The Sequence of Events-Tumbelty Arrives In New York....

[How Brown]

In keeping with the current work on Tumbelty by Simon Wood ...I thought it might be necessary to establish the time line of the last days of Tumbelty's stay in London up to the point that he stepped off the La Bretagne in New York.

I have asked Wolf Vanderlinden to help out in this effort ,as Wolf is up there yonder on the top shelf in Tumbelty research...

I'll get cracking on the thread tomorrow...and I will also ask Tim Riordan to help as well...as well as Joltin' Joe Chetcuti...and R.J. Palmer.

The primary reason I am interested in having a thread on this aspect of the trip to the States is that it might be beneficial ( I think ) for each side of the Tumbelty question/argument to be able to discuss the status of Tumbelty the minute he stepped foot on Yank soil.

Not that the discussion will prove anything to or convince the other side of the argument one way or the other...because without a document that states " Our goof..Tumbelty's not a suspect." or " Detain that man, he may be the Ripper !!"...its just going to be a discussion. Yet, it might be productive...at least I hope so.

So...was he a suspect in the Ripper murders when he planted his feet in the States...or was he, by that time, a man's whose possible complicity in the Case was already satisfactorily resolved?

[Nemo]

Quote from Simon Wood's post on "Recollections of a Police Magistrate"

The greatest triumph in his special line occurred in 1865. On the 14th of April of that year, the whole world was shocked at the news of the assassination of President Lincoln, and for some days the confusion and excitement was intense. The next day the authorities discovered that Dr. Tumblety had suddenly disappeared with great secrecy from Washington, carefully covering his tracks. For a couple of days, the wires in every direction were buzzing. Humours came from various places that he had been seen, but after two or three days he was captured in some place in Missouri, while he was still apparently struggling to escape. He was brought under guard to Washington, and held in custody for a time. Within a week it was announced that Dr. Tumblety was discharged, because it was discovered that his pretended flight was just another scheme to advertise himself.

(my italics)

I think Tumblety was quite prepared to describe himself as a suspect in the Ripper enquiry for the fame and notoriety only, another anecdotal story he could "dine out" on.

Were the two people who put up his bail surety in London aware of the charges?

If not, I could imagine Tumblety's lies beginning from that moment as he may have described his predicament to his benefactors in less than truthful terms

I think they would be more likely to believe that he had been arrested falsely as the Ripper and then put up the money as they would have believed him to be innocent of that charge. It would probably have been a subject of jocularity.

If they did know of the "Modern Babylon" type of charges, then why would they put up £1500 as surety for an American doctor they had recently met against charges they could not have known were either true or false? (Although the fact that they did provide the surety may pay tribute to Tumblety's silver tongue)

For numerous reasons, on arrival in America I think he would have gladly invited the speculation that his arrest in London was based on the suspicion that he was the Ripper rather than the sexual charges.

[How Brown]

Thank you very much for the succinct post,Nemo.

If others interested in this thread want to pick up where Nemo has "left off", please do so and you don't have to wait for me.

For numerous reasons, on arrival in America I think he would have gladly invited the speculation that his arrest in London was based on the suspicion that he was the Ripper rather than the sexual charges. - Nemo

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

The theory that Tumblety was never a Ripper suspect and that he somehow milked the great interest in the murders for personal notoriety does not hold up to scrutiny, I'm afraid.

Scotland Yard did contact the NYPD and asked them to keep an eye on Tumblety and Inspector Byrnes had heard about Tumblety's supposed connection with the Ripper murders (whether this information came officially from Scotland Yard or from speculating New York pressmen is unknown). Scotland Yard also did have someone at the dock when Tumblety's ship arrived (possibly ex-Inspector James Thomson who was in New York at the time) which would tend to show a greater than expected interest in a homosexual bail jumper. Finally, when San Francisco Chief of Police Patrick Crowley contacted Scotland Yard and asked whether they wanted him to send them Tumblety handwriting samples Anderson responded by saying yes, send the samples.

It is more likely that Tumblety was arrested in connection with the murders, probably, as he said, because he was visiting Whitechapel and fit a description, but that he was released due to a lack of any real evidence against him. Interest in him would be sustained by the fact that he fit a certain type of suspect: a medical man with "abnormal" sexual proclivities found wondering in the East End. Throw in the fact that he was an Irish American (read fanatical dynamiter/bloodthirsty assassin) and the fact that he fled the country and we have a "very likely" suspect - no evidence that he was the Ripper - but a likely suspect.

Wolf.

[Nemo]

Thanks AP - but I do notice that you have not provided any real references there

I can fully understand and follow that reasoning and would certainly accept that scenario as "likely"

..but is there any real reference or document conclusively linking Tumblety's initial arrest to the Ripper investigation?

Is it a possibility that he was arrested on the sexual charges and then he concocted the Ripper arrest story, so bringing the suspicion of the detectives on himself after he jumped bail and fled?

PS They would almost certainly have been more interested in him for possible Fenian activities - not as a Ripper suspect

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Nemo.

First off I am not A.P. Wolf.

but I do notice that you have not provided any real references there… is there any real reference or document conclusively linking Tumblety's initial arrest to the Ripper investigation?

It is obvious that the Whitechapel Investigations files are, sadly, incomplete and there are no public records available concerning Tumblety so if you are looking for official documents I’m afraid there are none (speculation has it that Special Section D files on Tumblety may exists but will never be opened to the public). What we do have are various newspaper reports and the Littlechild Letter.


Is it a possibility that he was arrested on the sexual charges and then he concocted the Ripper arrest story, so bringing the suspicion of the detectives on himself after he jumped bail and fled?

I don’t know. There is no evidence to prove this either way but it would seem that Scotland Yard was going on more than just a “concocted Ripper arrest story” judging by the interest shown to him.

Wolf Vanderlinden.

[Nemo]

Thanks for that info Wolf

Sorry for the mistake - I just saw the pic and... well, my apologies :embarassed:

[How Brown]

Many thanks to Wolf V for appearing on the thread !:high5:

I'll add a timeline for Tumbelty's last days in London ( Please correct it or add to it if relevant new information has been found recently)...at the bottom of this post.

By the way,this material may be found in the extraordinary 2 part series in Ripper Notes Magazine ( July and October 2005 ) written by none other than Wolf Vanderlinden.

Dear Wolf:

Your first post on the thread probably can't be improved upon and is as clear as it gets on the situation Tumbelty found himself in while still in London up until November 20th ( The date of his hearing at the Old Bailey). Its the post-November 20th situation that intrigues me the most.

Can we still assume that Scotland Yard considered Tumbelty a murder suspect after November 20th? There's no doubt your statement on his pre-November 20th status as being suspected is correct. That he was not detained in New York makes me suspect his status as a suspect had already been considered null and void back in London before he landed in New York.

I'll clam up and let you respond because I have more questions.

Thanks again Wolf...its much appreciated.


Timeline:

November 7th- Arrested
November 16th- Charged 8 counts of gross indecency 300 British Pounds bail ( Equivalent to $1,500 U.S. in 1888)
November 20th- Hearing at Old Bailey
Between November 20th and 24th, flees London for France
November 24th- Leaves France on La Bretagne for New York
December 3rd- In New York....Checks into lodging house on East 10th Street,Manhattan
December 5th- Leaves lodging house and (ostensibly) New York...
December 10th- Trial back in London never materializes.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Nemo.

No worries.

Howard.


Can we still assume that Scotland Yard considered Tumbelty a murder suspect after November 20th? There's no doubt your statement on his pre-November 20th status as being suspected is correct. That he was not detained in New York makes me suspect his status as a suspect had already been considered null and void back in London before he landed in New York.

That’s not easy to answer. If we suspect that Robert Anderson’s reply to Chief Crowley denotes an interest that goes beyond his charges of gross indecency then it would appear that the date he replied, either the 22nd or 23rd of November, would indicate that Tumblety was still of interest after the 20th. The real question is how much interest did Scotland Yard have in him?

We know that Tumblety himself says that he was arrested because he was in Whitechapel and he fitted a description of a man in a slouch hat. We know that according to the Times, 1 October, 1888, a tall, dark, American, who wore an “American hat,” was arrested in a Union Street lodging house on the 30th of September for talking about the murders and creating a panic among the residents. There is also a mention in the Brooklyn Eagle, 10 November, 1888, which states “It has been said among other things that the assassin is an American, because he wears a slouch hat.”

