makes sense. But there's still the question of him being allowed to board a cross-channel ferry at Folkestone. Would that have constituted fleeing from a British port?

The whole episode is as bent as a nine-bob note.

Regards,

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

Valid and good point, Simon, as Channel ports are closely watched by the police whenever a fugitive is, or was, on the run... but was Tumblety on the run?
I don't think so.
If an APB had been issued for Tumblety he would have been tumbled at the Channel ports, as he wasn't he would have been accepted as just another 'day tripper', which is, and was the main pedestrian traffic of the Channel ports.
Do we actually know that Tumblety employed the Channel ports for such purpose, Simon?
I would have thought that it would have been far more comfortable for the old boy to have taken the daily ferry service available then directly in the Whitechapel Docks.
I posted details of this service some years ago on the boards.
It is also worth considering the efforts that the Met was going to at this exact time to painstakingly check the baggage and credentials of every single American coming or leaving the port of Liverpool, there's a mepo reference to this.
It wouldn't have done to have Tumblety busted by the ordinary Met whilst being sent on his way by the secret squirrel.

[How Brown]

A.P. or Simon:

One fairly easy question for either of you would be this:

If they really wanted Tumbelty for evading his court appearance and did suspect him in London for the WM...why would American police officials not comply with the British desires?

I'm like a lot of other folks in that I've heard about extradition issues...blah blah blah...but what are your feelings on this.

It makes no sense to me that the US would not snatch the big fruitcake up in a New York minute and jettison his "murderous" ass outta the country.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

In an attempt to answer your excellent question—

The LVP cops on both sides of the Atlantic could arrest who they wanted when they wanted. It's the same today. There's always some legal holding tactic.

Dr T slipping through the fingers of the Met and Special Branch and making it all the way by transatlantic steamer from Le Havre to New York under an assumed name [while hiding in his stateroom for the duration of the voyage] is an unlikely scenario to say the least.

How would you feel if you had read it in a detective novel "The Mysterious Doctor Tumblety", or seen it in a movie of the same name?

New York World, 4th December 1888—

"When the French line steamer La Bretagne, from Havre, came to her dock at 1:30 Sunday afternoon two keen-looking men pushed through the crowd and stood on either side of the gangplank. They glanced impatiently at the passengers until a big, fine-looking man hurried across the deck and began to descend. He had a heavy, fierce-looking mustache, waxed at the ends; his face was pale and he looked hurried and excited. He wore a dark blue ulster, with belt buttoned. He carried under his arm two canes and an umbrella fastened together with a strap."

There's no mistaking a character like that.

New York World, 4th December 1888 [same newspaper, same day]—

"He must have kept himself very quiet on the La Bretagne, for a number of passengers who were interviewed could not remember having seen anyone answering his description."

Ergo! He must have hid in his stateroom.

Why didn't they interview any of the ship's crew? Frank Townsend couldn't have survived a 10 day transatlantic voyage without room service, laundry services or hot water for shaving or a bath.

By now [if you're anything like me], you would have ripped "The Mysterious Doctor Tumblety" to shreds whilst casting aspersions on the author's birthright and damning his contempt for his readers' intelligence, or would have thrown your can of beer at the screen whilst screaming similar profanities about the script writer and director.

Yet history demands that we believe this crock of sh*t.

Oh, puhleeze!

Let's continue to throw beer cans, rotten eggs and cabbages at Tumblety.

Regards,

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

'Yet history demands that we believe this crock of sh*t.'

I'd rather say, Simon, that history demands an answer from those that started this crock of shite,

[How Brown]

Thanks a lot Simon...and you too A.P.

One of the two primary reasons I have thought little of his candidacy is within the question I asked you,Simon and your response. Regardless of any provincialistic feelings the US had towards the UK in 1888 and vice versa...and we know well of the shitty treatment the British police in general were accorded by headline hungry, eager beaver US newspapers in at least one of the two most populated US cities ( Philadelphia,being second in population,does not appear to share the same sentiments that New York papers did) with mocking tones belittling the efforts of U.K. powers that be and their men in blue...and regardless of any jurisdictional balliwicks that could not be crossed....I find it neigh on impossible to believe that had the police in the Britain felt Tumbelty had murdered anyone...much less as being the Whitechapel Murderer...and conveyed this belief to American authorities, that the American authorities would not comply for good reason ( To do the right godda_ned thing) or even a "bad" reason ( to show up those knuckledraggin' British police).

