Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tumblety in New Orleans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Back to Bourbon Street

    The Daily Picayune
    Sunday March 27, 1881

    O'MALLEY'S TROUBLES ACCUMULATE.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    How,

    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.

    Wolf,

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

    Best,

    Tim

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf Vanderlinden
    replied
    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.

    Howard.

    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.

    Wolf.

    Leave a comment:


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

    http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.bpl....clientId=21123

    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 offense...like 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Best,

    Tim

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    A good question, Howard.

    I could understand SF Police Chief Crowley offering a specimen of Tumblety's handwriting to Scotland Yard after reading of his arrest on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper. Perhaps he thought it might help identify the GSG author. Who knows?

    But the puzzling thing [to me, at least] is that, according to the New York Times, 23rd November 1888, Chief Crowley made his offer on 29th October 1888, a week or so before Tumblety's arrest and any subsequent mention of him in the US press.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks Wolf ....

    Let me ask you ( and anyone else ) if you wouldn't mind...

    What (or why) do you think the Frisco authorities contacted The Yard for in the first place relative to his handwriting? What caused Frisco to initiate this incident?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf Vanderlinden
    replied
    You are correct. Tumblety left Rochester in 1855 for Detroit and western Ontario. The evidence for this is the testimonial from prominent citizens of Rochester.
    If Tim means that 1855 was the year Tumblety first left Rochester and made his way in the world there is a testimonial advertisement from London, Canada West, dated 1853 which appeared in the Hamilton Daily Spectator Journal of Commerce in May of 1856. This obviously would suggest that he left Rochester earlier than 1855.

    As for point #2. Scotland Yard did not inquire to San Francisco authorities for a sample of his handwriting. San Francisco contacted Scotland Yard and asked if they were interested in any Tumblety writing they might find. Scotland Yard said yes.

    Wolf.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks very much,Tim...your information is much appreciated.

    Before I forget ( again !) to mention something:

    A. Nina just posited the idea that Tumbelty was engrossed with the pimple eliminator cream to attract young men...possibly. I think thats a pretty good observation,myself.

    B. I, on the other hand,notice that Tumbelty is invariably mentioned being courted by females ( in the business sense) throughout the newspaper articles and is somewhat of an Ichabod Crane figure in that the women seem attracted to him and the menfolk ( legitimate doctors and the law) are down on him.

    What are your feelings or observations on these two "points"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Hi How,

    You are correct. Tumblety left Rochester in 1855 for Detroit and western Ontario. The evidence for this is the testimonial from prominent citizens of Rochester. There is no evidence of him in Boston at that earlier date. He was in Boston from September 1859 through June 1860. He advertised there from September 1859 to January 1860 but contemporary references place him there as late as June 1860. The 1888 article is incorrect.

    Best,

    Tim

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Last night I thought I put some of the following down in the previous post, but I typically forgot to.

    1. According to information I, as probably many others have been as well, had thought was accurate...and may well be...I thought Tumbelty was in Detroit in 1855.

    The reason I asked the question about whether the Philadelphia article was correct is that the comment found in the provided excerpt stating Tumbelty had been in Boston is one of those nagging little bits of information.

    Why state Tumbelty was in Boston " 33 years before"? Why use a number which seems to specify rather than generalize? Why not say "around 30" or "close to 35" ? It seems...on the surface...that the information from whence the newspaper collated this info was a verifiable source for making the claim "33 years before". Does anyone see what I mean here?

    Of course, its not very important in the scheme of things....but it bugged me that the timeline of Tumblety has him living in Detroit in 1855...but now "thriving in business" in Beantown in the same year. Capece?

    2. When Scotland Yard inquired to San Francisco authorities for a sample of his handwriting...could that not have been to examine it and compare it to a bad check Tumbelty wrote, rather than to something relative to any other crime of a non-financial origin?

    3. The number one reason I have had doubts about Tumbelty being the Ripper for several years ( and it doesn't matter what I think,only what I can demonstrate ) is that nowhere do I see any examples of him cuddling up with the proletarian class and even less so with anyone of the strata that any of the victims associated with. I think he felt he was better than they were in a social & educational sense. Not to mention that they probably were less likely to purchase Pimple Destroyers from the theoretical Woman Destroyer.

    Any comments?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thank you for the clarification(s), Wolf !

    Let me ask all you Tumbelty researchers this:

    The following article comes from the Philadelphia Inquirer ( November 23,1888) and mentions the approximate date that Tumbelty appeared in Boston.

    Up to now, and assuming that the article is correct in its reporting, I did not know Tumbelty arrived in Boston at roughly the age of 22 and set up a thriving business.

    Is it correct?

    Has anyone ever had his surname spelled so many different ways? It might be to our collective advantage that it is,isn't it?


    Philadelphia Inquirer
    1888-11-23
    Dr. Tomblety the Suspect Career of a Man Arrested for the White Chapel Murders



    http://docs.newsbank.com/s/HistArchi...20FECAAFCBE6ED

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf Vanderlinden
    replied
    Returning to Howard's two questions. Tim is right and there seems to be no contemporary source which corroborates the intercession of the British Consol "on behalf of his countryman." Of course, since Tumblety had been born in Ireland he could be considered a British subject. In fact when he sued the American Government in his attempt at retreiving money taken from him when he was arrested in connection with the Lincoln assassination he did so as a British subject and with the aid of the British Government.

    Wolf.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X