It matters little whether the Union Street lodger was Tumblety or not the point being that men were arrested for all sorts of seemingly stupid reasons including the type of hat they wore. Does this make the man Jack the Ripper? No, but he still would be considered a suspect. Add to this information that the hat wearer was a foreign doctor wanted for sexual crimes of an “abnormal” nature and I would guess that interest would increase but this still doesn’t offer any concrete evidence that the man was the Ripper. I think all interest in the good doctor stemmed purely from speculation and nothing more otherwise why wasn’t he arrested in London?

As for your point about not being arrested in New York I’ll post something separate on that.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

There seems to be some misunderstanding about Chief Inspector Byrnes and the power he wielded. While in theory he did have the Superintendent of Police and the Commissioners of Police above him in reality he had great power of his own and answered to no one. This situation was abetted by the fact that Superintendent of Police Murray was an old friend of Byrnes’, the two having served in the same regiment during the Civil War, and the Commissioners were Tammany political appointees who towed the Democratic Party line.

It should also be understood that Byrnes was a national figure who was considered by many in the American press and public to be the best police detective in the U.S., if not the world. Author Julian Hawthorne wrote a series of best selling books in which Byrnes was the main character and although they were actually fictional they were reported to be “taken from the casebook of Inspector Byrnes.” Other detectives were even compared to him as in one report in which Captain I. W. Leas, of the San Francisco Police, was described as “the Byrnes of the Pacific slope.”

What all this means is that if Chief Inspector Byrnes had wanted to arrest Tumblety for any reason, he would have. If he felt Tumblety was a dangerous sexual serial killer based on information provided by Scotland Yard he could easily have tossed him in jail at Mulberry Street and thrown away the key. If he wanted to know Tumblety’s exact movements he would have had his men keep a close watch on the man the entire time he was in New York. Apparently Byrnes felt no such need and one has to wonder what, if any, concrete information New York had from Scotland Yard regarding Tumblety and the Ripper murders.

Wolf.

[How Brown]

Thanks once more Wolf...very much appreciated.

Any thoughts from the folks on the previous two posts by Wolf?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wolf,

I definitely can't buy Tumblety as the Ripper. I'm also having a struggle buying him as a suspect. And I feel from your last post that you might be struggling too.

How is it possible to state as a fact that [a] Scotland Yard did contact the NYPD and ask them to keep an eye on Tumblety, and [b] that Scotland Yard did have someone at the dock when Tumblety's ship arrived?

And regarding the handwriting samples, Tumblety had jumped bail. He was a fugitive from justice. Anderson couldn't very well have said to Crowley "thanks, but don't bother".

None of it makes him a Ripper suspect.

Also, if SY had asked Byrnes to keep an eye on Tumblety he didn't make a very good job of it. I wonder if he was as embarrassed at losing Tumblety as Scotland Yard was supposed to have been?

Regards,

Simon

[Tim Riordan]

Hi All,

Interesting and enjoyable discussion! To my mind, the idea that Tumblety was a suspect in the Whitechapel case is far from certain. Howard, your timeline is useful in looking at what we actually know. Tumblety was not arrested anywhere near the East End. His arraignment was at the Marlborough Police Station in the West End. His arrest, on November 7th was for indecent assault not murder. Tumblety was arrested a second time on November 14th at the same place. This is what lead Stewart Evans to suggest police bail and it fits the scenario. According to a contemporary law guide, a person allowed police bail had to be re-arrested within a week and then face an arraignment. Had he been arrested on suspicion of murder, police bail would not have been possible. Tumblety’s arraignment was two days later as according to procedure. His bail was set at £300 or about $1500. Up to the 16th, there is no indication that the police were interested in anything but his diddling activities.

The first indication he was a suspect in anything else was in a cable dispatch on the 17th of November. It stated that he had been arrested on suspicion of being the murderer but as they had no evidence, the police charged him with indecent assault. This is simply not true. This cable, coming a full ten days after his arrest, is sensational journalism at its worst. Even the slightest hint of involvement in the case was cause for English papers to print suspicions but none did about Tumblety. Why? Most likely because there was no hint of his involvement.

Let’s look a little further ahead and into Anderson’s office. “Here’s a telegram from San Francisco offering to send Tumblety’s handwriting. Should we have them send it?” Sir Robert answers. “Tumblety, who is Tumblety?” If Scotland Yard wanted his handwriting, I suspect it was grasping at straws as so many other things. There is no evidence, other than the article in the San Francisco paper, and others that garbled it, that Scotland Yard ever answered Crowley’s offer.

The New York Police did not have to be alerted to Tumblety’s imminent arrival as the New York papers were already doing that. While there were two NY detectives on the pier and at least two reporters, no Scotland Yard man showed up. The “English detective” showed up a day later. Neither paper that mentions him connects him in any way with Scotland Yard. If there was a reason for his being there, we should look to the men who were stuck with Tumblety’s bail in London.

Like all things in this case, arguments can be made for both sides. Personally, I find it hard to think Tumblety was a suspect.

Best

Tim

[How Brown]

Thank you Tim for helping out and my apologies on the bail amount ( I used one researcher's article for the source which stated 500 pounds,not 300...I'll correct that).

Let me cut to the chase here with you,Tim, if you don't mind.... for the benefit of those who may not have heard your interview on Rippercast some months before..... you find it hard to believe that Tumbelty was a suspect ( which of course you've just said...), but:

Do you feel that the Tumbelty-as-suspect-in-America fanfare could have come from Tumbelty himself...and no one else?

Thank you again for your help,sor...

[Tim Riordan]

No one can tell whether Tumblety fostered the rumor or not. During the 1865 problems, he was accused of doing the same thing but it was not true. Personally, I beleive that if Tumblety could have slipped out of England with no one noticing, he would have done so.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

Although the subject of bail-jumping for "Modern Babylon" offences was studiously avoided in Tumblety's 28th January New York World interview, I doubt he was the person who included the details in his transatlantic fanfare.

Dr T liked to associate himself with only the most dastardly of crimes—presidential assassination, the spreading of yellow fever throughout the Union army, multiple murder in Whitechapel. Here was a man who also boasted of audiences with two Popes. He was a man who knew the Kaiser and been presented with the Legion d'Honneur by Louis Napoleon. The people of Canada had presented him with a medal. Tumblety's chest swelled with pride. He was a man in full command of his fantasy publicity material. Not for him the grubby reality of pants-down homosexual offences.

Having said that however . . .

Tumblety hoved onto the Ripper scene on 18th November 1888, when the San Francisco Chronicle reported—

"Another arrest was a man who gave the name of Dr. Kumblety 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."

This and other similar reports originated from London.

From this date until December 3rd 1888 American newspapers plundered their archives, digging up all sorts of anecdotal column-filling stories about Dr Tumblety's colourful past.

And then, on December 4th 1888, two days after Tumblety/Townsend arrived in New York, it was suddenly revealed that he had jumped bail in London.

Here's my question—

Tumblety/Townsend boarded La Bretagne at Le Havre 24th November. Why then were London correspondents of major New York newspapers blissfully unaware before December 4th that Tumblety had jumped bail?

Regards,

Simon

[A.P. Wolf]

'There is no evidence, other than the article in the San Francisco paper, and others that garbled it, that Scotland Yard ever answered Crowley’s offer. '

Tim, my memory dims on this, for sure, but I'm also quite sure that the telegraphic message from Scotalnd Yard was published in the press at a later date.
I posted it somewhere, here.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

It's worth us trying to establish the financial mechanics of the LVP bail process.

Magistrate Hannay granted Tumblety bail at £300 [$1,500] to appear at a future hearing.

Was Tumblety remanded [jailed] until such time as he could provide cash/a draft/personal sureties for £300 to the court, or was he free as a bird to flee to America?

Vivien Allen wrote that Tumblety's bail money was wired from America to England. How she knew this is a mystery, but suggests he was bailed on his own recognizance.

So why would he need two bondsmen?