Forget all the minor elements of the Tumbelty saga...those elements which make him look and seem suspicious and have yet to be verified...which leads me to the second of the two primary reasons I have for some time now thought little of his candidacy:

What chance in hell was there that a British paper,such as the Star or Stead's Pall Mall Gazette with their fangs sharpened on a 24 hour basis for anything to belittle Warren, the police, and the "establishment" up until Warren's retirement to not pounce on this bail jumping and present it to their readers and what chance was there that subsequent to his bail jumping that a "secret"....a "secret" that a very viable suspect in the Case had bolted, arrived in the States and was gabbing about being suspected in London...could be kept secret? 1 in a Million,perhaps?

No offense to those who believe in Tumbelty's candidacy or those who research this extraordinary character,whatsoever.

Any of you who wish to counter the above,please feel free to do so.

Back to you A.P. & Simon....

[SirRobertAnderson]

No offense to those who believe in Tumbelty's candidacy or those who research this extraordinary character,whatsoever.

Any of you who wish to counter the above,please feel free to do so.

Back to you A.P. & Simon....

Can I sneak in one more question ?

Irregardless of Tumbelty-as-Ripper, do researchers feel there was indeed a thick file on Dr. T at the Yard ?

My gut tells me there was.

[How Brown]

Bob

For what its worth, I don't think it really matters if you and I do ( I do )...because Littlechild did remember him 25 years later and provides definite facts from his life to Sims. The onus would be on us to disprove the reference to the thick file and we can't. Just my opinion,however...unless someone can sidestep Littlechild's recall of facts on a man after that period of time.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Tim Riordan did some sterling work in his Ripperologist 92 article on Tumblety. Aside from finding a photograph of the man himself, he also discovered some of Dr T's travel prose to have been lifted word-for-word from a previously published guide, plus more from the sermons of the Rev Talmage, and that his correspondence with Longfellow was a lie.

Tim's article made me want to know more about the man who claimed to have met two Popes, Kaiser Wilhelm, Louis Napoleon and Charles Dickens, and whose pockets bulged with glowing testimonials from bankers, doctors, lawyers, civic leaders etc etc.

The following appeared in Tumblety's 1893 pamphlet "A Sketch of the Life of Dr Francis Tumblety".

4938

Queen Victoria visited Liverpool twice—in 1851 and 1886.

Tumblety told the New York World, 29th January 1889, that he "had been going over to England for a long time—ever since 1869, indeed . . ." which means his Royal Spoon presentation could only have taken place on May 11th, 12th or 13th 1886.

There was no Liverpool Daily Mercury. However, the Liverpool Mercury was lavish in its coverage of the Royal visit. So, too, was The Times, but in neither account could I find any mention of Tumblety's presentation spoon. So here is another story we can safely throw on the heap of lies that was Tumblety's life.

Why, then, with so much about his life which can be demonstrated as phony baloney, should we believe that Tumblety was ever arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

Oh come on, Simon, give the poor old boy a break.
You mean to say that you sincerely do not believe Tumblety's tale of his first death? The one where his long legs wouldn't fit in the coffin, and he woke up as they were trying to saw 'em off?

[Joe Chetcuti]

Howard,

Right now, one star is the lowest rating a Jtrforums thread can acquire. Is it possible to implement a new rating system where a thread can have the opportunity to earn for itself a half star or a quarter star? You know what I mean. A rating that more accurately reflects upon the depth that a thread can sink to?

The man was a liar, therefore he was incapable of murder.

[Simon Wood]

A tall story being turned into a short story?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

Following on from my earlier post I wanted to address your question about the British press not covering the Tumblety story.

The Official Secrets Act [1889] covered the disclosure of information by journalists, and in 1912 a D-Notice system was introduced as a voluntary system run by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association to prevent publication of items on specified subjects for reasons of national security.

In 1888 the British press not leaping on the stories of Tumblety's bail-jumping and the arrest of Lord George Arthur in Whitechapel therefore suggests to me some sort of "gentleman's agreement" between newspaper proprietors and the government.

But the British press was not completely in the dark about Tumblety. Without naming names, the Thanet Advertiser, 5th January 1889, was able to report—

"The supposed inaction of the Whitechapel murderer for a considerable period and the fact that a man suspected of knowing a good deal about this series of crimes left England for the other side of the Atlantic three weeks ago has produced the impression there that the murderer is in America."

