No announcement yet.

Tumblety in New Orleans

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hi Wolf,

    I would argue that the date of the London, C.W. testimonial is a typographical error. The Rochester testimonial, which is verified not only in Tumblety’s own writing but in later Rochester papers, is dated by the inclusion of the names of two mayors, Charles J. Hill and Charles J. Hayden. Hill is referred to as “ex-mayor” and he had served his term in 1842. Hayden on the other hand was referred to as mayor and he was elected to that office in 1855. He served one year and never served as mayor again. If Tumblety were gone from Rochester as early as 1853, he would not been associated with Dr. Lyons who arrived in Rochester in 1853. Almost all of Tumblety’s persona as the “Great Indian Herb Doctor” seems lifted directly from Lyons and his ads. Finally, there are no known ads for Tumblety before 1856. The only known testimonial is the London, C. W. one. As both of these were such an important part of his business over the years, I find it unlikely that he could have started before 1856.




    • #17
      This is for those who are curious as to what Simon says ( no pun intended) in the previous post:

      Simon...lets examine the possibilities here:

      1. The S.F. Chief made a mistake on the date of October 29th.

      2. The S.F. Chief offered the handwriting in regard to the GSG or perhaps a letter to the Police.

      3. The chief offered a letter with the Quack's handwriting to compare to a bad check or something relative to his buggery a signature on a club registry or "sign in sheet" which tolerated that Son of Sodom and his buggerin' ways.

      4. The chief offered a letter which might be compared to the Lusk letter. I mention this as it has been theorized ( in modern times) that the man who visited Ms.Marsh inquiring about Lusk's address was Tumbelty.

      5. Some unknown clue or rather, unreported clue was found at a murder site. Crowley, hearing about the GSG, offered the handwriting for that alone or even a "Ripper" letter ( hypothetically), but Scotland Yard was interested in comparing it to that unreported clue.

      Back to you....and everyone else.
      To Join JTR Forums :


      • #18
        Hi Tim.

        I can’t dispute you. As I have said in the past, you know more about Tumblety than the rest of us put together. However..., if Tumblety first learned his trade from Lispenard/Reynolds couldn’t he have left Rochester and done some traveling across the border to London in 1853 before returning to Rochester and taking up with Lyons? And after absorbing everything he could from Lyons couldn’t he have again left Rochester as the “Great Indian Herb Doctor” in 1855? Having said that, a typo that should have read 1856 instead of 1853 is supported by the fact that he was in London in 1856.


        You are the chief of the police force of a small American city on the edge of the Pacific. Half a world away a series of gruesome murders, which have gained world-wide prominence, are committed in the largest city on earth; the capital of the largest empire the world has ever seen. You read that the unknown and uncaught murderer has written taunting letters to the newspapers, one of the few clues the police have to work with in trying to catch this will-o-the-wisp madman. One day you read that, amazingly, a suspect in these horrific crimes is a man who once lived and owned a business in your own little city; a man whom you knew and remember. Now, instead of just reading about these baffling murders you can become officially involved. So, wouldn’t you offer any help you could and perhaps aid in solving the greatest murder mystery of the age? Think of the glory.

        The simple answer to the date on the Times article is that the Times got the date wrong. There is ample proof of this in the San Francisco papers which interviewed Crowley.



        • #19
          Thanks Wolf...I completely understand that line of logic. Good scenario,sor.

          So...the date that Crowley is alleged to have communicated with the London authorities is in error ? How "off" is the date or time he contacted them,Wolf...or Tim or R.J....or whomever?

          Thanks in advance.
          To Join JTR Forums :


          • #20

            This is the chronology of the contact with Scotland Yard as I see it:

            Nov. 17 New York World Cable sent from London

            Nov. 18 Story published in San Francisco Chronicle

            Nov. 23 San Francisco Chronicle reports “when the news of Tumblety’s arrest reached this city, Chief of Police Crowley recollected that the suspected man formerly lived here . . .”

            San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin reported “ On the 19th instant Chief Crowley sent a dispatch to the London Detectives

            This would shows that Crowley made the initial contact on November 19, 1888.


            Thanks for the compliment but your own work makes me sit up and take notice, as I have said before.




            • #21
              All this is very important for folks to see,Tim...and I thank you once more for making the effort to give us these facts.
              To Join JTR Forums :


              • #22
                Back to Bourbon Street

                The Daily Picayune
                Sunday March 27, 1881


                Chief Boylan Brings Him to Task for Charging that he Accepted Bribes from Gamblers.

                Chief Boylan yesterday afternoon encountered the private detective, D. C. O'Malley, on Charles Street, and called him to account in reference to certain statements made to a reporter.

                O'Malley refused to answer any questions, and started off. Chief Boylan then handed O'Malley over to Officer H. B. Jackson and at the Central Station lodged a charge against him for being a dangerous and suspicious character.

                Chief Boylan was much incensed at O'Malley's statements, and said that he defied him to do his worst. He will request the Grand Jury and Police Board both to rigidly examine into the case, and afford O'Malley every opportunity of giving voice to his assertions.

                He courts investigation, and requests that every facility will be afforded O'Malley to prove his assertions if he can. When O'Malley was searched at the station a few papers of insignificant value were found on his person.

                I too have not read a report from a "contemporary source" on the involvement of the British Consul in regards to the Tumblety/Govan matter.

                Sometimes a researcher might claim that a particular piece of information exists, but you are left wondering about the authenticity of the claim.

                Then there are other researchers who imply that information exists, but those people simply choose to keep the material to themselves until the appropriate time.

                I know which of those two categories Roger fits into. I expect to hear much more about De G. de Fonblanque in the future.