Regards,

Simon

[Tim Riordan]

AP,

My memory is fading as well . . . what were we talking about :)

The only references that I remember to the correspondence from San Francisco to Scotland Yard is the original San Francisco article and the New York Times article afterwards, that garbled the process. If there were an independent source for this contact, it would set my mind at ease.

Best,

Tim

[Joe Chetcuti]

From this date (Nov 18th) until December 3rd 1888 American newspapers plundered their archives, digging up all sorts of anecdotal column-filling stories about Dr Tumblety's colourful past.

I think The New York World started digging up their Tumblety material as early as Oct 6th.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

This discussion is about a matter of degree, I would say. I think that all who of us who have responded here so far, except Joe, of course, are in agreement that Francis Tumblety was not Jack the Ripper. The question now is was he ever even a suspect?

Firstly, there is very little evidence regarding Tumblety and the Whitechapel murder investigation. Most of what we do have are newspaper reports from North America and those are obviously open to a certain amount of interpretation. Did Scotland Yard contact the NYPD and ask them to keep an eye on Tumblety? The evidence for this is not clear but still Chief Inspector Byrnes knew that Tumblety was a fugitive from justice, was wanted on a nominal offence for which he could not be arrested and extradited back to England and that he had skipped out on $1500 bail. Byrnes also had two of his best men at the dock when La Bretagne arrived and they followed Tumblety back to his lodging house. This, to me, reflects more than just a passing interest in the quack doctor whom Byrnes was reported to have known for the past twenty years. Thomas Byrnes was no fool.

The English detective did show up a day later at East Tenth Street. Or, at least, that was the first time he was reported on. Was he at the dock side when Tumblety’s ship arrived? There is no evidence that he either was or he wasn’t.

The news reports out of San Francisco are also interesting. As Tim has pointed out there is no evidence other than interviews in several San Francisco papers with Chief Crowley that Scotland Yard even answered any telegram. Personally, though, I’m not prepared to suggest that either Crowley or the San Francisco Press were lying about the whole thing. I have in the past, however, pointed out that if Scotland Yard had received Crowley’s telegram and they had no idea who Tumblety was they would have either not responded, which of course they may not have done, or have responded with “WHO?”

My thoughts on the matter, as I’ve already written, run to the belief that Tumblety was likely picked up in Whitechapel but on a specious charge. We know that many men were arrested for just acting or looking suspiciously. Some were arrested for carrying a black bag or for asking the wrong questions or for merely staring at someone in a pub or for wearing the wrong type of hat. Once they had provided some identification they were released. I think that this is what happened with Tumblety but that sometime later his name set off alarm bells and questions were raised about him. Was there ever any evidence against him? Probably not. He just became “a person of interest,” one who became more interesting after he fled the country.

Why do I suggest this rather than that Tumblety was never a suspect? The Littlechild Letter. I’m not sure how Chief Inspector John George Littlechild would have heard of Tumblety, describe him as a suspect, let alone “a likely suspect,” or remembered him some twenty five years later if indeed there was absolutely no suspicions against him in connection with the Whitechapel Murders Investigation in 1888. From this, flows my belief in all I’ve posted above.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe,

No matter what you might think, either the NYW had or hadn't dug up material on Dt T as early as 6th October.

Care to play your pair of twos?

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wolf,

Let me get the deserved compliments out of the way. Your articles on Inspectors Jarvis and Andrews in America are the best.

I asked you if there was any evidence that Scotland Yard had asked Inspector Byrnes to keep an eye on Tumblety.

You answered: "The evidence for this is not clear . . ."

I next asked how we knew that a Scotland Yard detective was on the dock waiting for the transatlantic steamer La Bretagne.

You answered: "There is no evidence that he either was or he wasn't."

I'm not being confrontational, but, please, you've got to admit that this scenario has less going for it than Little Red Riding Hood.

Regards,

Simon

[Nemo]

If Tumblety fabricated the Ripper arrest story - would that not be his implication? - that the police wanted to arrest him on suspicion of being the Ripper, but had no evidence - so they (the police) fabricated the "Modern Babylon" charges against him?

He could then later deny the Ripper charge and the sexual charge is explained with no loss of face

I think it likely that something like this was told to at least the people who stood his bail if not broadcast widely by Tumblety

Can I ask please - What is the evidence for Tumblety being "investigated" around October 6th?

[How Brown]

He just became “a person of interest,” one who became more interesting after he fled the country.-Wolf V.

Thanks to one and all for keeping this thread going...and for Wolf's effort and elaboration on his sentiments towards Tumbelty's candidacy. Very well expressed and a pleasure to read. Wolf,I believe, is also the first person to note that Scotland Yard did not ask Crowley & the SFPD for a sample of Tumbelty's handwriting,but that Crowley asked them if they needed a sample of it...an often forgotten and important bit of information,I feel. Good going ( 4 years late !) Wolf V. !

I echo Nemo and Simon's request to know the source of the (October 6th) claim that Tumbelty had been checked out at that time.

Great thread,,,a really great thread folks.:kiss:

[How Brown]

Just as a "companion post" on the thread, re issues brought up so far here and elsewhere ...

1. Was Tumbelty ever a suspect in the WM ?

Wolf Vanderlinden provided a sound argument for that to have been likely based on the Littlechild Letter. All pro-Tumbelty theorists would agree to that as well.

Not to counterpoint Wolf's belief or statement...but merely to add some additional speculation towards a common goal on the thread in unison with both sides of this issue:

A. One question I have and that you may have too, is how long after being initially suspected did Tumbelty continue to be a suspect in the WM? A portion of the Littlechild Letter contains the following:

" He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on those occasions constantly brought under the notice of police".

That Littlechild remembered how to spell his name and not spell it "Twomblety" or "Kumbelty" tells me that the man was familiar with Tumblety. That he also remembered that the arrest of Tumbelty occurred at the Marlborough Street police station 25 years after the fact in 1913 when he was responding to George Sims might indicate that he had files accessible to him and perhaps even in front of him. There's no mistake on Littlechild's part or memory loss as to the facts about Tumblety's charges either.

Conversely,that Littlechild knew that the police constantly had him under the "notice of the police" probably indicates that what they had him under surveillence for and what was in that "large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard"...another comment found in the Littlechild Letter....were not related to homosexual practices and, obviously,murder or assault charges on persons. I would support the theory that this file contained Fenian related information and nothing more.

If any of the files on Tumblety in that "large dossier" were related to gross indecency or anything of a similar sexual nature before August 31st,1888, the date of the first of the Autumn of '88 charges against him, then the question arises of why the police would not include any of those documented offenses along with the 8 count indictment and charges made towards Tumbelty on November 7th ,1888 at Marlborough Street police station. What do you think,dear reader?

I agree with Wolf and others..even pro-Tumblety theorists...that it is very likely that Tumbelty was arrested as a suspect in the WM...but with one caveat.

In the U.K., the word "arrest" does not mean what it implies here in the United States...one of the many words or terms we share with Ma Britain that despite having the same language is used differently...and in this case,potentially dramatically so.

When we say Tumblety was arrested...or when anyone from 1888 says he was arrested ( It might be worthwhile to remember that J.G. Littlechild did NOT say Tumblety was arrested in relation the WM, rather that he was a suspect and in his mind a rather likely one) we might be overlooking the possibility that this "arrest" was similar to what we in the United States classify as a "detainment"...an example as follows:

If Wolf V and How B are sitting in a car in the USA drinking a few beers in an area where a murderer has killed two people and the police pull up to their car and ask them what they are doing,ask for identification, and then tell them to hit the pike since there's a killer on the loose...I am under the impression and correct me here if I am wrong, but that would be classified as an "arrest" or that Wolf n How were "arrested" and subsequently released from police scrutiny...in Britain. Is this so?

Back to Littlechild and the letter to Sims....that Littlechild remarks that he was a "likely suspect", it still does not indicate that Tumblety was arrested at least not within the important Littlechild Letter.

It simply indicates that Littlechild thinks he was a likely suspect without stating that Tumblety was even arrested for anything related to the WM at all.