I don't believe Dr T was ever a candidate for the Ripper, but I do think the self-publicising Tumblety may have somehow appropriated the Sir George Arthur story [clubman goes slumming in Whitechapel wearing a slouch hat and gets arrested on suspicion of being the Ripper—New York World, San Francisco Chronicle, 18th November 1888].

Here's Tumblety's version from The New York World, 29th January 1889—

"My arrest came about this way," said he. "I had been going over to England for a long time—ever since 1869, indeed—and I used to go about the city a great deal until every part of it became familiar to me.

"I happened to be there when these Whitechapel murders attracted the attention of the whole world, and, in the company with thousands of other people, I went down to the Whitechapel district. I was not dressed in a way to attract attention, I thought, though it afterwards turned out that I did. I was interested by the excitement and the crowds and the queer scenes and sights, and did not know that all the time I was being followed by English detectives."

"Why did they follow you?"

"My guilt was very plain to the English mind. Someone had said that Jack the Ripper was an American, and everybody believed that statement. Then it is the universal belief among the lower classes that all Americans wear slouch hats; therefore, Jack the Ripper, must wear a slouch hat. Now, I happened to have on a slouch hat, and this, together with the fact that I was an American, was enough for the police. It established my guilt beyond any question . . .

"If it were necessary I could show you letters from many distinguished people whom I have met abroad. I am a frequenter of some of the best London clubs, among others the Carleton [sic] Club and the Beefsteak Club . . ."

Here is the Sir George Arthur story from the New York World, 18th November 1888—

" . . . That was the case with Sir George Arthur of the Prince of Wales set. He put on an old shooting coat and a slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun. He got it. It occurred to two policemen that Sir George answered very much to the popular description of Jack the Ripper. They watched him, and when they saw him talking with a woman they collared him. He protested, expostulated and threatened them with the royal wrath, but in vain. Finally a chance was given him to send to a fashionable West End club to prove his identity, and he was released with profuse apologies for the mistake. The affair was kept out of the newspapers, but the jolly young Baronets at Brookes Club consider the joke too good to keep quiet."

Sir George Arthur, among other things an amateur actor and friend of the Bancrofts, may possibly have been a member of the Beefsteak Club. He most certainly was a member of the Marlborough and Carlton clubs [courtesy of Who's Who].

The San Francisco Chronicle, 18th November 1888, continued—

"Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety [sic] of New York. The police could not hold him on suspicion of the Whitechapel crimes, but he will be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court under the special law passed soon after the Modern Babylon exposures. The police say this is the man's right name, as proved by letters in his possession; that he is from New York, and that he has been in the habit of crossing the ocean twice a year for several years.

"A score of other men have been arrested by the police this week on suspicion of being the murderer, but the right man still roams at large . . ."

This, of course, begs the question: if Dr T had anything to do with the Ripper murders why did the police arrest "a score of other men"?

The New York World filed its story from London on Saturday 17th November, stating that Sir George Arthur had been arrested "last week"— week ending Saturday 10th November. Tumblety was arrested in the same week, on Wednesday 7th November.

The times and details are uncannily similar.

The real mystery is how the story of Dr K [corrected to Dr T the following day] having his collar felt for the WM reached the American press on 18th November. If it was Tumblety indulging in self-promotion I think he would have omitted the Modern Babylon charges, so I tend to suspect a more official source.

Also, I'm not completely convinced it was Tumblety aboard the steamship La Bretagne.

But more on that later.

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

The Nov 18, 1888 Boston Globe printed the Sir George Arthur story, and in their adjacent column, they broke the news about Tumblety's arrest.

The November 18, 1888 NY World also reported the Sir George Arthur story, and on the next day they printed the news about Tumblety's arrest.

Those two newspapers led the way in reporting the Arthur & Tumblety stories to the American public. When Hughes-Hallett talked on Oct 6, 1888 it was said that a news reporter representing The NY World and a news reporter representing the Boston Globe conducted the interview.

Sir George Arthur was a member of the Carlton Club. Sir Hughes-Hallett was a member of the Carlton Club. When Tumblety gloated of his innocence during his interview with The NY World, he specifically named the Carlton Club as a site that he frequented in London.

If you are looking for the man who cabled all of this Pall Mall news to The NY World and Boston Globe just prior to Nov 18th, I would strongly consider an Irish journalist named James M. Tuohy. He was the writer of these following columns:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/freemans_journal_and_daily_commercial_advertiser/ (http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/freemans_journal_and_daily_commercial_advertiser/)

Tuohy was the only news writer who had a gallery seat in the House of Commons while simultaneously holding a position for an American newspaper. That American newspaper was The NY World.