An "arrest" which may have been a simple street sweeping of a random, rank and file man in a wideawake hat nowhere near a woman....nowhere near a prostitute at 2 AM...nowhere near a saloon in the East End on the make for some kneetrembling... in no way in possession or demonstration of a weapon...nowhere near committing any offense whatsoever other than simply "being" in the East End at the right time for the wrong impression that has been handed down for years and years.

I also feel that the comment on the "large dossier" has been at times misconstrued by people to give one the impression that the files on Tumblety's movements in relation to the Autumn of Terror are found within those pages. No such evidence exists regarding that assumption.

Thats all for now and by all means please counter or add to this little "mental note" of mine as I struggle to keep up with the giants of Tumblety theory. Thank you !

[Nemo]

I would suggest that Tumblety was already under surveillance by Special Branch due to possible Fenian activities

In his file it would state that he was an American doctor etc

The Special Branch/CID either become aware of his sexual misdemeanours and are investigating him for this or possibly the Fenian activities when they (possibly) contacted San Francisco for a sample of his handwriting on or about, October 6th

Alternatively, the Special Branch realised that an American doctor might be a suspect in the Ripper crimes and passed on the information to the police/Scotland Yard on or about October 6th

Not being able to link him to the Ripper crimes, he was arrested anyway on the sexual charges

I would expect them to at least ask him a few things that would exonerate him from the Ripper crimes, but I cannot really see any evidence for him having been arrested as a Ripper suspect - except anecdotal evidence that probably came from Tumblety himself

Littlechild would be aware of the man a s an American doctor, sexual deviant, con-man and bail jumper etc making him a more "likely suspect" than Druitt

----------------------------

Howard - that is not an arrest that you describe

A person could be spoken to by a police officer regarding a crime, and if any suspicion falls on that person then he would be arrested and taken into custody. After initial enquiries are made, that person can be released without charge, or charged with an offence. That person would then appear in court as quickly as possible to determine whether that person would be remanded (jailed) during the investigation, or bailed

[How Brown]

Nemo:

Thanks...and I want to set up a thread for this arrest issue. It once surfaced in an old and acriomonius debate between me and someone else in regard to another suspect.

Back to the thread.

[A.P. Wolf]

'I believe, is also the first person to note that Scotland Yard did not ask Crowley & the SFPD for a sample of Tumbelty's handwriting,but that Crowley asked them if they needed a sample of it...an often forgotten and important bit of information,I feel. Good going ( 4 years late !) Wolf V. !'

Just to keep things sweet and neat, How, and not to brush my ego, but I did point this out some years ago on the forums, posting the actual telegraphic exchage, and arguing the point with, amongst others, Wolf V.

[Joe Chetcuti]

How cool. According to Post 22, I'm in a poker game. Yes, I do have a pair of deuces. And thanks to Hughes-Hallett, my other three cards are kings.

In the autumn of 1888, The NY World had the jump on its competition in regards to the news stories about Tumblety. They had six weeks to gather all of their material together after their World reporter interviewed Hughes-Hallett on Oct 6th. The advantage that the NY World had over their rivals became prevalent when the news of Tumblety's situation was made public on Nov 18th. Pulitzer's newspaper dominated the coverage on the 'doctor' from then on. And it was Pulitzer's own bureau in London that had scooped the story overseas. The NY World had prepared itself for six weeks, and that newspaper became the obvious journalistic leader when things started to heat up on Nov 18th.

What we learned from all of this was that Hughes-Hallett's suspect (the phony man of medicine who frequents Pall Mall clubs) had been suspected as soon as the first victim dropped in George Yard.

I like your advice, Simon. I will play my pair of deuces. I won't even need to show my Full House, so I'll put the three kings aside.

That's the beauty of poker.

There are times when you can call your opponent's bluff and win a nice pot by just placing down two cards.

[How Brown]

Dear A.P.

My apologies. :kiss:

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The Louisiana Gambler, 8th January 1889—

"High tension tonight aboard the Mississippi riverboat Francis B. Tumblety. Women swooned as Diamond Joe Chetcuti drew a pair of deuces against Two Gun Wood's Jack-high straight. Luckily, Doc Howard had made everyone turn in their firearms, otherwise things might have turned ugly with Derringers across the baize as Diamond Joe drew from his Hughes-Hallett pack against Wood's "Tumblety? Puhleeze, You've Gotta Be Kidding" deck.

Regards,

Simon

[SirRobertAnderson]

In the autumn of 1888, The NY World had the jump on its competition in regards to the news stories about Tumblety.

Is there a searchable data base for the NY World ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joe,

If the New York World had such a scoop on its rivals in matters Tumbletonian, how do we explain its London office not learning about him jumping bail until 1st December, by which time he'd been sailing across the Atlantic for a full week?

This is the earliest mention I can find, from the Rochester Democrat and Republican, 3rd December 1888—

"Special to the New York World

LONDON, Dec. 1.--The last seen of Dr. Tumblety was at Havre, and it is taken for granted that he has sailed for New York . . ."

There's something fishy about the Tumblety bail-jumping story.

Regards,

Simon

[Joe Chetcuti]

Simon,

While you're at it, you might as well ask why did The World wait a full week after the La Bretagne had sailed out to finally notify everybody that Tumblety was heading for NY. The ship sailed out of Le Havre on Nov 24th and yet nobody heard anything about Tumblety steaming across the Atlantic until The World printed it up on Sunday Dec 2nd.

I think The World knew that Tumblety jumped bail and sailed away from France on Nov 24th. It sounded like that newspaper wanted to keep this news to themselves for a little while, and then coordinate the printing of it with the arrival of the La Bretagne in NY.

Sure enough on Dec 2nd, The World published the news, and a few hours later the La Bretagne arrived at 1:30pm. I don't think that was a coincidence.

The World obviously wanted to scoop the scene when the La Bretagne arrived at the dock. If Pulitzer's newspaper announced during the last week of November that Tumblety had jumped bail and was sailing on the La Bretagne, then there would have been a mob scene at the NY dock on Dec 2nd.

As it turned out, only The World and the NY Herald covered Tumblety's arrival.

Does anybody know if Sanford Conover wrote for the NY Herald?

Sir Robert, I have never seen a data base for that newspaper. I still have to crank the old microfilm reel at the library to read its pages.

[How Brown]

Just a side note for all...

Nina found a New York Times article from November 19th ( just now )which stated Tumblety was arrested relative to the WM.

For Joe:

Don't know where to ask this....but let me do it here...

Where in London was Tumblety supposed to have been arrested for something relative to the WM ?

Aren't we all taking it for granted that it was the East End or Spitalfields???

[SirRobertAnderson]

Sir Robert, I have never seen a data base for that newspaper. I still have to crank the old microfilm reel at the library to read its pages.

I guess I'm headed there, then. Thanks, Joe.

[Nemo]

I remember reading in Ripper notes that the NY World reporter(s) latched onto a good story and pretty much exaggerated or fabricated the Ripper stories about Tumblety

It mentioned in the same article that the uteri collection story was probably untrue also, as at the time of the story he was living in a house where he could not have kept such a collection

[How Brown]

Nemo:

Nina spent a lot of time last night looking for Conover/Major Dunham material and came across something where he got into some hot water for making false remarks about someone back in the 1860's...when she wakes up,I will ask her to give me all those details again.

I think its safe to say that its unlikely that Conover didn't slander Tumblety with this story of the faked uteri at the end of 1888. True,there was an article in which someone else made a reference to Tumblety disliking women or disliking their presence in his company, but without this overt misogyny that has been affixed to the big fruitcake over time.

[Joe Chetcuti]

Howard, the London arrest that you're thinking about occurred at the Euston Train Station. The suspect was a doctor who had come up from Birmingham. Some folks have considered this doctor to have been Tumblety because a private letter written by an Ottawa official on Dec 1, 1888 seemed to indicate this. The arrest was said to have occurred on Nov 17th.

I don't know enough about the incident to identify who the doctor was.

[How Brown]

Joe :

Thanks for the reply ( Happy Mothers Day to Mom Chetcuti by the way:kiss:).

What we have been trying to do here is delineate.. this alleged arrest for suspicion in the WM...from the arrest at Marlborough Station for gross indecency.

Nemo has suggested that it never occurred...and as it stands now,I tend to think he may be right. Littlechild doesn't mention it either...of all the things he knew about Tumblety and he doesn't mention an arrest specifically for anything relative to the WM. Not all the cards have been played out,but if the best we can do is a doctor at Euston Station and Nov. 17th and Birmingham...hmmm....

By the way Joe...Tumblety lived around a quarter of a mile from a Marlborough Street in Rochester. Small world.

One or two streets over from Roxborough St. ( My neighborhood's name) and Roslyn Street. Smaller world.

Thanks for sharing the information on Euston Station,my friend...and have a great day with Maribel.

HB & NB

[Nemo]

To me the Littlechild letter indicates that Littlechild had written to Sims before regarding the WM

In fact he seems apologetic for sending yet another letter to him

In these previous letters he probably discussed the Ripper's identity - without mentioning Tumblety

I think the operative word would be "doctor"

ie a "Dr" Druitt has been accused - so Littlechild ventures that a much more likely "Dr" suspect would be Dr T

[Chris G.]

To me the Littlechild letter indicates that Littlechild had written to Sims before regarding the WM

In fact he seems apologetic for sending yet another letter to him

In these previous letters he probably discussed the Ripper's identity - without mentioning Tumblety

I think the operative word would be "doctor"

ie a "Dr" Druitt has been accused - so Littlechild ventures that a much more likely "Dr" suspect would be Dr T

Hi Nemo

Yes internal reading of the "Littlechild letter" would indicate that the letter in Stewart Evans' possession is one of a series of communications between Sims and Littlechild. From the way the letter is written, we can imply that Sims asked Littlechild about a "Doctor D" evidently meaning Druitt, who is often referred to erroneously as having been a failed surgeon, and Littlechild answered that he didn't know about a "Doctor D" but let me tell you about Dr. Francis Tumblety who was regarded as a "very likely suspect".

The odd thing though is that George R. Sims, writing as "Dagonet" in The Referee stated categorically that he knew who Jack the Ripper was and that the police had the information on who the killer had been: "The genuine ‘Jack’ was a doctor. His body was found in the Thames on December 31, 1888." Dagonet, The Referee, March 29th 1903. (This was written in reply to Abberline's statement in the recent interview with him in the Pall Mall Gazette that the story of the drowned doctor suspect was nonsense.)

So what's going on here? Were the two men, Littlechild and Sims, playing a game with each other, trying to find out what each other knew, or what?

Chris

[Nemo]

Yes- but why had Tumblety not been mentioned to Sims until Sims mentioned "Dr" Druitt?

If Tumblety was foremost in Littlechild's mind as a suspect, surely he would have mentioned him in a previous letter regarding the Ripper

It could be that Sims' simple mention of a doctor brought Tumblety to mind

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Simon.


I asked you if there was any evidence that Scotland Yard had asked Inspector Byrnes to keep an eye on Tumblety.
You answered: "The evidence for this is not clear . . ."
I next asked how we knew that a Scotland Yard detective was on the dock waiting for the transatlantic steamer La Bretagne.
You answered: "There is no evidence that he either was or he wasn't."
I'm not being confrontational, but, please, you've got to admit that this scenario has less going for it than Little Red Riding Hood.

As I wrote earlier, “there is very little evidence regarding Tumblety and the Whitechapel murder investigation. Most of what we do have are newspaper reports from North America and those are obviously open to a certain amount of interpretation.” This means that while I cannot at this point positively prove my points, I’m afraid you can’t at this point positively disprove them either. It all depends on interpretation.

The theory that Tumblety was never a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders would first have to explain why Chief Inspector Littlechild of Scotland Yard distinctly said he was, or at least why Littlechild remembered Tumblety as a Ripper suspect some 25 years after the events, if in fact Tumblety had made the whole thing up for the American press. No credible explanation has of yet been offered for this.

We have evidence that the head of the New York Detective Bureau sent two of his best and most experienced men to meet the ship La Bretagne when it docked in New York harbour and an “English detective” was known to have been watching Tumblety’s lodgings. Do these events have any connection with the evidence that Tumblety was a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders? I conclude that yes, they do, but that’s just my personal belief based on my interpretation of the available evidence.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Howard.

What Littlechild wrote was that Tumblety was constantly “brought under the notice of police…” which to me would seem to indicate that they did not have any surveillance on him but rather he kept getting into trouble. We do know that there must have been a file on Tumblety, as Littlechild stated in 1913, which would have, at least, contained the four offences listed against him in 1888. There was also the arrest warrant issued against him for sexual misconduct in early 1874 and possibly, although admittedly a Liverpool offence, the fact he was charged with “administering a poisonous mixture to a patient,” in 1875. There is no evidence that Tumblety was in any way connected to the Fenian Brotherhood or any other extreme Irish Nationalist cause.

I agree with you that some people probably don’t quite understand the nature of an “arrest” or of being a “suspect” during the Whitechapel Murders Investigation. Here’s one example as illustration:

16 November, 1888, two men, John Hemmings and William Shulver, were drinking in the White Hart Pub, Hampton Wick, Middlesex, discussing the Whitechapel murders. A third man, Arthur Henry Mason, on overhearing their conversation, became “very excited.” Hemmings and Shilver became suspicious of Mason and so went out and told a policeman, Robert Large, 548T, who promptly arrested Mason and took him to the station. Once there Mason was questioned and was able to give his name, address and place of work and was then released.

Arthur Henry Mason, therefore, was arrested in connection with the Whitechapel Murders and was a contemporary police Ripper suspect. Final solution? Case closed? Final chapter? Jack the Ripper unmasked? Obviously not, but this doesn’t change the fact that he was arrested and was a suspect. It just points out that that fact doesn’t necessarily mean a whole Hell of a lot.

Wolf.

[How Brown]

Thanks very much for the elaboration and example of an arrest in the U.K.,Wolf. You saved me some time from dragging one out. I appreciate it. I also especially appreciate that you corrected the usage of the phrase "brought under the notice of police…” which I had used and which could be misunderstood to assume the police had him under surveillence at all times since I made it look that way unintentionally.

Its a coincidence,but you brought up an arrest that occurred on November 16th. Small world....

I think it might be worthwhile to keep in mind that while Littlechild did say " but amongst the suspects and to my mind a likely one..." he, Littlechild, does not state that Tumblety was ever arrested. Being "suspect" or "suspicious" is a little different I would think than the situation the man you mention, Arthur Henry Mason, was in where he was actually taken to T Division police station and was "a suspect"..albeit briefly....

I know it might sound like I am splitting hairs...but from here,Wolf...Tumblety's prior record and known offenses...the homosexual stuff,etc... that A.P. has brought up elsewhere would seem to diminish any likelihood of his possible culpability in the mind of the police as an actual murderer of the sort the Ripper was and that his character would be "suspect" regardless considering the lifestyle he followed among other factors.

Back to you for your comments on the last two paragraphs at your leisure and again thanks for stepping up to the plate here,Wolf.:kiss:

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wolf,

Thank you. Excellent points.

I personally don't believe a detective travelled on La Bretagne. What would have been the point? What was he gonna achieve? And anyway, Andrews and Jarvis crossed the Atlantic [both?] paid for by the Canadians. HMG would have had to stump up the fare for Melville [if it was him] and we're constantly being told that Scotland Yard didn't have a big budget for the Whitechapel Murders.

If Anderson or Littlechild thought Dr T was a person of WM interest [or they simply felt like dragging him through the British courts for his four homosexual offences] all they had to do was what that lesser mortal the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire did in November 1888 when he thought the wife murderer James Pennock had fled to New York. He cabled the British Consul in NY and arranged to have him arrested at Castle Gardens. Hey Presto. Job done.

The "English detective/Scotland Yard man" watching Mrs McNamara's house looked and dressed like a vaudeville turn, so I doubt he was the real deal. But he might have been this guy who, coincidentally, appeared in New York from out of the blue around December 1888.

And even stranger was his striking resemblance to someone we all know and love.

Joseph T. Kirby, allegedly a Scotland Yard detective sent from London to America to dish the dirt on Parnell on behalf of The Times, was described in the Daily Inter Ocean, 14th January 1889, as follows—

"He is a man of about 60 years of age . . . He is a large, robust, hearty fine-looking man, and appears to be much younger than he really is . . ." And on 18th January it added, "[In 1862] he was arrested by Billy Pinkerton . . . and [sent] to the Old Capitol Prison at Washington DC."