[SirRobertAnderson]

This, of course, begs the question: if Dr T had anything to do with the Ripper murders why did the police arrest "a score of other men"?

That, in and of itself, doesn't disturb me. The dragnet was in full effect at that point, and I think they were detaining first, and asking questions later.

It's perfectly possible IMHO that one of the persons rounded up was the Ripper, and the close call contributed to him ceasing activities. That obviously has little to do with Dr. T.

But let me thank you, A.P., and Joe for a great series of insightful posts.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

"Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards." [J.G. Littlechild, letter to G.R. Sims, 1913].

New Zealand Tablet, 29th May 1885—

HUNTING DOWN A SUSPECT
(From the London correspondent of the Dublin Freemans Journal)

The system of police espionage inaugurated by Mr. Jenkinson since his transfer to the Home Office has its ludicrous aspects. It undoubtedly causes annoyance to inoffensive Irishmen who have business in London occasionally, and who find themselves honoured by the company of a pair of detectives wherever they go to ; but upon the other hand, it gives rise to so many comic and laughable incidents that one feels almost inclined to ask whether Mr. Jenkinson does not consider himself in honour bound to give a little pleasant entertainment now and then to the men he selects for persecution.

Everyone is acquainted with the case of Mr. P. N. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald was kept in prison for seven months upon suspicion of an offence which the Government utterly failed to prove. It might have been thought that seven months' incarceration would have been considered punishment enough for a man who, in the opinion of a Crimes Act jury, was quite innocent. Mr. Jenkinson holds a different view.

Mr. Fitzgerald's health was seriously injured while in Sligo Gaol, and soon after his release he went to the South of Europe to try what a milder climate could do to give him back what he had lost. He returned to England a few days ago, his friends will be glad to learn, greatly improved, and the moment he landed at Dover two detectives took him under observation. They rode in the train with him, followed him to his hotel, occupied the same sitting-room, and partook of dinner at the same table. They watched him writing his letters, examined the blotting-paper on which he had dried them after he left, and generally gave him such annoyance that he was obliged to threaten to forcibly resent their insolence if it was continued longer.

On Monday morning Mr. Fitzgerald paid a visit to a friend on the west side of London. He drove in a cab, and was pursued in another by a detective— this time a fresh one from Scotland Yard. He had scarcely been ten minutes upstairs in his friend's house when a loud knock was heard at the door. The servant, upon answering the call, was accosted in a gruff voice by a man outside, who wanted to know " How long the gentleman would be upstairs ? "

"What gentleman?" she asked.

"Mr. Fitzgerald," he replied, "him that went up at this moment."

Mr. Fitzgerald and his friend, overbearing the colloquy, resolved to find out what the fellow was about, and asked the servant to show him upstairs. He entered the room smiling.

"Look 'ere, Mr. Fitzgerald," he began, 'you are annoyed because we are following you. Now, if you go straight from here to your 'otel, I'll undertake to bring your case before Mr. Littlechild, at Scotland Yard, and I am sure he will see that you are not annoyed any more."

Mr. Fitzgerald, preserving as much gravity as he was able under the circumstances, said he could not give him any advice as to what he should do. All he wanted was not to be dogged about the streets. At this time the joke of the fellow's offer was not seen. If Mr. Fitzgerald had gone straight to his hotel, another detective, who was stationed at the door there, would have " taken him on" and the fellow himself would have been set free for the day.

"Now," said Mr. Fitzgerald, resuming the conversation, and continuing to maintain his mock gravity, "do you think Mr. Littlechild would be favourably influenced by your representations?"

"I am quite sure he would," replied the detective, with a look of persuasion. Then he began to get warmly sympathetic, and burst out into assurances of the utmost goodwill towards all men, but towards Mr. Fitzgerald in particular. " I assure you on my 'eart and soul," he said, I feel deeply for you. No man could stand it. It is really a shame."

"Then why do you follow me?" demanded Mr. Fitzgerald.

"Oh, I've got to do that," he said. " I've got to keep my eyes on you. I've got to report to Scotland Yard everywhere you go to and every 'ouse you henter."

"Then I suppose," said Mr. Fitzgerald, "you will have this gentleman (his friend) watched in future?"

"That's got nothing to do with me," he promptly replied. "If they want to find out about him they can, but at present all I have got to do is to keep you under hobservation, and it may be a matter of the 'sack' to me if I let you go out of sight.''