Remind you of anyone?

The full Kirby story, which I'm compiling at the moment, is unbelievable. You couldn't make it up. It involves three high-ranking Scotland Yard detectives on secret missions in Toronto, Montreal, Niagara, Kansas and Colorado from December 1888 to April 1889, a plan to blow up a British steamship in New York harbour, the Pinkerton agency, dirty tactics on the part of The Times, hot denials of skullduggery by James Monro, questions in the House of Commons, a British MP being sued for libel and a sudden blanket of silence.

Tumblety had nothing to do with the WM. He was a player in a much bigger game.

Regards,

Simon

[SirRobertAnderson]

The full Kirby story, which I'm compiling at the moment, is unbelievable. You couldn't make it up. It involves three high-ranking Scotland Yard detectives on secret missions in Toronto, Montreal, Niagara, Kansas and Colorado from December 1888 to April 1889, a plan to blow up a British steamship in New York harbour, the Pinkerton agency, dirty tactics on the part of The Times, hot denials of skullduggery by James Monro, questions in the House of Commons, a British MP being sued for libel and a sudden blanket of silence.



Sounds like there's a book there, Simon !

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sir Robert,

You betcha.

Think of Fenian Fire on steroids.

Regards,

Simon

[SirRobertAnderson]

Tumblety had nothing to do with the WM. He was a player in a much bigger game.



Stan Russo has come to much the same conclusion IMHO.

[Simon Wood]

If so, then Stan is wise beyond his slender years.

[Nemo]

Yes internal reading of the "Littlechild letter" would indicate that the letter in Stewart Evans' possession is one of a series of communications between Sims and Littlechild. From the way the letter is written, we can imply that Sims asked Littlechild about a "Doctor D"

Hi Chris - With respect, it doesn't read like that to me

Littlechild wrote..

"Knowing the great interest you take in all matters criminal, and abnormal, I am just going to inflict one more letter on you on the 'Ripper' subject. Letters as a rule are only a nuisance when they call for a reply but this does not need one. I will try and be brief."

That doesn't sound like a reply to a letter from Sims

I think the letter was sent in reference to the second part of your post..

The odd thing though is that George R. Sims, writing as "Dagonet" in The Referee stated categorically that he knew who Jack the Ripper was and that the police had the information on who the killer had been: "The genuine ‘Jack’ was a doctor.

The final bit of the letter...

"Now pardon me -- it is finished. Except that I knew Major Griffiths for many years. He probably got his information from Anderson who only 'thought he knew'."

...does indicate that Major Arthur Griffiths comments had been referred to at some point. Sim's must have made a statement regarding his "doctor" theory backed up by Major Griffiths' conclusions.

I'm a bit intrigued by the "I am just going to inflict one more letter on you on the 'Ripper' subject. Letters as a rule are only a nuisance when they call for a reply but this does not need one. I will try and be brief." and the "Now pardon me -- it is finished" as though Littlechild didn't want to "bother" Sim's too much

I suggest that Littlechild had read Sims' conclusion regarding Druitt and had written to him to say that he disagreed. Sims then wrote back to Littlechild stating his opinion that it was definitely Druitt backed up by Major Griffiths opinion that he was a strong suspect. Littlechild then wrote again with the letter we all know

It seems strange for Littlechild to add "He probably got his information from Anderson who only 'thought he knew'." as this probably refers to the Polish Jew theory while the discussion seems to be about Druitt

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Howard.

Looking at this objectively there is no “official” evidence that Tumblety was ever arrested, even if but briefly, for involvement in the Whitechapel Murders. All we have are various newspaper reports – all North American – that say he was and Tumblety’s own admission. I used Mason as an example of a man who was picked up for little reason, much as Tumblety claimed he was, then quickly released to show that the same thing could have happened to Tumblety, i.e., that an arrest didn’t have to mean being thrown in jail for days or weeks while being given the third degree. Reading the news reports of 1888 shows this happening time and time again. Could this have happened to Tumblety? He says it did, but it is interesting that Littlechild mentions only the arrest for the homosexual charges. He makes no mention of an earlier, Ripper related, arrest or the circumstances surrounding it.

This is the challenge with working with incomplete data. Rather than black and white certainties we are left with varying shades of grey which have to be interpreted. I think the best that can be said about Tumblety and his supposed arrest is that although Tumblety and various North American newspapers claim that he was arrested in connection with the Whitechapel Murders, Littlechild makes no mention of this fact and there is no evidence at this point to prove this.


Tumblety's prior record and known offenses...the homosexual stuff, etc... that A.P. has brought up elsewhere would seem to diminish any likelihood of his possible culpability in the mind of the police as an actual murderer of the sort the Ripper was and that his character would be "suspect" regardless considering the lifestyle he followed among other factors.


I would say that it was quite the opposite. Basically, Littlechild tells us why Tumblety was considered a suspect: he was a “Dr.,” an American, was in London at the time of the murders, was known to the police and he was a “Sycopathia Sexualis subject,” meaning he was sexually “abnormal,” meaning, in Tumblety’s case, he was Gay.

The police and medical experts recognized that these were sex crimes but obviously the perpetrator was not normal sexually. To the Victorians homosexuality was difficult to understand. Why would any normal man want to have sexual relations with another man and not with a woman? One answer, which has been around for hundreds of years, was that homosexuals so hated women that they refused to have anything to do with them, included sex. Homosexuality, therefore had less to do with men loving men but more to do with men hating women: “his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record.” This “fact” was on record and included the four charges in 1888 plus the earlier ones. In effect, Littlechild is saying that Tumblety was a known, and ardent, homosexual.

William Pinkerton said much the same thing when he quoted Dr. William A. Hammond, one of the leading American neurologists of the day, that, according to Dr. Hammond, “when the murderer of those women was discovered he would undoubtedly be found to be a woman-hater and a man guilty of the same practices which I have described [homosexuality], and Twombley, or Tumblety, as being guilty of, and that such men were crazy and as likely as not to murder women.” (The Daily Inter Ocean, 20 November, 1888.)

Tumblety = doctor, foreigner, sexually “abnormal” and hated women enough that he had sex with men, insane = possible Jack the Ripper.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Simon.

Andrews’ trip was paid for by the Government of the Province of Ontario; Jarvis’ trip was paid for by the London and Northwestern Railway Company. I agree with you that there were easier ways of tracking Tumblety than actually sending Scotland Yard detectives all the way to North America if he was wanted for the Ripper Murders. However, that’s the problem with your Chief Constable of North Yorkshire/ James Pennock analogy. Pennock was wanted for murder, an extraditable offence, while Scotland Yard supposedly only wanted Tumblety for the four homosexual charges. This tends to show that whatever suspicions London had about Tumblety, they apparently had no evidence against him that would stand up in a court of law.

The “English Detective” who was watching Mrs. McNamara’s lodging house was portrayed in a clownish manner in the New York World, but the Herold offered a much less cartoonish, and more objective, portrayal of him so I wouldn’t go by what the World says. This man couldn’t have been J. T. Kirby, who was not, by the way, a Scotland Yard detective, since Kirby was in London at the time.

The mention from the Daily Inter Ocean that Pinkerton arrested Kirby in 1862 and that he was sent to the Old Capitol Prison is a hilarious story of spy versus spy. During the Civil War Kirby was working as a spy for Lafayette Baker at the War Department and pretending to be a Rebel sympathiser. He came to the attention of one of William Pinkerton’s spies (Pinkerton worked for McClellan’s army) who was also pretending to be a Rebel sympathiser and the two spied on each other. Pinkerton’s man was so convinced that Kirby was an actual Reb that Pinkerton’s men followed Kirby around for several weeks and finally arrested him as a Confederate spy and had him thrown into prison. At some point the error was discovered and Kirby was released.

Wolf.

[How Brown]

Dear Wolf:

As always,your comments are most appreciated.

Allow me to ask you this question in regard to your previous post which follows:

"I would say that it was quite the opposite. Basically, Littlechild tells us why Tumblety was considered a suspect: he was a “Dr.,” an American, was in London at the time of the murders, was known to the police and he was a “Sycopathia Sexualis subject,” meaning he was sexually “abnormal,” meaning, in Tumblety’s case, he was Gay. "-Wolf V

In a Ripper Notes article which I had read ( 4 years ago...man, does time fly !...) Issue # 24,October 2005...you stated the following on page 44 ( The second part of the great two part series, On The Trail of Tumblety?):

Although Chief Inspector Littlechild endorsed Tumblety as a "likely suspect", I have to agree with Paul Begg that Littlechild's opinion that Tumblety was not a sadist while the murderer "unquestioningly was" would tend to point to Littlechild not actually believing that Tumblety was the Ripper.

Just to remove any confusion on my or anyone else's part who has had the opportunity to read your articles in RN on Tumblety....are you still of the opinion that Littlechild did not believe Tumblety was the Ripper as you mentioned in the Ripper Notes article...because I have the impression that you are now either stating that he may have given his candidacy some serious consideration due to the factors you mentioned...or perhaps that the police in general excluding Littlechild had that impression of his candidacy.

Thanks as always Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I've been pondering how Dr T got from London to Le Havre [or just plain Havre as it was then known]. In a previous post I detailed a London-Dieppe-Paris-Havre route which would have taken him the best part of a day-and-a-half. La Bretagne sailed on Saturday 24th November which would suggest he made his dash from London on around the 22nd, which for a man jumping bail was cutting things a bit fine, leaving no margin for unexpected delays.

Dr T was bailed on Friday 16th December, by which time it was too late to book a Le Havre-New York sailing on Saturday 17th November. And as there is no evidence that he attended an Old Bailey hearing on Tuesday 20th November, why would he have wasted any time fleeing abroad? He could have headed for Havre to catch the next available steamer at any time after his bail.

We don't know Dr T's address in November 1888, but if it was the Langham Hotel [where he had stayed in 1873] he was in luck. La Bretagne was operated by the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, which the 1893 'Langham Hotel Company's Guide to London' tells us had a booking office in the lobby.

5148

So far so good. With a ticket tucked safely in his pocket, all Dr T had to do now was get to Havre.

Making a dash for Dover, Southampton or Folkestone would have been a bit of a give-away, but a rail trip to Liverpool on Sunday 17th November might fool London's Finest. They might drop their guard, reasoning he was [a] visiting relatives or [b] travelling White Star Line. The SS Germanic was sailing for New York on Wednesday 21st November.

But Dr T, our murderous international master of intrigue, had carefully read his 1888 edition of 'Appleton's European Guide Book for English-Speaking Travellers'. He had other ideas—

5149

5150

What better than a Liverpool-Havre steamship on Monday 19th November which would have got him out of England in quick-smart time and allowed him to rest up in a smart Havre hotel before embarking for New York?

Of course, the foregoing is a flight of fancy on my part. Who knows what Dr T did or didn't do? But unlike the 'Tumblety got police bail on 7th November, so could have been at Millers Court' argument, my flight of fancy does at least have something to support it.

If Dr T was police-bailed on Wednesday 7th November why hadn't this slippery customer travelled to Havre even sooner or sailed on the SS Celtic [Liverpool—New York] on Wednesday 14th November—two days before having to stump up £300 [$1500] bail?

Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Howard.


…are you still of the opinion that Littlechild did not believe Tumblety was the Ripper as you mentioned in the Ripper Notes article...because I have the impression that you are now either stating that he may have given his candidacy some serious consideration due to the factors you mentioned...or perhaps that the police in general excluding Littlechild had that impression of his candidacy.

I think this is the same confusion as to what the word “suspect” might mean in an investigation as large and ultimately fruitless as the Whitechapel Murder Investigation (think Arthur Henry Mason). The London Police were clutching at any straw they could and so dozens of seemingly innocent men were suspected with very little or no evidence against them.

My belief is that Tumblety was a suspect but was not the Ripper and that there was never any tangible evidence against him. Why, then, was Tumblety a suspect? Presumably for the reasons Littlechild gave and which I outlined in my other post. But did Littlechild believe Tumblety was the Ripper? Apparently not, given the wording of the letter to Sims. To paraphrase: If the MURDERER was UNQUESTIONABLY a SADIST and Tumblety WAS NOT, then Tumblety WAS NOT the MURDERER. A suspect, yes. The Ripper, no.

Wolf.

[How Brown]

Thanks as always for pitching in,Wolf.

Permit me to ask you something because I know this has crossed your mind before.

In regard to Tumblety's arrest ( assuming or imagining it was a fact for a moment ) and that THIS is how he was considered a suspect in the police view...do you think the arrest occurred when Tumblety was in the East End or perhaps at his West End flat or in the West End away from the East side of town ? Which of these two locales would make sense to you at this point in time?

If Tumblety was not arrested and yet still considered a suspect, would his status as a suspect to you appear to stem more from his sexual "deviancy" and less on his liasing with women of the night,since Littlechild does not mention any association with that sort of woman in the letter to Sims?

Thank ye,sor....and my apologies if I am asking you to cover old ground...but your opinion is greatly valued on this as well as other Tumblety related discussion.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Howard.

Tumblety himself says that he was arrested in Whitechapel when he went to see the “queer scenes and sights.” This would make sense if he was arrested because he fit a description. As I have said before, I think Tumblety may have been (notice the equivocation) arrested on a piffling charge then released fairly quickly. Sometime later, how much later I cannot say, someone said, “Hold on. This guy’s a doctor and a “sexual deviant” and he was arrested prowling around Whitechapel? Let’s find out more about him.”

If Tumblety was not arrested and yet still considered a suspect, would his status as a suspect to you appear to stem more from his sexual "deviancy" and less on his liasing with women of the night, since Littlechild does not mention any association with that sort of woman in the letter to Sims?

As I said above, I think it was a combination of things which made the police suspicious, none of which had anything to do with female prostitutes. The police were working with the opinions of the medical men who suggested that the murderer, if he didn’t have any surgical skill, seemed to have some anatomical knowledge. Even today this is seen as pointing to someone who was not a doctor but was at least vaguely connected with the medical community: a hospital porter, mortuary attendant or perhaps a “quack doctor” who certainly wasn’t trained or had the knowledge of a surgeon but who might have some familiarity with anatomy. Add to this the fact that the Ripper murders were sexual in nature and must have been carried out by someone sexually abnormal. To the Victorian mind Tumblety was considered sexually abnormal and a deviant. Add an arrest somewhere in the East End during a huge police dragnet, and while a panicky public was demanding answers, and Tumblety becomes a perfect suspect based on his character and occupation alone.

Wolf.

[How Brown]

Dear Wolf:

Thank you for taking the time to elaborate this issue for me and everyone else. I was aware of Tumblety claiming to have been arrested in Whitechapel, which is found in the January 29th,1889 New York World article, but preferred your opinion on whether it was in the East End and whether you may have had doubts as to the actual location. That matter seems to be resolved. Thanks.

We have him in the East End...according to the NYWorld article.
We have him arrested, which according to him, transpired after he had begun to be followed by English detectives....for the simple reason he was wearing a slouch hat...and in addition, an American wearing a slouch hat.

You know,Wolf...it might be a good idea to try and get the sequence of events leading up to his November flight to the States here. Even if we couldn't figure it out,maybe one of the possible scenarios would make better sense than the others.

Is it your opinion........... or Joe's or Tim's or Simon's if they want to chime in here........ that:

A. Tumblety was arrested before the November 7th arrest for gross indecency for something relevant to the Whitechapel Murders as in any day prior to November 7th,1888.

OR........

B. Tumblety was arrested after the November 7th arrest for gross indecency for something relevant to the WM as in November 8th up to the 20th of that month.

Keeping in mind that he stated he was in jail... ( which could mean he was in for one day on one count and two for the second count...or 3 days for one count).... for three days...what does your timeline look like Wolf?

Thank you again.:high5:

[Tim Riordan]

Hi How,

Actually the New York World article does not say that Tumblety was arrested in Whitechapel. All the article said was that he had been in Whitechapel and was followed by English detectives. We are led to assume that he was arrested there but it does not say that. We should not lose sight of the fact that this was not a piece of news but a self-serving promotion. Was he likely to say he was arrested in the West End for illicit sex, of which he was guilty, or the world’s most important murder case of which he was not guilty?