Mr. Fitzgerald promised to do his best to accommodate him in that way.

"All I 'ope is," said the fellow, going towards the door, "all I 'ope is that you won't cab it the rest of the day."

This remark had reference to the difficulty of keeping the subject under observation in a cab. Mr. Fitzgerald replied that he was afraid he would have to use that means of locomotion.

"By the way," said the fellow carelessly as he was about to leave, "had you any of them Irish Constabulary men after you?"

"No," replied Mr. Fitzgerald.

"They are a bad lot," continued the representative of Mr. Jenkinson, "and I can tell you we have no liking for 'em at all."

With this the interview terminated, and the detective after profusely apologising for his intrusion went away. In half an hour afterwards Mr. Fitzgerald and his friend walked out and found their man pacing the flagway in front of the house. They resolved to hail the first cab they met in order to enable them to keep an appointment at Westminster. There happened to be but one cab in the street at the time, and they got into it and drove off. This put the detective into a most ludicrous dilemma. He looked about in all directions for another vehicle, but not one was to be found. Meanwhile his charge was fast going out of sight, and if he missed him he might, as be said himself, "get the sack." In this emergency he decided to pursue the flying cab on foot, and for five minutes he raced after it in a manner that would have done credit to a champion runner at Lillie Bridge. He then succeeded in getting into another cab, and kept up the pursuit under more comfortable conditions until he saw Mr. Fitzgerald and his friend alight.

During the remainder of the day Mr. Fitzgerald was followed by at least six different detectives, who handed him over from one to another as he went to different parts of the city, and finally, on his departure for Liverpool in the evening, two more of them were put upon his track, and kept him company in the same compartment during his journey northward."

Where were Littlechild's detectives in November 1888?

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Dear Joe:

Since the nature of this thread is one of counterpoint towards Tumbelty's candidacy ( which of course,with no insult intended,you are aware of), I think its a pretty good collection of ideas on A.P,'s and Simon's part in opposition to Tumbelty-as-Ripper. Of course and you never need to be reminded,you can start threads which are pro-Tumbelty or continue to contribute to this thread as you have....but I'd give the thread a thumbs up rather than a thumbs down..

Since you are either objective or in favor of Tumbelty as a candidate allow me to ask you,old friend, what you think of the issues raised in post number 25 of this thread.

How would you counter them...or do you feel there is a need to counter them at all?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

It's impossible to have a debate with opposing parties in different rooms. I would like to see this thread evolve by accommodating both pro and anti-Tumblety views. In this way we will gain a better handle on the truth. And that surely is our collective purpose.

I'm certain we can discuss the subject like adults. I make no apologies for being firmly in the anti Tumblety-as-Ripper camp, but may I say that if anyone can provide a scintilla of evidence as to his guilt I will be the first to roll over and concede.

Over to you, Webmeister.

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Dear Simon:

You're probably right and I'll defer to your views on hoping the two camps appear on one thread to mutually discuss the issues presented....unless they want to of course...

[Joe Chetcuti]

Post 24:

"Yet history demands that we believe this crock of shit."

"I'd rather say, Simon, that history demands an answer from those that started this crock of shit."


Post 25:

"Thanks a lot Simon...and you too A.P."


Howard, that's as far as I allowed myself to go on Post 25.

Researchers should be thankful to Evans & Gainey for presenting this Ripper suspect to the public back in 1995. The two men earned the respect of the vast majority of the researchers in this field through their hard work. But a few inept chirps have come raining down from the peanut gallery and have landed on this thread. We now hear how history demands that an explanation must be given by those that started this crock of shit. The writers who presented Tumblety to this field of research do not owe us an explanation...instead we owe them our gratitude.

And the last place where you'll find me is up in the peanut gallery and thanking the guys who heckle out these type of remarks.

For anyone who is interested in learning more about James Tuohy, just check out the Jack the Ripper Writers web site during the month of May.

[A.P. Wolf]

First things first, Joe, if I were to chuck anything down from the gallery it would be a rock, and I wouldn't miss my target.
I'd be in broad agreement with ya that my tone is not always right and proper, but my intent and purpose is always to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
I must tread with caution here, for I have been here before, and it is not a comfortable place.
But it must be said that there was an effort by the early authors in regard to Tumblety to blend or dilute the known facts to suit their opinion, so instead of having steak and chips we ended up with gruel.
Since those days the facts have actually shown that much of the opinion was falsely justified, and here I think of Tumblety's bail situation, the circumstances of his arrest, his flight from justice and the supposed pursuit, his supposed residency in Batty Street... the list goes on, but each and every one of these vague suppositions went on to form the essential lynch pins of a presentation that convinced many readers to conclude that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper.
Take away those lynch pins, Joe, and you are left with absolutely nothing at all.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Since those days the facts have actually shown that much of the opinion was falsely justified, and here I think of Tumblety's bail situation,

I wouldn't go so far as to say falsely justified, but I do think that one area of concern would be the downgrading of Kelly as a Ripper victim because of problematic bail dates.

[A.P. Wolf]

Indeed, Sir Robert, save the best to last.
The Kelly episode is beyond the pale.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Can anyone tell me where the dates of Tumblety's 'gross indecency' crimes—July 27th, Aug 31st, Oct 14th, and Nov 2nd—were first recorded?

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Joltin' Joe:

I'm sorry if you felt the questions or positions I made on post 25 were somehow disrespectful to SPE's work because they certainly weren't meant to be. I think SPE has a more critical view of Tumbelty's candidacy than some people may think he does.

Let me start over then and try to answer just one...

Why wouldn't American police arrest Tumbelty on the spot or as soon as they heard he was wanted for the Whitechapel Murders? If they arrest or simply detain him until an extradition can be established with London, it makes them look good...and maybe makes the Brits look bad....or they arrest him because its the right thing to do and help the Brits out.

Back to you,old bean.

[How Brown]

For anyone who is interested in learning more about James Touhy, just check out the Jack the Ripper Writers web site during the month of May.

Joe:

You'll have to send that to me, since the dunce who runs that site had the good sense to prevent me from joining even though he was a member of this site up until 10 seconds ago.

[How Brown]

Lets continue with more Tumbelty related ideas. Hopefully Joe will pitch in here....

In a documentary focusing on Tumbelty ( The Whitechapel Murders,1996) which featured Mr. Evans and Paul Gainey.... at the end of that documentary, Mr.Gainey is heard stating ( and remember that this is in 1996,not last week,so his views may have changed...I'm only "using" his statement to illustrate my point from before...) that the reason ( Mr. Gainey's reason) we hear nothing from the newspapers in the United Kingdom on Tumbelty after he fled bail in London is because British authorities were more or less satisfied he was out of their hair. They would have been "embarrassed" according to Mr. Gainey and their credibility was already in question and would have suffered more for it to leak out that they lost their man.... For the British authorities, that this theorized murderer was out of their midst would seem to be identical with his imprisonment by that line of thinking as offered back in 1996. Out of circulation... in one way or the other.

Any pro-Tumbelty people care to discuss this idea?

[Joe Chetcuti]

Regarding Post 35

That 1885 New Zealand newspaper column was written by the London correspondent of the Freeman's Journal. James Tuohy held that position in London from 1881-1913, so the story most likely belonged to him. It was common for Tuohy to write about the hardships that Irishmen suffered at the hands of the English police. Tuohy was Parnell's confidant, and he was very politically-minded.

As for the question, "Where were Littlechild's detectives in November 1888?" I can tell you that Frank Froest was one of Littlechild's men at that time. Roger Palmer was quoted in the Journal of the Whitechapel Society: "Frank Froest's name can be found in the file containing the indictment against Francis Tumblety. This indictment pertained to Tumblety's arrest which occurred two days prior to the Kelly murder."



Regarding Post 45

My article on James Tuohy will appear in the "Guest Lounge" section of the Jack the Ripper Writers web site during May. You don't need to be a member of that site to view it, Howard. I already have one of my articles posted here on the Jtrforums, and so I figured I could have one article posted on the Jack the Ripper Writers site, too. One for Howard and one for Spiro. That sounds fair. I like being the mediator that bonds two fine gentlemen together. Just call me Switzerland.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Regarding Post 44

The question was asked about why didn't the New York police bring Tumblety into their custody.

Although Inspector Byrnes said the correct things to the press in regards to Tumblety, I think the reality of it was that these NY Irish cops weren't going to provide anything more than just a token effort in assisting the English in this matter. Especially when it came down to assisting the Special Branch. I doubt that the surveillance of Tumblety by the NY police lasted very long.

Even if they detained him, Tumblety could afford the best attorneys in town to see to his release. The 'doctor' had a fortune stored away in downtown New York with Henry Clews. Take this Wall Street financial backing, throw in some angry NY Irish sympathy, and add the fact that there was no hard evidence against Tumblety for committing these murders, and it would become obvious that the 'doctor' had a strong home-field advantage in Gotham. Tumblety wasn't stupid. He knew where to escape to. He even antagonized the English authorities during his interview with the NY World by praising Inspector Byrnes. Andrews knew if he came to NY, he would be in enemy territory.


Regarding Post 46

The question was asked about why were the English newspapers silent about Tumblety's escape.

I answered that question once before on a thread. I don't think the English press was purposely "protecting" the London police by keeping quiet about Tumblety's escape. I think it had more to do with the fact that Tumblety was a West End Ripper suspect. I talked about this with Nats last year. Just check out the final paragraph on Post 39 of the thread below:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=4105&page=4



Regarding Post 29

Tumblety's "leg severing" parable was a challenge to decipher. But its roots appeared to have come from the burial traditions of Knight's Templar lore. This is a fascinating topic that deserves its own thread.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe,

You say—

"Roger Palmer was quoted in the Journal of the Whitechapel Society: "Frank Froest's name can be found in the file containing the indictment against Francis Tumblety. This indictment pertained to Tumblety's arrest which occurred two days prior to the Kelly murder."

I realize my question will be taken in completely the wrong way, but has anyone other than RJP seen this indictment? Have you seen it?

Could we see it? Or is this an ace up the sleeve for use at a later date?

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Thanks for the replies,Joltin' Joe.

Let me posit this: Why would the newspapers in Britain ( with the exception of the paper Simon provided before on the thread) go to the trouble of putting anything down in print in regard to a guy who was jumping bail for indecency charges?

Joe...my point here with all due respect is not that Byrnes may have had reasons for not pursuing Tumbelty if these charges were merely for gross indecency but that if these charges were for murder,then I cannot see how Byrnes or any other American official would or could tolerate a man wanted for 5 murders since he may very well have started up over here with a new skein on American soil..and yet, according to the theory that American officials knew he was wanted for murder in the U.K., they let him shpritz around New York as if he was wanted for nicking candy back in Croydon. It makes no sense to me.

By the way...I meant no disrespect to you when I made the comment about the other site and your article. Wherever you lay your hat ought to be home,in my book, and I am always happy that you share your stories or research in any venue of your choice. Its just that Spiro knows I am too big to contain. I don't blame him for being a little fearful of me. I'd prefer he stay in the dark about D'Onston anyway. I always believed in the maxim, "Never smarten up a chump".:kiss:

[Joe Chetcuti]

Simon,

Roger's comment appeared in the Dec 2008 issue of the Journal of the Whitechapel Society. The article was all about Frank Froest. It was entitled Decades of Distinguished Service. I remember getting together with Roger & Keith before writing that article. It was a fun experience going over the paperwork with them.

I have not seen the actual file concerning this indictment. I'd probably have to drive to Oregon, swim past the dragons in Roger's moat, and then crack open his safe before I could view his Frank Froest material.

Other than that, Roger is a very normal guy. :rolleyes:


Howard,

If you read the ending of this newspaper article, you'll see that Byrnes was totally aware of what was going on with Tumblety in regards to the Whitechapel murders.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/new_york_world/18881204.html

It doesn't look like these murder suspicions influenced Byrnes that much. He had been critical of the London police for their handling of the case. I just don't think this Irish-American cop was too eager to do much more than provide a temporary shadow on Tumblety.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe,

Good to know Roger is normal and that writing the article was fun.

So where is the Tumblety indictment bearing Frank Froest's name?

Back soon.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Let's have another look at Tumblety's flight from London via Boulogne [we know he went via Boulogne cuz Littlechild told us so] and Le Havre, in which he magically parted the waters of any Anderson and Littlechild surveillance operation and sailed to New York.

When exactly did Tumblety decide to sail to America?

History suggests after November 16th 1888, the day he was bailed.

Transatlantic travel in 1888 wasn't as easy as it is today. Dr T couldn't have skidded to a halt in a cab at Le Havre's Bassin de L'eure on 24th November 1888 demanding of La Bretagne's Captain, "Arrêtez le bateau! Let me aboard!"

You had to book ahead in 1888.

Looking through various LVP travel guides and steamship company brochures it appears that transatlantic passengers wishing to secure a berth [according to the NYT, 4th December 1888, Frank Townsend had a stateroom] had to book in advance, with a 25% deposit and the balance paid at least two weeks before sailing.

This puts Tumblety's booking with Thomas Cook or some other agent of the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique at, or before, 10th November 1888.

Or in other words—Tumblety was arrested on 7th November, murdered Kelly on 9th November, booked his ticket on 10th November, was bailed on 16th November and sailed for America on 24th November.

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

I'll ask Roger about the file that contained the indictment against Francis Tumblety. It was the file that contained Frank Froest's name in it. Then I'll dig up my notes that I compiled last autumn that concerned this specific topic. And when I'm finished with that, I'll post it all on this thread.

[A.P. Wolf]

Froest, like Andrews, was in what we would call today the 'Fraud Squad' and I fail to see the connection to a criminal being investigated for murder or buggary, as Tumblety supposedly was.
I would love to see any document showing that Froest was involved in any other criminal proceedings apart from fraud in 1888.
Nice posts, by the way, Simon.

[Joe Chetcuti]

A.P.

Jon Ogan reported of Froest's involvement in the investigation of the Ripper suspect John Sanders in the December 1996 issue of Ripperologist. His article was entitled The Third Man. Froest's name was found in the 1888 MEPO files concerning that matter.

Froest handled murderers as well as con men.


Manitoba Free Press
October 9, 1912

Perhaps the liveliest fight of Froest's whole life, however, was against an American cowboy who already had six murders to his credit and who did his level best to make the killing of Froest constitute a seventh.

This was early in the detective's career, but he already had tasted the mettle of Americans, or rather Irish-Americans for under Inspector Littlechild, he had fought Fenians in Ireland, and had gone up against them in Paris, so he knew what to expect in a real bad man from "the States."

[How Brown]

Even in the saloons where he often went to drink he was spoken of with loathing and contempt. He must have kept himself very quiet on the La Bretagne, for a number of passengers who were interviewed could not remember having seen any one answering his description. It will be remembered that he fled from London to Paris to escape being prosecuted under the new "Fall of Babylon" act.
Inspector Byrnes was asked what his object in shadowing Twomblety. "I simply wanted to put a tag on him." he replied, "so that we can tell where he is. Of course, he cannot be arrested, for there is no proof in his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he was under bond in London is not extaditable."
"Do you think he is Jack the Ripper?" the Inspector was asked.
"I don't know anything about it, and therefore I don't care to be quoted. But if they think in London that they may need him, and he turns out to be guilty our men will probably have a good idea where he can be found."

Joe:

Thanks for referring to the NY World article for those who may not have seen the excerpt before.

Again,I understand that Byrnes did not arrest him or detain him...or even question him...for any suggestion which may have been in the air...and it definitely was in the air ...because the chances are that the suggestion that Tumbelty had some connection to the WM probably ( in my view ) did not come from British authorities themselves.. but probably Tumbelty.

It wasn't up to Inspector Byrnes to determine how good or how flimsy or how accurate the accusation may have been since he was NOT involved in the legislative arm of the law...only the enforcement. He couldn't make the determination if the accusation was applicable to Tumbelty, only carry out an order to arrest or to institute surveillence. He clearly was told of the accurate charges of gross indecency but probably not that Tumbelty was under suspicion for the WM from his superiors...a condition that I strongly suspect Byrnes would have loved to put handcuffs on Tumbelty for.

Unless I am in error,I am certain that Byrnes was not responsible for making the decision to NOT arrest Tumbelty since it would not be his call to do so without word from higher up and that Tumbelty,not the British police, was more likely to have made the inference that he was wanted in the crimes than the police were. Thats my position on this and I'd like to hear your criticisms or Roger Palmer's or even Tim Riordan's if that at all possible.

Thanks.

[Joe Chetcuti]

I looked into my folder from last year, and I found a copy of an e-mail exchange I had with Roger. One of his quotes was "We don't actually know if Frank Froest arrested Tumblety for gross indecency; we only know that Froest's name turned up in a file for the indictment."

The Evans & Gainey book went into the specific details of the four counts in that indictment. I have never been to England, so I have not personally "seen" this gross indecency indictment nor its file containing Froest's name in it. Nonetheless, I don't doubt its existence.

I'll share one other remark from Roger. He pointed out that even though Froest worked on the John Sanders investigation and on the Pinchin Street torso murder, Froest's role in the Tumblety case appeared to have been a minor one.

Howard, I'll respond to your thoughts about how "Tumblety notified Byrnes in advance that he was coming on the La Bretagne." I'll do it on that brand new 'Frank Townsend' thread.