Best,

Tim

[How Brown]

Tim:

My apologies for the incorrect phrasing on my part and thank you very much for correcting it.:high5:

Tumblety says (for those unfamiliar with the May 2007 Ripperologist article, on page 4) in the article and its where I misread what Tumblety actually was quoted as saying:

" I happened to be there when these Whitechapel Murders attracted the attention of the whole world, and ,in the company of 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."

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

New York World, 5th December 1888—

"Martin H. McGarry, a young New York business man who says he owes everything he has to Dr. Tumblety's kindness, talks freely of the past life of the notorious man. He was engaged in the Doctor's service in 1882, and for a long time accompanied him on his travels, living with him constantly and being his constant companion . . . [He] said he was of the firm of Caffrey & McGarry, who are in the electric bell, burglar-alarm and speaking-tube business, No. 274 East Broadway . . ."

I thought it might be worthwhile to check out the story of Martin H. McGarry, who in July 1882 was employed as Dr T's travelling companion.

McGarry's globe-trotting story reads like an excerpt from one of Dr T's pamphlets. Subtext fairly drips from the page—"Although I was not boarding with him" [we slept in separate accommodation]; "he was like a father to me; he was more than generous."

He told about staying in rooms at 501 Congress Street, Saratoga Springs—accommodation superior even to that of the nearby Grand Union Hotel which, at the time, was the biggest hotel in the world with a quarter-mile long frontage. Dr Tumblety's taste and wallet could out-trump the best. Even street numbering, apparently, which on Congress Street ended at 102.

Returning to New York they stayed at the "Hygeia Hotel on Laight Street, although the Doctor still kept his rooms on University Place. He took the front parlor room and I went back to my folk, No. 300 Henry Street."

There was no Hygeia Hotel on Laight Street, New York, before, during, or after 1882. This particular hotel was at Old Point Comfort, Virginia. But there was an institution at 15 Laight Street known as the Hygienic Institute. It was run by Dr. Russell T. Trall, a specialist in water cures as practised at Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Saratoga Springs, NY, two locations at which we can place Dr T.

McGarry's family lived at 300 Henry Street, New York. In 1860 this address was a saw mill owned by Mr Boanell. On 19th April 1888 it burned down.

McGarry saved $1750 whilst in the employ of Dr T. The doctor was generous enough to add $250, allowing him to buy out "Mr. Kramer, who ran the business I am now running . . . the firm of Caffrey & McGarry, who are in the electric bell, burglar-alarm and speaking-tube business, No. 274 East Broadway."

The 1888 and 1892 Trow City Directories for New York—"giving the partners and special partners of each firm; the officers, capital, etc., of the banks, business corporations, and insurance companies; trade names and proprietors thereof . . ." make no mention of this business at 274 East Broadway.

The only part of McGarry's story with anything approaching provenance is "uncle M. O'Brian [sic], a produce merchant, No. 209 Washington Street."

See—http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=6392 post #4

Regards,

Simon

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Howard.

I suppose Tim is technically right, the World article doesn’t expressly state that Tumblety was arrested in the East End but this can be implied by what Tumblety says. Tim may also be right about the whole thing being a self-serving promotion but as I have said, Tumblety was a suspect according to Littlechild so some sort of arrest at some time seems feasible, if not provable.

I suggest that if Tumblety was indeed arrested under the conditions he states in the World article then sometime in October would fit. The “double event” was the high point of the Ripper scare and the month of October saw an increase in public outrage and panic (as well as curiosity about the murder sites) with a commensurate increase in police activity. The tall American Union Street lodger, with his “American hat,” was arrested on the 30th of September and Mathew Packer’s description of a man in a slouch, or “Yankee hat” (according to Scotland Yard files) appeared in early October. This appears to have been about the time that a description of a man in a slouch hat was in vogue.

If Tumblety spent three days in jail, I would suggest that this had to do with his sex charges and probably was an accumulation of time spent in custody.

Simon.

Some interesting stuff, as usual.

Wolf.

[How Brown]

Thanks Wolf for the reply...and one more question,sor...

What do you make of the recent thread content regarding Simon's clippings on Pratt & Butcher's Magic Oil ?

[Tim Riordan]

I think the answer to the number and place of Tumblety's arrests is in the Littlechild letter. The Chief Inspector, holding forth to an obviously interested audience, did not say "We arrested him in the East End but had to let him go. So we chased him across town and pinched him in the West End." (Making no bad puns about the location of the West End)

What he said was "Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street." No earlier arrest, no East End arrest, no Ripper arrest. Either Littlechild's opinion of Tumblety is an informed one, in which case we have to accept this, or he was so out of the loop that he did not know of a previous arrest. If that were the case, the rest of the letter might be questioned as well.

Best,

Tim

[How Brown]

Either Littlechild's opinion of Tumblety is an informed one, in which case we have to accept this, or he was so out of the loop that he did not know of a previous arrest. If that were the case, the rest of the letter might be questioned as well- Tim Riordan

Does it seem unusual to anyone else that the Marlborough Street scenario was remembered and an arrest in relation to the WM wasn't mentioned in the Littlechild Letter?

Is it necessary, as Tim mentioned,not declares by any means, to reconsider the LL based on the absence of any reference to an arrest in relation to anything involving the WM and Tumblety?

I know A.P. Wolf had issues about some of the content of the LL a while back, but this is more specific in nature to the WM and the arrest and therefore,maybe more important.....

Is it absolutely necessary that Littlechild had to mention the inherent conditions,date,and nature of the alleged/real WM related arrest in his reply to George Sims? Could he have simply forgotten to mention the particulars of the alleged/real arrest to Sims?

Your views please....

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

It is generally understood that on disembarking from La Bretagne at New York on Sunday 2nd December 1888 Dr T moved into lodgings with Mrs McNamara at 79 E. 10th Street.

By Wednesday 5th December Dr T had moved out, though a newspaper report from The Evening Chronicle found by Roger Palmer suggests he may have moved out as early as the evening of 2nd December and stayed one night at the Cornish Arms, 11 West Street.

The next address we have for Dr T is Mrs Helen Lamb's lodging house at 204 Washington Street, Brooklyn. A report in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 28th January 1889, said that Dr T, under the name of Mr Smith, booked in on or about 17th January 1889.

Nobody knew Dr T's address between 5th December and 17th January, though the New York World, 29th January 1889, suggests he never actually left Mrs McNamara's house.

BUT.

Syracuse Daily Journal, 4th December 1888—

"Dr. Francis Tumblety, the [unreadable] American suspected by the London authorities of being implicated in the Whitechapel atrocities, arrived at New York Sunday from Havre. He traveled under an assumed name, but the detectives, who were on the watch for him, discovered him without any trouble. As there was no charge or indictment against him he was not taken into custody.

"He is now stopping at a Washington Street boarding house.

"Inspector Byrne [unreadable] will keep an eye on him for a time in case he is wanted."

There's premonition for you. Methinks it's time to put fresh batteries in our BS Detectors.

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Nice work Simon.

Maybe if we could hunt down boarding houses on Washington Street, it could lead to something.

Thanks for sharing this,old bean.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

All I could find about 204 Washington Street is here—

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=6387

I rechecked, and 204 appears to have been the only house in the street offering board and lodging. A few years later this part of Washington Street was demolished for extensions to the Brooklyn Bridge.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Pier 42, West Street, New York, where La Bretagne docked—

5367

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Dear Simon:

Thanks for finding that info on Washington Street. There's so much material on the Forums,I often am not aware that we already have it here.

I read that before...and true to form...forgot about it. Thanks again,sor...

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

This is an 1892 New York map showing the location of Tumblety's lodgings with Mrs McNamara at 79 E.10th Street [marked red] and McKenna's saloon [from where the English detective watched events through "a window which commanded No. 79"] on the corner of 4th Avenue [marked green]. North is up.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/7920E2010th20NYC.jpg

Regards,

Simon

[How Brown]

Thats cool,Simon ! Thanks for taking the time to put that on here.

:kiss: